They don’t.
Okay, that joke’s not going to get old for me.
So some folks who’ve little or no interest in discussing harassment policies rationally, who just want to stop them from happening because feminists (*gasp in horror*) are the ones pushing for them, have been suggesting that any convention implementing strong harassment policies that demand consent before touching would open you to a whole raft of legal issues and would curtail all the fun that can be had at a convention.
I don’t even have to strawman or play that up. That’s what people are actually saying about the “make sure you have consent before touching” clause. That it would require you to get lawyer-notarized consent forms for every handshake or hug.
This is for a code of conduct that attempts to respect every person’s bodily autonomy, in a social setting where people might have zero clue that some folks get all squeamish about being randomly hugged by strangers. Or worse, that some people might not like having their breasts groped randomly by strangers — yes, that’s apparently an issue, given the existence of PenguinCon’s Open Source Boob Project back in 2008.
That “project” involved people wearing red or green stickers — red means you’re not allowed to even ask for consent to grope them, green means you can ask and the person can choose to consent or not. You’d think this might be a good idea for people who have no idea how to obtain consent for actions like that, but really, it’s a horrible way of doing this whole consent thing — it makes the convention very grope-focused, which has ripple effects on people who weren’t wearing stickers at all.
People generally obtain consent by conversing with people, discovering if there’s common ground, learning whether there’s mutual interest, flirting, then escalating by inches (centimetres?), and backing off if there’s any indication that both parties aren’t enthusiastic about it. This is how flirting works for the neurotypical. It is how our society’s “romance narrative” is built, where people obtain consent through non-verbal means. This can be a fun game for those who can play it, but for those who can’t, for those who aren’t adept at or don’t like this romance narrative, consent can be obtained through other means. Like, asking.
There is something absolutely hot about asking someone if you can kiss them, and them saying yes. It can be done sexily. It can be done without spoiling the mood. And even if it’s done clumsily because you’re clumsy at asking, it can still be awesome. The end result is, you know that person is definitely into you if they’re consenting despite your clumsiness. And if you ask someone “can I kiss you” and they respond by diving lip-first at your face, you’ve got your answer and your kiss. No forms needed. No legal notary on hand.
So when Thunderf00t among others complained that getting consent for touching is a bad thing, it’s obvious that they don’t realize how often we ask for consent to various social transactions in day to day activities without ever making a noise. And if you can manage to get consent without words for transactions with a person that are intimate or sexual, that means you probably either know that person well enough to be able to make that judgment, or you’re not actually getting consent at all.
If there’s ever any doubt, asking is not a bad strategy. The alternative is risking engaging in an assault. Given the decision matrix of “ruining the mood” being the downside for asking for consent, and “committing assault” being the downside for not, which one actually maximizes your potential for sexy fun times? Do factor in that sexy fun times are sexier and more fun when the other person is enthusiastic about participating.
And this respect for bodily sexual autonomy must absolutely extend to people who have hang-ups about touching. If you’re running around hugging random people and you hug someone who doesn’t want to be hugged, sure, you might not be doing any physical damage, but you’re doing psychological damage that could have been mitigated by being a decent human being and asking for permission. Even if you know the person’s likely to accept (e.g. JT Eberhard, who loves hugs), you should damn well ask anyway. Maybe he’s not feeling it right then. Maybe he’s sick. Maybe he’s holding a hot coffee. Maybe he’s in a rush. Maybe you’ve already given him twenty hugs in the past half hour and he’s already begged off once, and he’s now little creeped out. Consent once, or to someone else, doesn’t mean consent always or to everyone.
Or grabbing someone’s leg and biting it. That’s fine and great and grand if you know the person and know they consent because you’ve already crossed those physical barriers. But if you don’t know it, you risk getting kicked out of the bar or convention or whatever, because you skipped the whole consent thing. Why would you skip the consent part of any negotiation? Isn’t that how stealing is wrong, because you didn’t get consent (or didn’t care about consent) to take something from someone before taking it? Physical transactions work the same way.
If you don’t know for certain, don’t take the chance and do something without their explicit consent. How is this totalitarian or controlling, by saying that people have different tolerances for touching and that we should respect those by requiring consent?
