Sexual harassment at TAM?!

[truethat]

First of all I didn't put two and two together to decode radfem, I read it as radfern and thought it was poster or someone you both knew. So I'm not getting into that discussion at all.

Originally Posted by meg

That's a good one. Do you really want to paint some comments on an internet forum that severely? When other women on this thread have described acts of harassment that they had experienced, your retort was "I get really angry when I see women try to pass off a "comment" or a "business card being handed to them" as sexual violation. I doubt if they have ever been sexually attacked that they would paint it that severe."

I stand by that comment. I do not consider comments or business cards as sexual violations. I consider it rude jerky behavior. I do not create a sacred cow out of sexuality. I find it annoying when people do. Comments about sexuality are no different to me than comments about race or religion or culture. They are bigoted statements not sexual assaults.

Quote:

Actually, I think this thread kind of is about your posts on JREF. You agree with DJ Grothe's hypothesis that women aren't registering for TAM because of well meaning skeptics that "rather clumsily themselves help create a climate where women — who otherwise wouldn’t — end up feeling unwelcome and unsafe, and I find that unfortunate." What you don't seem to get is your own part in this debacle. You have made a very clear statement in this thread, by your own questioning, denials, and dismissals of the experiences that at least three powerful, intelligent here women have shared. "Should you come to TAM and experience something that makes you uncomfortable, this is what you can expect for a reaction."

Nice try at trying to bend your behavior as on topic instead of a blatant violation of Rule 11. If you were discussing my comments in this thread you should have only posted my comments in this thread.


Second you don't understand the point I am making. You clearly don't "get it." I have not denied the experiences of women in this thread.

Quote:

Um, not quite. Maybe you just don't understand how search engines work. Tell you what, how bout you search for "intelligent women" on the forum, and show me where in the results your posts show up?

No. I will not pander to your ridiculous assertions and mean spirited attacks. If you truly wanted to know how I felt you would have discussed the posts I found. Instead you continue to dismiss that they exist. I will not waste any more time looking up posts and posting links etc. They are right up there to be read.

Quote:

And speaking of those "intelligent women" posts, would you please post either a link to each, or state the thread and post number, so the rest of us can go read them? You wouldn't seriously be trying to pass off quotes taken out of context as evidence of something, would you?

No I will not. You do the legwork, make your point. Stop asking me to make it for you. I've already told you how to search it. You go to advanced search and type in...intelligent women.....and then search by my name with the results showing posts. It's very easy to do and if you can't seem to figure it out then I don't know what to tell you.

Quote:

Good heavens, I'm certainly not pretending that. I don't think anyone is. For example, I think you're a way bigger jerk than most guy jerks I know.


And some women say negative things about women almost every time they talk about women! Who knows why. Life is a mystery.

That is a personal attack and against the MA. And thank you for stating the obvious in the second part. You understand why I resent men being painted as perpetrators and women as victims. It irks me because it creates a bias in the discussion.

Quote:

And this coming from a woman who thinks a woman that said "Guys, don't do that." was out of line...
ok.

I do think "Guys don't do that" is out of line because "guys" didn't do that. One guy did it. I don't like generalizations. You seem to love them which is why you have applied my statements to all women when I didn't say all women.

Quote:

1. None of the powerful intelligent women who posted their experiences and feelings here came here to get advice about how to deal with men.

I didn't say they did nor respond to them as if they did.

Quote:

2. Your assumption that any of the powerful intelligent women here wants or needs your advice is presumptive and condescending.

I didn't say they nor respond to them as if they did. This is conjecture on your part.

Quote:

3. Your need to pontificate this little gem implies that somehow you have decided that these powerful intelligent beings were not being proactive or maintaining their own boundaries already.

My advice in this case was for younger women reading the thread. Not necessarily the posters themselves. I can see how you may have confused this point but since I repeatedly pointed out that as an "older woman" when obviously I am not older than the women posting would be an indication that I wasn't speaking to them.

Quote:

4. And this is the big one. Your need to pontificate this little gem after these intelligent women had described the event(s) of their experience of harassment or assault implies that if only the women had behaved in the manner you prescribed, the harassment or assault would not have happened.

Absolutely not. Again you are reading my posts wrong.

