Sexual harassment at TAM?!

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

Agreed.

So perhaps stop blaming them for your lack of action? Just a thought.

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

I am also mystified that nothing has been done about some of these well-known attendees. Is there a risk that someone would sue the JREF if they were refused admission?

From your mention of Anita Ikonen, it was TAM8 you went to, which was before the anti-harassment policy at TAM9, so there were no instructions on what to do. However, did you report your experiences to any of the staff?

It was my first TAM. I was associated with a local group and being friends with Anita has...baggage. I didn't want to make waves and I'm used to dealing with things myself. At one point an employee of JREF was there for a wtf? moment but it was much more comfortable to joke around with them after the fact than to demand a comprehensive report.

Now all of the boys club will come up to blame me. Neato.

Of course, these are the exact reasons why harassment is under-reported and still pervasive, especially in STEM fields and related activities. it simply isn't worth it to constantly fight the good fight, especially when you're already out of pocket for tickets, worried about employment options or significantly out-numbered.

One can argue that I didn't do enough, that I am part of the problem, etc, etc but that won't make me go back to TAM.

ETA: A lawsuit from Buzzo? Think of the entertainment possibilities! Dear lord, I almost want it to happen.

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by bookitty

So perhaps stop blaming them for your lack of action? Just a thought.

No blame, just wonder if it rises to the level of harassment, which has been the point I've been trying to make throughout.

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

No blame, just wonder if it rises to the level of harassment, which has been the point I've been trying to make throughout.

And yet, you ignored when I specifically answered that point.

ETA: based on the research for your paper, when would it be appropriate for an office mate to hit on a new employee, on their first day, while in the elevator?

[Dunstan]

Originally Posted by bookitty

You're like obsessed with Egate. What's up with that?

Originally Posted by bpesta22

I quoted it only to illustrate that having an interest in the topic does not make me obsessed (as I was accused of being above). I can't be the most extreme case here of a user posting lots on a topic she/he finds interesting? This does seem to be an internet discussion board?

Originally Posted by bpesta22

Just replying to posts that replied to me. Seems like projection on your part?

Interesting. When you keep bringing up the topic, you just "have an interest" and are responding to what other people say. When DJ Grothe brings up the topic and women respond, you dismiss them as attention-seeking. (When you're not just calling them "Princess" that is.)

[qayak]

Originally Posted by Sun Countess

Is it really so difficult for people to get to know each other just a little bit...

Why? Vegas is known for hook-ups. What about all the people who go there for an opportunity at no strings attached sexual adventures, they don't want to waste time with niceties? That they go there for TAM as well is irrelevant. When in Rome do as the Romans.

Perhaps it is time to change the venue of TAM to somewhere more worthy of the asexual behaviour you expect from skeptics.

[Lamuella]

Originally Posted by qayak

Why? Vegas is known for hook-ups. What about all the people who go there for an opportunity at no strings attached sexual adventures, they don't want to waste time with niceties? That they go there for TAM as well is irrelevant. When in Rome do as the Romans.

Perhaps it is time to change the venue of TAM to somewhere more worthy of the asexual behaviour you expect from skeptics.

I'm not sure how you've managed to confuse "not wanting to be constantly hit on" with "expecting asexuality"

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally Posted by qayak

Why? Vegas is known for hook-ups. What about all the people who go there for an opportunity at no strings attached sexual adventures, they don't want to waste time with niceties?

OT I know, but is this true? I've never been, but I've only heard of cheesy theatre shows, gambling, hookers and strippers as the 'attractions' of Vegas. Are there really large groups who go there for instant bunk ups with strangers?

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by bookitty

It was my first TAM. I was associated with a local group and being friends with Anita has...baggage. I didn't want to make waves and I'm used to dealing with things myself. At one point an employee of JREF was there for a wtf? moment but it was much more comfortable to joke around with them after the fact than to demand a comprehensive report.

Now all of the boys club will come up to blame me. Neato.

Of course, these are the exact reasons why harassment is under-reported and still pervasive, especially in STEM fields and related activities. it simply isn't worth it to constantly fight the good fight, especially when you're already out of pocket for tickets, worried about employment options or significantly out-numbered.

I don't think I'm in the boys club, and I'm certainly not going to blame you; I'm British and I don't like making a fuss so I'd be reluctant to report someone too. But it does mean it is a little unfair for DJ to be blamed for not being aware of the full scale of the problem, especially since it was under his watch that the policy was introduced (and before the appearance of Elevator Guy, too).

Quote:

ETA: A lawsuit from Buzzo? Think of the entertainment possibilities! Dear lord, I almost want it to happen.

It was a serious question; I have no idea what the legal position would be in the USA. Could you refuse to sell someone a ticket in the first place, or do you have the concept of Right of Admission Reserved, so there is no obligation to let someone in even if they have paid?