I suspect most of the pushback from this is about privilege — the privilege that people think they have to make any pass at any person they want under any circumstances, even if those passes disregard the nature of the transaction they’re making and the familiarity between the actors involved. Any curtailing of their “right” to Hunt The Wild Vagina (and yes, it’s mostly men breaching these contracts of consent, and mostly in pursuit of women), is seen as an attack on them personally. There are, of course, women who argue that it’s controlling of behaviour to demand that people know they have consent before they do things, but for the most part, these women are engaging in System Justification. I would be surprised to learn that there are any women who believe obtaining consent is too constrictive to their own privileges, frankly. But either way, the only reason to put pursuit of your personal gratification over someone else’s right to bodily autonomy is a disregard for that person’s bodily autonomy; e.g., an argument for your privilege to do what you want to others, be damned the consequences.
It’s not like any of these intimate activities are ruled out by having to obtain consent, and it’s not like obtaining consent is an onerous requirement in any other social context. How is it so controversial in context of conventions that are about things OTHER THAN sex? How is it controversial, knowing that the language for the American Atheists’ policy that people have pushed back against was directly lifted from the OpenSF polyamory convention, where finding consenting partners for sex is, in fact, a large component of the convention itself?
Why is this hard?
It isn’t difficult, people are pretending it is difficult for any number of bad/hateful/dishonest reasons. On one end are the people who actually want the freedom to violate other people’s autonomy, and on the other are people who have tribal loyalty/animosity issues more than actually caring about the issue either way, and a mile of bullshit in between.
That “project” involved people wearing red or green stickers — red means you’re not allowed to even ask for consent to grope them, green means you can ask and the person can choose to consent or not. You’d think this might be a good idea for people who have no idea how to obtain consent for actions like that, but really, it’s a horrible way of doing this whole consent thing — it makes the convention very grope-focused, which has ripple effects on people who weren’t wearing stickers at all.
Yeah, they do that in many Muslim countries: A burqua, chador, abaya or veil means you want to be treated respectfully, anything less means you consent (in advance, sight-unseen) to whatever any guy wants to do to you. Great for the rapists, but a pretty horrible idea for everyone else.
Opponents to the anti-harassment policies don’t seem to understand: if you only engage in consensual behavior, you’ll have nothing to worry about. It isn’t like there’s going to be rules lawyers following everyone around asking for signed consent forms for each interaction. (And apparently, pointing this out is not hyperbole). Anti-harassment policies are meant to function as a PSA: some people don’t like to be touched, so don’t assume. If you don’t know, easiest way to find out is to just ask.
I’m still gobsmacked that this actually has to be explained to people…especially people who make being rational, critical thinkers such a big part of their identity.
But thanks for doing it again, and so well.
I’d like to play devil’s-advocate for a bit here, and offer this ramble on anti-harassment policies: the fact that an organization is even seriously discussing the adoption of such codes of conduct can be seen as a sign of weakness: it implies (rightly or wrongly) that a certain group of people don’t already agree on basic rules of manners, and therefore have to codify something basic that others already understand. And that gives assholes of all stripes an excuse to think “They don’t have rules, therefore I can do what I want and no one has a right to impose any rules on me!”
As a counter-example, imagine a pub — any sort of pub, yuppie, biker, singles, honky-tonk, go-go, nudie, whatever. On the one hand, they serve alcohol, and promise to be places where people can relax and cut loose, so there’s always a chance of people getting drunk and out of hand — starting fights over dates, groping, spilled beer, loud and thoughtless words, sports-team rivalries, personal hurt, and gods know what else. So you’d think pubs would have detailed codes of conduct posted all over so all their drunk customers can stay apprised of the rules.