As I have stated at least three times in this thread, I am not talking about the past. We cannot change the past. I feel terrible for the violations that women in this thread have experienced. I have stated I am sorry it happened to them and that they were victimized. I have also stated that I consider having a man stick his tongue in your mouth is tantamount to rape. So how you take that be a "dismissal" is beyond me.

Again I am addressing how this could be prevented in the future. Isn't that the point of this thread? What can be done to prevent it from happening again and to encourage women to attend TAM.

My suggestions have been

Instead of spreading gossip file a formal complaint using the policy that is in place.

Every complaint no matter how small should be documented and reported.

This way the TAM organizers can use the FDI approach to warn or ban members who have acted poorly in the past.

Why you see this as an indictment is beyond me.

You don't seem to want to actually solve the problem. You just want to talk about the problem. That's why earlier I posted this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P2jJdrz9bY

[KoihimeNakamura]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I can understand your anger. It has to be very frustrating to be called on your disgusting, mean-spirited, dishonest tactics designed to personalize the argument and discredit a "gender traitor".

Anyone who has argued with a radfem has seen it plenty of times before. You're not getting away with it here unquestioned.

... Wat.

[Moss]

Originally Posted by KoihimeNakamura

... Wat.

It's just the usual testerical grandstanding against perceived radfem.

[Baloney]

Originally Posted by Stellafane

"Radfem"?

My, but this thread has certainly drifted a long way from why women aren't registering for TAM in more robust numbers.

I tried at least two times to subtly change the direction of conversation back to the original topic (and others have as well); but -- as in any high-passion thread -- once a provocateur has struck, it's nearly impossible to turn that rhinoceros back onto the path.

[Checkmite]

For those just joining us: the important things in this thread:

1. It is established that a number of women have been assaulted or inappropriately treated at TAMs and other skeptical community gatherings.

2. A few individuals have blamed the messengers; many don't take the situation seriously.

3. Is there anything we can do to discourage 1. and 2. from recurring; and if so, what?

[truethat]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

For those just joining us: the important things in this thread:

1. It is established that a number of women have been assaulted or inappropriately treated at TAMs and other skeptical community gatherings.

2. A few individuals have blamed the messengers; many don't take the situation seriously.

3. Is there anything we can do to discourage 1. and 2. from recurring; and if so, what?

1 is true. and 3 is awesome.

But 2 is a misunderstanding. It isn't that people have blamed the messengers. It is that the messengers never gave the message to the people in charge of TAM. Instead they spread it via gossip. They then blamed the people in charge of TAM for ignoring a problem they didn't know existed.

I have stated that the simple solution is to report all incidents and to use the policy that is already in place.

By spreading the misunderstanding that people of TAM don't care about the reports it is spreading a lie. There were no reports.

Very simple You can't get upset at someone for "ignoring" something if they never were told it happened in the first place.

So women should always document and report incidents at TAM. They should try when possible to name the person who did such a thing.

Ex a man walks up to a woman and says "Nice rack" and then walks away. Well the woman might not know who did it.

But if the woman does know who did it, she should name names. This also extends to men who witness such things at TAM.

From what I understand happened to Ashley and other women, there were many people men and women who witnessed what happened. But no one documented it.

DJ Grothe didn't know the man was sexually harassing women by groping them (I consider this an assault) and had he known he would have handled it differently.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Baloney

I tried at least two times to subtly change the direction of conversation back to the original topic (and others have as well); but -- as in any high-passion thread -- once a provocateur has struck, it's nearly impossible to turn that rhinoceros back onto the path.

I have to admit I also fell into the 'talk about the elevator thing' trap. I just can't not follow thread drifts... though I admit we're no longer drifting here. We've probably been declared lost with all hands.

[truethat]

Spreading the lie that women who report these incidents are not believed or blamed goes very far in discouraging women from reporting. That's why I've been so annoyed at people stating they are trying to solve the problem when they are only contributing to it. But then again I suppose people are interpreting me the same way.

[Stellafane]

Originally Posted by Baloney

I tried at least two times to subtly change the direction of conversation back to the original topic (and others have as well); but -- as in any high-passion thread -- once a provocateur has struck, it's nearly impossible to turn that rhinoceros back onto the path.

I hear ya. It seems to me that when people start throwing around highly-charged terms such as "radfem" in response to (what seems to me anyway) fairly reasonable and defensible posts, I think we've gone well beyond "frank and lively discussion" and have ventured into the swamp-invested realm of "finding an excuse to work out personal issues."