[qayak]

Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood

OT I know, but is this true? I've never been, but I've only heard of cheesy theatre shows, gambling, hookers and strippers as the 'attractions' of Vegas. Are there really large groups who go there for instant bunk ups with strangers?

I am only judging by what the people I know who go there say, men and women. "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas!"

[qayak]

Originally Posted by Lamuella

I'm not sure how you've managed to confuse "not wanting to be constantly hit on" with "expecting asexuality"

I got it from the "expecting more from skeptics" posts and tone of the thread.

[Lamuella]

Originally Posted by qayak

I got it from the "expecting more from skeptics" posts and tone of the thread.

so you made it up and attributed it to other people then. Gotcha.

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

I don't think I'm in the boys club, and I'm certainly not going to blame you; I'm British and I don't like making a fuss so I'd be reluctant to report someone too. But it does mean it is a little unfair for DJ to be blamed for not being aware of the full scale of the problem, especially since it was under his watch that the policy was introduced (and before the appearance of Elevator Guy, too).



It was a serious question; I have no idea what the legal position would be in the USA. Could you refuse to sell someone a ticket in the first place, or do you have the concept of Right of Admission Reserved, so there is no obligation to let someone in even if they have paid?

I am sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were part of the boys club. I do appreciate your interest and you've been consistently fair.

I am not blaming DJ for anything that happened at TAM8. I'm not even blaming JREF. At that point, there was no policy. TAM was run as a larger version of the once-cozy con it had been, where everyone was in the loop and problems were dealt with personally. I don't blame the JREF for that, it's growing pains. However, DJ's current stance is problematic and does not inspire confidence that things would be better if I were to return.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

You broads just don't understand that making passes is part of Man's essential nature.

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

No blame, just wonder if it rises to the level of harassment, which has been the point I've been trying to make throughout.

If you're going to stick with the legalese crap here (which is pointless, as there is no such animal at this type of convention) I remind you of the one thing they point out at all the workshops and such we have in the workplace: "Sexual Harassment is in the eyes of the harassed. If an individual considers an action or activity to be harassment, It Is Harassment. Quit doing it, or face disciplinary action"

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by qayak

Why? Vegas is known for hook-ups. What about all the people who go there for an opportunity at no strings attached sexual adventures, they don't want to waste time with niceties? That they go there for TAM as well is irrelevant. When in Rome do as the Romans.

Umm, not quite. I'm fairly confident that for the vast majority of attendees, their being in Vegas is wholly incidental to their attending TAM rather than the other way around.

Originally Posted by qayak

Perhaps it is time to change the venue of TAM to somewhere more worthy of the asexual behaviour you expect from skeptics.

Once again we're left with "either people are free to proposition anyone at anytime without complaints, or the entire conference must be absolutely asexual".

Look, if you absolutely must have sex at a TAM and it absolutely cannot wait until you can actually say you're acquainted with the target person, literally all you need to do is walk out the front door of the hotel to the public sidewalk to one of the loitering gentlemen there and pick a card. There'll be a a photo and a phone number; and not only will the woman be a complete stranger to you, but she will absolutely welcome your proposition for sex no matter how "socially awkward" it is!

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Look, if you absolutely must have sex at a TAM and it absolutely cannot wait until you can actually say you're acquainted with the target person, literally all you need to do is walk out the front door of the hotel to the public sidewalk to one of the loitering gentlemen there and pick a card. There'll be a a photo and a phone number; and not onl will the woman be a complete stranger to you, but she will absolutely welcome your proposition for sex no matter how "socially awkward" it is!

That's all very well, but what about the women who want to meet George Clooney in an elevator?

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by Guybrush Threepwood

That's all very well, but what about the women who want to meet George Clooney in an elevator?

As soon as Clooney shows up, we'll worry about it.

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by rwguinn

If you're going to stick with the legalese crap here (which is pointless, as there is no such animal at this type of convention) I remind you of the one thing they point out at all the workshops and such we have in the workplace: "Sexual Harassment is in the eyes of the harassed. If an individual considers an action or activity to be harassment, It Is Harassment. Quit doing it, or face disciplinary action"

No it's not! That's been my point through out, and it's why I mentioned the legalese crap (not because I think it must apply here, but because I think it offers a useful framework to view this stuff). You thinking it's irrelevant doesn't make it crap, does it? It's a tested formula for proving harassment in some contexts, why not use it others?

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by Dunstan

Interesting. When you keep bringing up the topic, you just "have an interest" and are responding to what other people say. When DJ Grothe brings up the topic and women respond, you dismiss them as attention-seeking. (When you're not just calling them "Princess" that is.)

I dismissed perhaps one person as potentially being attention seeking. I obviously disagree with many of the perspectives here, but I don't think I am being dismissive. I'm trying to address the counter points and explain why I think they're deficient. Perhaps princess crossed the line, but "table alone" is an equally unsupported inference.