On the other hand, they don’t actually have any such codes posted. If a bartender or waiter sees a sign of trouble (raised hostile voices, jostling, a female voice saying “get OFF me, you creep!” whatever), they signal a bouncer or three, and the bouncer(s) deal with the situation as they judge appropriate on the spot. No forms, no confirmation from management, no citation of chapter-and-verse, no debate about freedom vs. conformity; it’s just taken care of. And NO ONE questions the fairness of enforcing such non-specific unwritten rules, not even most of the people who get tossed out for breaking them. Why? Because everyone already has a pretty clear idea of how they’re supposed to act — it’s all just basic manners, which they got hammered into their heads starting in childhood, and even the assholes at least know there’ll be consequences for acting out of line, and tend to respect the visible enforcement of rules.
No, I’m not saying conventions like TAM should (or can) be run exactly like a pub. And no, I’m not saying they shouldn’t have explicit rules of conduct. In all honestly, I’m really not saying much of anything, just offering a perspective on how people enforce rules of conduct on their premises, and how such efforts may be seen and interpreted (or misinterpreted) by outsiders. Everyone knows you can get thrown out of a pub for acting in certain ways, so no one feels any need to make detailed lists of what’s right and wrong behavior; and anyone who tries to defend bad behavior by saying “You don’t have a specific rule against the particular thing I did, therefore you can’t throw me out for it” is simply laughed out of town.
I think what I’m saying is that, while conventions like TAM should make and enforce rules of conduct, they maybe shouldn’t make it look like a tough decision — because it really ISN’T a tough decision, it’s mostly basic manners, not some newfangled liberal/feminist speech code that has to be discussed because no one’s seen the like of it before; like be polite to others, don’t make rude comments about other people’s bodies or sex lives, don’t get nosey about private matters, don’t stare too overtly at a woman’s chest, don’t flash your dick at a stranger, that sort of thing.
People are social (and slightly hierarchical) creatures. We have social instincts, and I think that some forms of enforcement work because we understand and respect them on the instinctual level, without having to do a lot of reasoning about it. And I suspect that too much wordy deliberation over rules of conduct imply, on the social-animal-instinctual level, that a particular event doesn’t “really” have rules, and/or that whatever rules you see posted are open to question and debate. And thus we get a lot of assholes questioning and debating basic and necessary rules (which I’m sure they weren’t doing in their parents’ homes), and pretending they’re being “skeptical” and rules are “tyranny.”
This concludes my unorganized ramble…I guess…
Around 10 years ago, a legislator in the Minnesota legislature proposed a “People’s Right to Know Act”, which would have required written consent prior to any act of coitus. It didn’t pass – they passed the “woman’s right to get bad information about abortion” instead.
The whole bad faith argument also assumes that the policies are enforced by zero-tolerance robots of some sort. If some awkward guy (the most vulnerable people in the world apparently) thinks he’s flirting with someone and goes in for an unwelcome kiss, and it gets reported to the staff (very unlikely), they aren’t going to castrate him or anything. They wouldn’t even throw him out, if that was his only infraction. They’d make a note of it, and tell him not to do that in the future. The same is true for the awkward guy who offers a single unwelcome proposition. He’d at worst be told not to do that anymore. That’s not a huge deal (well if you followed Elevatorgate, it is I guess). The people interpreting these policies should be reasonable people that can tell a real harasser who needs to be removed from a awkward person making a mistake who needs to be corrected. Could there be borderline instances that people of good faith will disagree about? Sure, but that’s the case with every rule ever implemented in the history of humanity.
I think you all need to read Paula Kirby’s open letter on this topic. “The Sisterhood of the Oppressed”.
And now I shall be subjected to the usual insults and vitriol.
Comment by sc_35c267c004a51913836810b8c78b76cb blocked. [unkill][show comment]
*yawn*
They’re not even trying anymore, are they?
“I’m going to post a link to someone insulting you, add no content myself, and then ask you to call me names. Begin!”
*yawn*
Yes, but the important thing is, can I bite your leg?
“How is it controversial, knowing that the language for the American Atheists’ policy that people have pushed back against was directly lifted from the OpenSF polyamory convention, where finding consenting partners for sex is, in fact, a large component of the convention itself?”
1) HA!
2) Duh. We all know whether someone is ethical is 100% based on whether they fit with the patriarchal norms of Our Christian Nation, and that all sluts are inherently unethical. You just aren’t thinking about this right, Jason. The question isn’t “who asks for consent?” but “how would Jesus grope?” (HINT: Thunderfoot knows Jesus wouldn’t ask for consent!!!)