[AvalonXQ]

Sorry, but if you think there was anything defensible about the misogyny accusations and rampant quote-mining seen here, you're part of the problem.

Vilifying, well-poisoning, making false lists of things another poster hasn't said -- these are not techniques of honest debate. They're very consistent with the personalizing tactics so necessary when your position is fact-free.

[Stellafane]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

...Vilifying, well-poisoning, making false lists of things another poster hasn't said -- these are not techniques of honest debate. They're very consistent with the personalizing tactics so necessary when your position is fact-free.

My reply consists of two words, which in this case complement each other extraordinarily well: "Radfem" and "irony."

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Stellafane

My reply consists of two words, which in this case complement each other extraordinarily well: "Radfem" and "irony."

Isn't it neat how someone using a word you don't agree with is a great excuse for failing to address their actual points?

How do the words "tu quoque" strike you?

[Stellafane]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Isn't it neat how someone using a word you don't agree with is a great excuse for failing to address their actual points?

Points?

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

...How do the words "tu quoque" strike you?

As someone once said, "Tu quoque is the weakest of all arguments." And in any case, feel free to point out all the posts in this thread where I've resorted to calling people names -- otherwise your "tu quoque" charge rings just a bit hollow, I think.

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

The argument does rather seem to have become focused on whether or not truethat is something-or-other or has said something-or-other. As opposed to whether the arguments truethat have made are good arguments or bad arguments.

If the goal of that tactic isn't to bully truethat, I'm not sure what it is.

If you're going to engage with truethat at all, I'd say you should focus on their arguments, not the arguer.

it is interesting because TrueThat neatly mirrors the common response that people get for reporting harassment. They are told that the harassment isn't that big a deal or that they brought it upon themselves by taking or not taking some action. They are expected to produce evidence beyond what would be possible under common circumstances. If their story is not believed they face censure.

It is a bit disingenuous to say that Truethat has not been answered, she has. Many times, by many people in many different ways. Doesn't matter, she keeps chanting the mantra.

It is difficult to focus on the argument there because this sort of response is so common that is seems normal. It is that same petty insidiousness by which the staus quo is maintained. At this point one can only ask that other readers consider the source.

[meg]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

For those just joining us: the important things in this thread:

1. It is established that a number of women have been assaulted or inappropriately treated at TAMs and other skeptical community gatherings.

2. A few individuals have blamed the messengers; many don't take the situation seriously.

3. Is there anything we can do to discourage 1. and 2. from recurring; and if so, what?

Thank you for this Checkmite.

I think having a policy is an excellent first step. The next, and more important step is to insure that all staff and particants are made aware of the policy, as well as the correct procedures and steps to report a complaint, as well as handle the complaint. If there are members of the staff that do not have a good understanding of what harassment actually is, or that deny that sexual harassment could actually be present in the organization, then perhaps training is in order. This would go a long way, in my opinion, to discouraging 1 and 2 from happening again in the future.

Luckily for JREF, anti-harassment policies and procedures are SOP for most companies and organizations, so there are a lot of resources available publicly to assist managers in designing good procedures and training programs.

I think this site: http://www.accountingweb.com/blogs/m...ful-harassment has some useful and easy to understand advice:

Quote:

What can you do to prevent and address harassment as a Firm?

• Conduct seminars and training
• Instill a comprehensive and well-communicated policy
• Provide an effective complaint procedure
• Conduct prompt, thorough and effective investigations
• Take appropriate remedial action
• Confidentiality on a need-to-know basis

Employees need to feel comfortable bringing something like this to the attention of management without fear of retaliation against them. The victim should be encouraged to lodge a complaint, and not made to feel belittled for coming forth.

I think this site has a pretty good list of what kind of behaviors might constitute harassment.
http://www.fris.org/SexualHarassment/Harassment.html

[Baloney]

Maybe someone that is concerned about how some people either are or are not lying misogynists can open a new thread? Or maybe another thread to talk about Rebecca Watson?

[Jodie]

I'm still not clear why JREF is responsible for security and not the hotel? I've never been to a conference in my life where they assumed responsibility for that kind of thing, you report these incidents to the hotel management or security.