[Sun Countess]

Originally Posted by qayak

Why? Vegas is known for hook-ups. What about all the people who go there for an opportunity at no strings attached sexual adventures, they don't want to waste time with niceties? That they go there for TAM as well is irrelevant. When in Rome do as the Romans.

Perhaps it is time to change the venue of TAM to somewhere more worthy of the asexual behaviour you expect from skeptics.

Who said that asexual behavior was expected from skeptics? I said that I (naively) expected welcoming and non-sexist behavior from skeptics. For me, that means any hookups should be made when there's a reasonable expectation of consent (say, after sharing some drinks and laughs and mutual flirtatious behavior). If I want to hook up with somebody, I know how to behave in a way that shows my interest and availability. If I'm a complete stranger to you, why would you assume that I'm a woman who doesn't want to waste time with the niceties? If you want to find a woman who is looking for a random hook-up, I can find you one. They generally give off pretty clear signals. (Note: Merely being in the room is not a signal of "I'm willing to **** the first guy who offers.")

If it's really a case of "When in Rome......" and then the guys look around and notice that there aren't a lot of women coming to Rome, just don't ask women what you can do to get them to come, while simultaneously telling them that they'd better expect some pretty boorish behavior because that's the way things roll there.

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

No it's not! That's been my point through out, and it's why I mentioned the legalese crap (not because I think it must apply here, but because I think it offers a useful framework to view this stuff). You thinking it's irrelevant doesn't make it crap, does it? It's a tested formula for proving harassment in some contexts, why not use it others?

You obviously have not spent much time with corporate America...

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

No it's not! That's been my point through out, and it's why I mentioned the legalese crap (not because I think it must apply here, but because I think it offers a useful framework to view this stuff). You thinking it's irrelevant doesn't make it crap, does it? It's a tested formula for proving harassment in some contexts, why not use it others?

I would think that we'd prefer to treat our like-minded TAM-attending colleagues with dignity and respect for their boundaries because it's the right thing to do rather than because not doing so may or may not be "legally-actionable".

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

I dismissed perhaps one person as potentially being attention seeking. I obviously disagree with many of the perspectives here, but I don't think I am being dismissive. I'm trying to address the counter points and explain why I think they're deficient. Perhaps princess crossed the line, but "table alone" is an equally unsupported inference.

Dear creep, perhaps you can answer this question.

Based on the research for your paper, when would it be appropriate for an office mate to hit on a new employee, on their first day, while in the elevator?

Thanks,
Princess

[Sun Countess]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

I dismissed perhaps one person as potentially being attention seeking. I obviously disagree with many of the perspectives here, but I don't think I am being dismissive. I'm trying to address the counter points and explain why I think they're deficient. Perhaps princess crossed the line, but "table alone" is an equally unsupported inference.

Thanks, you ask about reasons why women don't want to come to TAM, and then when they tell you, you can keep telling them that they're wrong. It's just so welcoming when people do that, exactly what I'm looking for in a social setting.

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Once again we're left with "either people are free to proposition anyone at anytime without complaints, or the entire conference must be absolutely asexual".

Good point. If I am guilty of contributing to this, I concede the point. Safe zone seems to be an unrealistic standard given human nature. Perhaps then my standard is unrealistic too. How do we draw the line (what about adopting scotus' framework?!).

Quote:

Look, if you absolutely must have sex at a TAM and it absolutely cannot wait until you can actually say you're acquainted with the target person, literally all you need to do is walk out the front door of the hotel to the public sidewalk to one of the loitering gentlemen there and pick a card. There'll be a a photo and a phone number; and not only will the woman be a complete stranger to you, but she will absolutely welcome your proposition for sex no matter how "socially awkward" it is!

I think this is unfair. Men approach for sex, a potential relationship, or both. Surely women consent or not for the same reasons. I guess I'm not claiming every horny man deserves his day (as I now realize based on your above comments), I just think that expressing sexual desire is not (a) always harassment, (b) something unique to TAM, (c) something that JREF must eliminate completely.

Again leads me to believe some type of framework is needed to parse this. Where should we look!?

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

I would think that we'd prefer to treat our like-minded TAM-attending colleagues with dignity and respect for their boundaries because it's the right thing to do rather than because not doing so may or may not be "legally-actionable".

And asking you for coffee in an elevator crosses the dignity line?

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by Sun Countess

Thanks, you ask about reasons why women don't want to come to TAM, and then when they tell you, you can keep telling them that they're wrong. It's just so welcoming when people do that, exactly what I'm looking for in a social setting.

My point throughout is that it's wrong to call it harassment. You can not come for any reason, and I'm ok with that. To claim that one is not coming for safety reasons seems suspicious.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

And asking you for coffee in an elevator crosses the dignity line?