Because it calls us feminazis? Seriously, what reason could you post something like that unless you wanted to draw people to say “you’re wrong” and thus engage in “vitriol”?
Here’s a nice fisking of Paula Kirby’s nonsensical emotive argumentation against FtB and feminists in general. If you folks haven’t read her open letter, that’s a good place to start. (ZOMG HIVEMIND)
Okay, I’m mustering my best vitriol:
Would you care to distill which of the points from Kirby’s 11-page letter which you think are relevant?
Are you feeling properly hated and vitrioled now? I wouldn’t want to disappoint you.
Shorter Paula Kirby:
1. Feminazis!
2. Sexy times happen at all conferences.
3. You are tearing us apart!
4. Women are oppressing themselves.
5. If you are an activist you should be used to all the abuse by now.
6. Stop being hysterical!
As a guy, I would be very uncomfortable if a complete stranger initiated physical contact with me without my permission. It’s an invasion of personal space, an inconvenience and a super goddamn weird thing to do, even if that person is internet famous and you love their work.
Is this… Is this hard for people to grasp?
@ Raging Bee’s devil’s advocate #5
On the other hand, many do. Not necessarily a full code of conduct, but certainly reserving the right to kick people out.
The problem with this system (of knowing what gets you kicked out because Dave got kicked out for it last week) is that it is not preventative. Bars rely on security because they’re admitting they can’t prevent problems, and don’t mind kicking people out after they’ve spent money.
Conventions can’t work like that, therefore preventative measures such as codes of conduct are used. Since codes of conduct are pretty ubiquitous in workplaces, I think it takes a special kind of dickhead to think that is a sign of weakness, as in your first paragraph.
I think you raise a good point regarding the lengthiness/wordiness of a policy potentially reducing its effectiveness, but the ones I’ve read don’t seem too long or complex. Anyone parsing those policies for ways to beat the system would be a special kind of dickhead, and along with missing the point, they will likely end up missing the rest of the convention after they attempt to exploit any loopholes.
It’s quite amusing seeing this post immediately after “Gay marriage will result in sex with animals”. Both involve the same kind of wild illogic.
RE : “Opponents to the anti-harassment policies don’t seem to understand: if you only engage in consensual behavior, you’ll have nothing to worry about.”
I actually feel kind of the exact opposite. I feel it kind of insulting that I have to prove/agree that I’m not a creep.
Bottom line is – there are assholes in the world, we come in contact with them every day. Some of those assholes are going to be at conventions simply by the law of big numbers and averages. Maybe it’s just me, but as an adult, i’ve learned how to deal with those assholes. If somebody touches me in a way i’m not comfortable with – they’re going to get an earful. If it escalates – i’m going to go to someone (such as security at a conference, a bouncer at a bar, police in the general public, etc) to deal with it. That’s how grown ups act.
So I fail to see why I should be looked at as a potential creep simply because some people seem to fail to grasp these basic concepts of how to function in society. Your logic of “if you only engage in consensual behavior, you have nothing to worry about” is along the same lines as the police performing an illegal search and saying “if you’re not doing anything illegal you have nothing to hide”. Well – no, F that.
Take that one step further and throw in the talk about vast male conspiracies that are patting eachother on the back for keeping women down and promoting harassment, and it’s enough to make my eyes roll and turn me off to this entire community entirely. This whole thing is so blown up and over-dramatized it’s ridiculous, and is getting to the point i’m getting embarrassed to even admit I follow some of these blogs.
Ibi3 : I can see your point, but I would disagree a bit. What you’re talking about is along the lines of the same thinking that says passing laws prevents crime. People who are are decent and are going to follow the rules, don’t need to be told the rules in the first place. People who aren’t decent aren’t going to follow them anyways.