[Lilith]

My 2 cents - I attended one TAM, and in some cases I didn't enjoy the tone of the casual conversation I found myself in. While the meeting itself was great, I won't pay (TAM cost, plane ticket, and hotel) to attend again. I thought the 'night life' atmosphere would be more like that I'd experienced at scientific meetings and was looking forward to good conversations. I did indeed meet a few people there with whom I enjoyed talking with, but overall, as a woman there on my own, I didn't feel as comfortable as I'd hoped. For the record, I was not propositioned or attacked in any way.

[Stellafane]

Originally Posted by Jodie

I'm still not clear why JREF is responsible for security and not the hotel? I've never been to a conference in my life where they assumed responsibility for that kind of thing, you report these incidents to the hotel management or security.

You are correct. The issue is that apparently women are not registering for TAM in anything resembling last year's numbers. JREF has indicated interest in learning why. If the answer turns out that women are not registering because they fear that they'll be harassed -- or subject to any other behaviors that make them feel uncomfortable -- then JREF may want to do something about that perception, above and beyond the level of security provided by the hotel.

JREF can certainly do nothing, and leave it up to the hotel to enforce its own policies. But it's in their own best interest to go beyond that, if indeed women are staying away because of a perceived sexist environment. Otherwise TAM attendance may take a hit and never recover.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by bookitty

it is interesting because TrueThat neatly mirrors the common response that people get for reporting harassment. They are told that the harassment isn't that big a deal or that they brought it upon themselves by taking or not taking some action. They are expected to produce evidence beyond what would be possible under common circumstances. If their story is not believed they face censure.

It is a bit disingenuous to say that Truethat has not been answered, she has. Many times, by many people in many different ways. Doesn't matter, she keeps chanting the mantra.

It is difficult to focus on the argument there because this sort of response is so common that is seems normal. It is that same petty insidiousness by which the staus quo is maintained. At this point one can only ask that other readers consider the source.

Truethat is not the problem at TAM since Truethat has never attended TAM but hey just strap on your personal bias to your super soaker and think you've "gotten em"

Truethat has said several things in this thread that are genuine if you hang up your angry spats and take a look.

That is

Men often think they are "complimenting" a woman when in reality they are making them uncomfortable.

Since women (especially young women) are so sexualized in Western Society, it's important to reinforce for women, ways to establish and not feel bad about standing by their boundaries.

Ex.

The part I mentioned about "big bewbs" which bookitty apparently interpreted as fishing for compliments. From men. whom I will never see. Online. As if I need that.

I'm married and I always make a point of saying this since I am allergic to jewelry and don't wear a wedding ring. I still get "compliments" in the guise of a friendly compliment "no strings attached" and it's AWKWARD.

Women are not paying hundreds of dollars to go to an event to feel awkward.

Additionally I have pointed out that being "out of town" creates another paradigm. Women don't have their support systems easily in place the way they would at home. Like calling a friend or hopping into a pricey but safe car ride home.

So men should not do things like this. Most men don't.

I think that if RW had said "don't be "that guy" as bookitty has stated earlier, the comment would not have the same smarmy aftertaste. Most men are not "that guy" and most men will be a woman's ally in a heart beat.

hmmm a new thread I think.....

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by truethat

Spreading the lie that women who report these incidents are not believed or blamed goes very far in discouraging women from reporting.

Have we forgotten Ashley Miller already?

[blobru]

Originally Posted by Lilith

My 2 cents - I attended one TAM, and in some cases I didn't enjoy the tone of the casual conversation I found myself in. While the meeting itself was great, I won't pay (TAM cost, plane ticket, and hotel) to attend again. I thought the 'night life' atmosphere would be more like that I'd experienced at scientific meetings and was looking forward to good conversations. I did indeed meet a few people there with whom I enjoyed talking with, but overall, as a woman there on my own, I didn't feel as comfortable as I'd hoped. For the record, I was not propositioned or attacked in any way.

Thanks for your 2 cents, Lilith (such a deal)!

I've never been to TAM, but my impression, mostly from reading threads devoted to it, is it runs the gamut pretty much from academic conversation to animal house for eggheads (and which, I'll note, seems fine as far as guarding against 'inappropriate' behavior is concerned, as long as you make it clear which stages and areas of the convention are hosting which events: someone there for the intellectual atmosphere probably won't want to get caught in the middle of the latest incarnation of the bordello party, for example).