"...in your room," and asking alone at 3AM might cross the respect for boundaries line.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

I think this is unfair. Men approach for sex, a potential relationship, or both. Surely women consent or not for the same reasons. I guess I'm not claiming every horny man deserves his day (as I now realize based on your above comments), I just think that expressing sexual desire is not (a) always harassment, (b) something unique to TAM, (c) something that JREF must eliminate completely.

Again leads me to believe some type of framework is needed to parse this. Where should we look!?

I don't believe it is unfair, simply because people have pointed out that it's a simple fact that they want sex at TAM and there shouldn't be anything wrong with that. I'm pointing out that it's a simple fact that there are accommodations they can make use of toward that end without risking making their fellow-attendees uncomfortable.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

I don't know if I am obsessed with Scotus' application. I just think it's reasonable, and so applying it here might give some leverage toward figuring out a fair solution. Reasonable people indeed disagree on when this stuff crosses the line. Why not at least consider using a logical framework that helps determine this?

I have an academic interest in the topic. I even have two pubs on it (that no one is reading). I link one below, because it further illustrates the point I am trying to make. Anyone bored enough to click the link should focus just on the tables:



I agree no one is obligated to go to TAM. I would hope though that the reason they offer for not attending (fear of safety) is genuine and not a pretext for the real reasons (power struggles; spite; attention-neediness...).

You seem obsessed with *mis*applying it, and running away from requests for you to prove the legal assertions you've made.

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

You seem obsessed with *mis*applying it, and running away from requests for you to prove the legal assertions you've made.

Can you give a specific example of how I misapplied it and then ran away?

[Lamuella]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

And asking you for coffee in an elevator crosses the dignity line?

have I spent most of our acquaintance to that point talking about how I don't like to be sexually objectified and how I think there is a problem with sexism in the community we belong to?

[Sun Countess]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

I think this is unfair. Men approach for sex, a potential relationship, or both. Surely women consent or not for the same reasons. I guess I'm not claiming every horny man deserves his day (as I now realize based on your above comments), I just think that expressing sexual desire is not (a) always harassment, (b) something unique to TAM, (c) something that JREF must eliminate completely.

Good thing nobody is asking anybody to quit expressing desire, but to just maybe express it to people who've given some indication they would be receptive to it, and NOT expressing it to people who've already told you they don't welcome an advance.

Originally Posted by bpesta22

My point throughout is that it's wrong to call it harassment. You can not come for any reason, and I'm ok with that. To claim that one is not coming for safety reasons seems suspicious.

To reiterate my point, I'm not avoiding TAM because I'm worried about harrassment. I'm avoiding TAM because of the response women have received when they've shared stories of harrassment. (And yes, your response sin this very thread can pretty well cover the entire bingo card.)

I don't want to hang out with men who don't like women. I can find plenty of men who actually enjoy the company of women and spend time with them.

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

My point throughout is that it's wrong to call it harassment. You can not come for any reason, and I'm ok with that. To claim that one is not coming for safety reasons seems suspicious.

And if it's not harassment, it's respectable and therefore women have no reason to not like it, and if they are saying they don't like well, tough luck.

You're honestly trying to make creepitude all sciency, for realz.

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

And asking you for coffee in an elevator crosses the dignity line?

Ignoring all context in pursuit of "opportunity" crosses the dignity line.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

No it's not! That's been my point through out, and it's why I mentioned the legalese crap (not because I think it must apply here, but because I think it offers a useful framework to view this stuff). You thinking it's irrelevant doesn't make it crap, does it? It's a tested formula for proving harassment in some contexts, why not use it others?

And once again you utterly misstate the legal reality.

The victim *does* get to make that decision, not the transgressor, as you would like to pretend.

The harasser, the batterer, and even the date rapist can all imagine that they get to be the sole arbiter of when too far is too far... and that pretense can come back to bite them in the rear on occasion.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by bpesta22

Can you give a specific example of how I misapplied it and then ran away?

Awww... aren't you the clever one? Instead of honestly addressing the request for a citation to back up your legal assertions (from post #41), you think you can derail this into a 'No I didn't/Yes you did' game?

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

And once again you utterly misstate the legal reality.

The victim *does* get to make that decision, not the transgressor, as you would like to pretend.

The harasser, the batterer, and even the date rapist can all imagine that they get to be the sole arbiter of when too far is too far... and that pretense can come back to bite them in the rear on occasion.

Are you just making this up?

Where did I say the harasser makes the decision?

It must be offensive to the victim and to an RP to be illegal. It's an "and" there.

[bpesta22]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Awww... aren't you the clever one? Instead of honestly addressing the request for a citation to back up your legal assertions (from post #41), you think you can derail this into a 'No I didn't/Yes you did' game?

I missed #41. Mea culpa. Cites to harassment versus battery appear in the article I linked.