The rules we’re talking about are basic human decency. Basically decent people don’t need to be told not to grab asses that don’t want to be grabbed. People who are totally socially inept and have no game so to speak, don’t realize they’re doing anything wrong in the first place. People who are dirtbags that are just trying to hookup, and are completely disrespectful – oftentimes also don’t think they’re doing anything wrong. So what’s the point of all this? People are going to do what they’re going to do regardless. If somebody acts like a creep, throw their asses out – call security, whatever. No need for all the dramatics involved. Again, we all deal with these same issues on a daily basis in society. Why are conferences suddenly different?
Not to sound like a dick, but some people just need to grow the hell up and take care of themselves, and stop looking to everyone else to do it for ’em.
Bars rely on security because they’re admitting they can’t prevent problems, and don’t mind kicking people out after they’ve spent money.
Actually, they can and do prevent problems (not ALL problems of course) to the extent that everyone knows, or at least can strongly trust, that the bars will take action against misbehavior, and that everyone involved already understands and respects the same set of rules of behavior. Given that drinking in bars is a LOT more common than disorderly conduct in bars, it’s safe to say that there is some sort of preventive force at work there.
Since codes of conduct are pretty ubiquitous in workplaces, I think it takes a special kind of dickhead to think that is a sign of weakness, as in your first paragraph.
Well, there are all kinds of dickheads in this world, general and special — including imature asshats who think, or pretend to think, that “freethought” means no rules, rules mean fascism, and rules that make it harder for them to try to get laid are especially evil. Note all the whinery and bullshit going on here about anti-harassment policies.
Anyone parsing those policies for ways to beat the system would be a special kind of dickhead…
Like I said…
I feel it kind of insulting that I have to prove/agree that I’m not a creep.
It’s insulting to expect you not to act creepy? Because not acting creepy is the standard way of proving (or at least trying to show) that you’re not a creep.
sez noneedforaname: “I feel it kind of insulting that I have to prove/agree that I’m not a creep.”
Yeah, I feel for you, bro. It really is annoying that these harrassment policies demand that everyone who attends a conference has to read and sign an official, notarized statement that they won’t be a creep…
Oh.
Wait.
The harrassment policies don’t demand that anyone who attends a conference has to read and sign an official, notarized statement that they won’t be a creep. As best I can tell from the harrassment policies I’ve read, they don’t even mention any particular form of proving that one isn’t going to be a creep. In fact, it looks to me like the only form of ain’t-a-creep ‘proof’ which is being asked for, even by unwritten implication, is…
[wait for it]
…not acting like a creep. How awful! How draconian! How horribly much of an unjust imposition, how heinously much of an unendurable burden it is, to, you know, not engage in creepy behavior!
[shakes head] Dude whines about “how awful I gotta prove I’m not a creep” in the comment-thread of a post which explicitly denies that there’s any such thing as “harrassment policies requiring signed contsent forms in triplicate”? [shakes head again] Reading Comprehension: UR DOING IT RONG, NoNeedForAName.
The trick is to make all these people feel welcome and safe. At a certain point, the informal method doesn’t work anymore. You need something that sets clear guidelines for attendees, and a means of reporting people who aren’t acting like decent human beings so they can be removed.
Understood. I guess the point I’m trying to get to is that when making rules of conduct, organizers should try to emphasize that the rules are nothing really new, but based on rules of conduct that are already common knowledge, and no one has any excuse to act like a new and alien set of rules is being imposed from the planet Vulcan or something.
I was thinking of writing a blog post myself on this issue, but I’ll just touch on what I want to say here. I’m pretty floored at this whole “You mean I have to ask? Well that’s no better than having the Taliban running things” reaction. It’s so preposterous it’s sickening.
The religious community that I no longer belong to is the Pagan community. If you think atheists are generally sex-positive sans religious puritanism, well multiply that by factors of a quijillion to account for a religion that not only permits sex but celebrates it. It’s not uncommon for Pagan gatherings (usually festivals rather than conferences) to involve people walking around naked. Dancing naked. Drinking (lots) and doing drugs (pot & ‘shrooms etc.) (sometimes). There were often parties following religious rituals and some of them got quite, shall we use the term “fun”. Even casual greetings between acquaintances tended to be more physical than is the norm in regular society.
And you know what? They fucking have sexual harassment policies. Stronger policies than even what I’ve seen proposed for secular conferences in the past couple of weeks.