Was that your experience at all? And when you say, "overall, as a woman there on my own, I didn't feel as comfortable as I'd hoped", what would be your suggestions for making TAM more comfortable for women in a similar situation (yourself even, should you ever attend again)? Where you say in some cases you "didn't enjoy the tone of the casual conversation", was this a matter of finding yourself at events where a more casual tone was encouraged, where you would have expected more serious discussions; perhaps not knowing your way around well enough to find the more serious discussions; perhaps not enough separation between partiers and non-partiers by organizers; or maybe there just not being enough serious conversation to go around to meet demand -- not enough people into it, many more there to party -- so not really what you were expecting overall.

Would more women in attendance have made you more comfortable? More access to speakers enjoy it more?

Hope I'm not prying; I certainly don't mean to. Just curious how your experience compares to my impression, and any suggestions you might have to improve the experience.

[truethat]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Have we forgotten Ashley Miller already?

What do you refer to?

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by truethat

What do you refer to?

That would be the person who was harassed by a drunk dude at the last TAM. I believe you decided that she hadn't reported the incident well enough. Or perhaps she just handed it off to her superiors. No wait, maybe that was Remie. Gah, there's so much it's hard to keep track of. Suffice to say, Ashley is a woman who reported sexual harassment therefore your response was certainly dismissive.

[truethat]

No I didn't decide that.

I know you struggle with understanding my points bookitty but it's very simple.

She was harassed and the person was removed. The person who removed big jerk (hereto referred as BJ) was DJ Grothe. DJ Grothe stated later that he removed BJ from the event because BJ wasn't invited to the specific event and seemed to be annoying people. No one told him that BJ was sexually harassing Ashley. If they had, he would have handled it differently. Others who also have reading comprehension difficulty misconstrued this as an accusation that she was lying. But that is not was DJ Grothe said. He said this:

FULL STOP Prepared that bookitty and meg and others will not actually READ what DJ Grothe is saying and instead interpret it as "blaming the victim" or "calling Ashley a liar"

<<I am over here sighing at the predictablity of it all. bookitty do not reply to me again until you have actually read the statement at least three times. Because I am tired of dealing with your seeming inability to read words written on a screen in front of you. I was going to bold certain parts but it's important to read all of it.

DJ Grothe wrote this

Quote:

Hi guys, I just want to clarify: are we saying that I kicked out an attendee from the speakers reception because he sexually harassed three women there, as Ashley says in her post and comment? It is a horrible story, and no one should ever go through such groping or harassment etc. at any event, skeptic or not, and I am mortified that Jamilla, Jen and Ashley experienced this at our private speakers reception. But I have to say that I never asked anyone to leave the speakers reception because of harassment. I appreciate Ashley giving me the benefit of the doubt in her post when she says that maybe "I didn’t realize that it wasn’t just that the guy was annoying, it was that he was inappropriately touching me and backing me into corners and asking me to have sex with him after I told him to stop, or that DJ wasn’t who kicked him out and it was someone else on the TAM staff."

Was someone asked to leave the private event because he wasn't a speaker or wasn't supposed to be at the reception? Jarrett, were you there? If you remember it, do you recall my asking a man to leave TAM for sexual harassment?

If someone at the private speakers reception sexually harassed you, Jen and Jamilla, as you say in your post and comment, again, it is absolutely horrible and I wish we would have known so we could have called security and removed the guy from TAM. That you say he was "inappropriately touching [you] and backing [you] into corners and asking [you] to have sex with him after [you] told him to stop" is gross and inexcusable. You identify him as a "drunk british guy from Shrewsbury." I sincerely wish you would have let hotel security or TAM staff know immediately about the incident, and we will certainly look into who the perpetrator could be (you say he was a TAM registrant?). Unfortunately, you and I never spoke about the incident, even if you were told inaccurately by others I had him removed for sexual harassment.

Despite the fact that no one was removed from the speakers reception last year for sexual harassment, if he groped you and insisted he have sex with you, and sexually harassed Jamilla and Jen as well, as you say, again, he should have been asked to leave by hotel security. Anyone who behaves like that at any events like TAM should similarly be asked to leave by security. As I said in my response to you, I am sincerely sorry to hear about this. JREF takes the security and safety of all attendees at our events seriously.

And what does a witness there say about this????

Quote:

@Ashley,
At that time, DJ only knew what I told him and he acted immediately and did the right thing. There is a chance that DJ does not remember this because he only knew that the guy was rude, drunk and needed to leave. DJ did not stop to think about it - he just took action. He did not have the details that you elaborated above. If you never gave him the details he would not have known that you were harassed. I was much closer to your side of the room and I did not know all of this information until today.