Here’s a recent sample:
When I was involved over the course of about ten years (almost a decade ago!), we ousted three people from all events (all organised by different people without official bureaucracies in place) in the community in the province. It’s not that hard folks, and it won’t stop enthusiastic sex from happening.
Re: Bee & quentinlong –
actually, if you bothered to read what I was saying, the bigger point is that all of this discussion and drama is frankly silly and not just a little embarrassing. It’s sad that such supposedly intellectual people have to have this big weeks long discussion about basic personal interactions.
Maybe I should have been a bit more clear on my comment about proving/agreeing about being creepy. I find it offensive that some feel the need to even have to post policies or a public notice about it, or that it’s even a serious topic of discussion.
The implication being that I have to be told how to act in public. I’ve managed to act right for over 30 years without some meaningless event organizer or group telling me what to do – I think I can handle a few days in their presence.
While this post might not recommend policies requiring people to sign an acknowledgement – it has actually been mentioned elsewhere (i’m not going to bother digging up the links, but if you poke around it’s not hard to find). That to me is super BS – and from the sound of things people around here seem to agree. So what’s the problem?
re: “Understood. I guess the point I’m trying to get to is that when making rules of conduct, organizers should try to emphasize that the rules are nothing really new, but based on rules of conduct that are already common knowledge, and no one has any excuse to act like a new and alien set of rules is being imposed from the planet Vulcan or something.”
And that’s kind of the heart of what I find slightly insulting. As if somehow I’ve been stumbling along in life all this time. Thank god for someone telling me the “rules of conduct” or I wouldn’t know WHAT to do with myself.
@NNfAN @27: It’s not totally for your benefit (or the benefit of would-be harassers) to know what is reasonably expected so that you don’t mess up. It’s mainly for people who have a vested interest in not being harassed by those whose concept of harassment is not congruent with what you or I would consider the ‘norm.’ It won’t prevent harassment, but it is a sign that the organisers will take proactive steps to address complaints of harassment. Having their definition of harassment, and the groups it can apply to, prevents ambiguity when enforcing these decisions.
Passing a law against stealing isn’t offensive. If I walk into a steakhouse however, and the waitress tells me if I steal anything they’re going to call the police -i’m probably going to turn around and leave. I’m not a thief – but the fact that I’m automatically cast in that light for no reason, is kind of annoying.
It’s the implication that everyone is a potential offender, and must be reminded to keep themselves inline. It’s a nanny-state mentality and i reject it entirely.
Noneedforaname: good. So you stay away from conventions that have policies, and neither of us will have to worry about running into one another.
I’m not putting anybody down. Yes, there are those assholes out there. Yes, they need to be dealt with. “Don’t be creepy” should go without saying. Having someone come give you a talking to or kick your ass out for being creepy also goes without saying. I don’t need that reminder. The vast mast majority of people don’t need to be told. I just find it annoying that some people find it necessary to have to remind the entire male population not to rape or harass.
I wonder how he feels about “Shoplifter Will Be Prosecuted”…
Of course I mean *consensual* enthusiastic sex.
Oh, and Raging Bee? The informal Pub Type Harassment Policy might work out okay in small groups or where some individual’s property rights come into play (i.e. this is my business/home/vehicle and I don’t like what you’re doing so you have to leave or I’m calling the cops). However, you’re now talking about gatherings that can have a few hundred people in attendance congregating in different venues, some more private than others. You’re also talking about a mixed purpose event–some people are there mainly to hear speakers, others to socialise, and others to have more intimate fun. The trick is to make all these people feel welcome and safe. At a certain point, the informal method doesn’t work anymore. You need something that sets clear guidelines for attendees, and a means of reporting people who aren’t acting like decent human beings so they can be removed. Consequently, people who don’t want to be removed will be more likely to act like decent human beings. And people contemplating whether to go or not will know that decent behaviour is expected and bad behaviour isn’t condoned, tolerated, or met with baffled confusion on the part of organisers.