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by truethat

No I didn't decide that.

I know you struggle with understanding my points bookitty but it's very simple.

She was harassed and the person was removed. The person who removed big jerk (hereto referred as BJ) was DJ Grothe. DJ Grothe stated later that he removed BJ from the event because BJ wasn't invited to the specific event and seemed to be annoying people. No one told him that BJ was sexually harassing Ashley. If they had, he would have handled it differently. Others who also have reading comprehension difficulty misconstrued this as an accusation that she was lying. But that is not was DJ Grothe said. He said this:

FULL STOP Prepared that bookitty and meg and others will not actually READ what DJ Grothe is saying and instead interpret it as "blaming the victim" or "calling Ashley a liar"

<<I am over here sighing at the predictablity of it all. bookitty do not reply to me again until you have actually read the statement at least three times. Because I am tired of dealing with your seeming inability to read words written on a screen in front of you. I was going to bold certain parts but it's important to read all of it.

DJ Grothe wrote this




And what does a witness there say about this????

So you're dismissing her. Noted.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by bookitty

That would be the person who was harassed by a drunk dude at the last TAM. I believe you decided that she hadn't reported the incident well enough. Or perhaps she just handed it off to her superiors. No wait, maybe that was Remie. Gah, there's so much it's hard to keep track of. Suffice to say, Ashley is a woman who reported sexual harassment therefore your response was certainly dismissive.

More specifically, her blog post where she reposts a comment in which she was indeed, explicitly accused of lying.

[truethat]

I knew you guys wouldn't even bother to carefully read it. LOL So funny. Look at the time stamps.

Posting just to hear the sound of their own hand typing? What's the word for that? Hmm I think it's sort of NSFW so I'm not replying to you again. The fun part is that apparently you seem to think you have superpowers that extend to others making them not able to read what is right in front of their face. Because you want to ignore the truth.

_{.......they don't work........your mom was just trying to make you feel special.........shhh}

[meg]

Originally Posted by truethat

Spreading the lie that women who report these incidents are not believed or blamed goes very far in discouraging women from reporting. That's why I've been so annoyed at people stating they are trying to solve the problem when they are only contributing to it. But then again I suppose people are interpreting me the same way.

Who, besides yourself, has declared that it is a lie that women have not been believed or have been blamed?

[AdMan]

Originally Posted by bookitty

That would be the person who was harassed by a drunk dude at the last TAM. I believe you decided that she hadn't reported the incident well enough.

To be fair, I believe she did admit that she hadn't initially reported the incident as sexual harassment, and that, when DJ was told something was going on during the event (he did not hear of sexual harassment) he had responded appropriately, given what he was told.

This was also he recollection of the person Ashley had initially reported the incident to.

I can link to everything, if your recollection of what was said is different (though it's been linked to earlier in the thread already).

[Checkmite]

My point as well. It's not a lie that women have been disbelieved when they've reported incidents.

[Tricky]

Folks, it's wandering toward incivility here. While there are a lot of borderline posts here, me and the other mods don't want to start handing out yellow cards without even a warning. So here is the warning. Calm it down, stop the bickering and personal attacks and keep it on-topic. (The usual stuff.) Otherwise, the mods will be forced to do the usual stuff, and that's no fun for anyone. Okay? Play nice.

Posted By:Tricky

[Lolly]

Originally Posted by bookitty

If the behavior continues after several warnings, the twit gets booted.

There is no need for the organizer to be involved in dealing with such a twit. Such person should not get beyond the second or third person, one warning, then out. The venue staff will boot them out. The venue staff can boot anybody out, for any reason and it doesn't even have to be a good one. If they decide they want you to go, they give you a warning, if you repeat the behaviour, you go.

A lot of this discussion is based on misunderstanding of what is involved. A written policy along the lines of "you can't go around bothering people or you'll get kicked out" is by way of informing people of how things are. It is telling people what to expect so that nobody goes "that isn't fair, I didn't know!", but it is NOT creating any new "system", creating any new rights or doing anything at all other than providing information.

Remie was insisting that there had to be something over and above this - a policy "with consequences". I was trying to get her to think and express what it is she envisages that to entail. If JRef is going to impose "consequences" (over and above booting people out - what could those consequences be, exclusion from the organisation altogether perhaps? If so, it'd have to be serious and adequately documented, if the conduct was criminal it would probably have to be reported to be deemed serious enough? What?) you have to figure out what it is you are actually asking for. It raises issues which have to be considered. One is the organisation's responsibility for dealing with complaints of criminal conduct. And yes, if the organisation is taking over some kind of enforcement of conduct then it becomes its issue to decide what happens.

The organisation should NOT be in a position where they have to override the complainant's wishes but if you demand that the JRef set itself up as some sort of judge and jury to impose "consequences" which exceed those that are already in place, then there are issues that arise for consideration. They can't just be waved away as "ridiculous" because somebody doesn't understand how they arise.

In any event, there is no evidence that the JRef disregarded or dismissed any complaints, there is no evidence that there is any widespread culture of harassment of women over and above what happens in places where alcohol is served and there has been no submission in this thread that the existing policy is inadequate or how it is considered inadequate (both times it has been raised, nobody has bothered to address it and say "this is how it needs to be amended")

I realize that some people are anti-feminist, but suggesting that women are some sort of brain-dead underclass is offensive to me.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by bookitty

So you're dismissing her. Noted.

Perhaps you can complain how what truethat posted is "dismissing her"?

Having actually read what truethat actually posted, it's anything but clear.

[banquetbear]

Originally Posted by bookitty

So you're dismissing her. Noted.

...Truehat posted the words of DJ and has made a compelling case for her position: yet for some reason you can't accept her position and need to create a new one for her.

Its really quite simple: DJ claims that he didn't know that Ashley had been sexually assaulted. No evidence has been presented in this thread that DJ did know that Ashley had been sexually assaulted. Truehat and DJ both accept that Ashley was sexually assaulted. If DJ had known that Ashley had been assaulted he would have treated the whole situation differently.

What is really in dispute in the above paragraph? How exactly does saying "DJ didn't know about the sexual assualt" translate into "So you are dismissing her. Noted."

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by Stellafane

Points?




As someone once said, "Tu quoque is the weakest of all arguments." .

Yeah, but the guy who said that was a flipping idiot.

[meg]

The discussion regarding Ashley Miller not being believed does not revolve only on what DJ Grothe did or did not say. It is also about this: http://ashleyfmiller.wordpress.com/2...rt-harassment/

[banquetbear]

Originally Posted by meg

The discussion regarding Ashley Miller not being believed does not revolve only on what DJ Grothe did or did not say. It is also about this: http://ashleyfmiller.wordpress.com/2...rt-harassment/

...before the thread goes off on yet another tangent: I posted this before:

Quote:

DJ claims that he didn't know that Ashley had been sexually assaulted. No evidence has been presented in this thread that DJ did know that Ashley had been sexually assaulted. Truehat and DJ both accept that Ashley was sexually assaulted. If DJ had known that Ashley had been assaulted he would have treated the whole situation differently.

Do you dispute anything written in that paragraph? If so what bits?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally Posted by banquetbear

...Truehat posted the words of DJ and has made a compelling case for her position: yet for some reason you can't accept her position and need to create a new one for her.

Its really quite simple: DJ claims that he didn't know that Ashley had been sexually assaulted. No evidence has been presented in this thread that DJ did know that Ashley had been sexually assaulted. Truehat and DJ both accept that Ashley was sexually assaulted. If DJ had known that Ashley had been assaulted he would have treated the whole situation differently.

What is really in dispute in the above paragraph? How exactly does saying "DJ didn't know about the sexual assualt" translate into "So you are dismissing her. Noted."

Is "sexual/ly assault/ed" the proper word/s?

In her blog entry I see mention of harassment, but no mention of assault.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

Is "sexual/ly assault/ed" the proper word/s?

In her blog entry I see mention of harassment, but no mention of assault.

It's the 'sexual' part of it that's at issue. As far as DJ seems to have been aware at the time, someone who appeared to be drunk was annoying people at the speakers' reception. The person was ejected. DJ was told about it by a third person, who may well not have passed on the crucial information that the harassment was sexual in nature (addressed solely to women, and involved groping). That some anonymous people on the internet, uninvolved in the incident, have accused Ashley Miller of lying is regrettable, but it's DJ's reaction that is important. He has accepted that this was an example of sexual harassment at TAM, now that he has more information about it.