Because clearly only straight white cisgendered men can harass, therefore it’s all a conspiracy against the dick-having white bros. You do know that “harassment based on gender” applies both ways right? That “sexual preference” is a neutral term that applies equally in both directions? That if you were harassed by a bunch of people for being a straight white male, then you would be protected by the same policies you think we have no need for?
So just out of curiosity. What do people do when they go to a movie theater? The grocery store? Any large public place where people might gather? I’m not aware of any movie theaters or grocery stores that have posted sexual harassment policies. Are those place somehow unsafe?
As far as the no smoking sign – the no smoking sign makes sense (or did at one point) since smoking was the national past time in this country for so long, and in some places smoking is still a generally accepted thing to do, even at dinner.
Shoplifters will be prosecuted – if you’re at a store, where the entire purpose of the establishment is for people to buy things, it at least makes sense given the context of the environment.
I just find this whole issue completely over the top. The drama, the accusations,the endless discussion. It’s simple – if there’s a problem, handle it. People shouldn’t need a policy to know how to act right, and inversely people shouldn’t need policies to know how to handle someone who’s not acting right.
Iis3 – if we want to be PC about it – you’re right. It’s not only men who harass. In the context of this discussion, and who’s brought the issue up and what those concerns are – we can drop the PC act and be honest about it. I mean hell, people are even talking about how women’s participation to TAM is down in part due to harassment. If that’s not a condemnation I don’t know what is. If you want to be PC and say it applies to everybody – great, you’re right, it applies to everybody – but again, let’s be honest who’s in mind in the birth of these discussions.
Second, I have, and do. I’ve had more than a few conversations with overly aggressive idiots over the years, and didn’t need any policy or established protocol to know to do so.
Third – no, it’s not all about me. I know that. For me it’s about a certain mentality that’s persistent in society these days. The idea that everyone is potentially a _______. Fill in the blank depending on context. That just kind of irks me, and this, I feel, is an example of that.
I’d like to live in that perfect world too. But since we don’t, I’ll settle for a policy as a measure of confidence that if I were to be harassed the situation would be handled in a fair and ecumenical manner.
And who says the policy does a damn bit of good? I’m not aware of policies at conferences having any legally binding authority, or there’s any requirement that those policies even be enforced. Hell – look at comment #7 – seems like all it’s going to do is provide a gentle reminder in most cases anyways.
The people who feel encouraged by the policy that they will not have to endure harassment. It’s not a placebo policy. I looked at #7. Penn is right – the enforcement of rules throughout history have been dealt with based on severity and number of occurrences. This doesn’t mean the policies are ineffective.
Does passing a law against theft make you feel insulted or make you think you have to go around proving to everyone that you’re not a thief?
I suspect not. Nor do you feel insulted by rules against keeping slaves or beating people up, right? Do you feel that traffic lights are an affront to your dignity?
So, apparently, if you’re not a bank robber, the laws against robbery are irrelevant to you and damage your ego not a whit. In the same way, if you’re not a creep, the rules about sexual harassment are not meant for you. They ought to be irrelevant, not offensive.
Again, if you can ward off most sexual harassers by your magical powers and deal with the remainder by means of your golden voice or access to whatever security personnel that may be nearby, then that’s fantastic. The reporting procedures aren’t meant for you. Again, they ought to be irrelevant to you, not offensive.
Carry on and leave the rest of us to make these events safer for us by means that work towards that end on a daily basis in society.
@#42 : In this case, I don’t think a PC claim is out of line. It’s the most appropriate term I could think of. This entire discussion revolves around women who have been sexually harassed by men, and feel that policies need to be put in place to protect them. Coming back and claiming that it’s not about men after the fact is completely dishonest. Claiming it applies to everyone so nobody gets offended is the very definition of PC.
If you’re okay with that level of dishonesty – don’t come at me trying to give me a talk on credibility. If it’s targeted at men, it’s targeted at men. Fine, whatever. Just be honest about it was my point.
To be honest – I have a hard time taking some of you seriously. You seem to think that some words on a piece of paper hold any meaning whatsoever. let me give you an example. Murder is illegal. However, if I have to drive through a shitty neighborhood late at night, i’m still going to fear for my safety. I know if something happens the police will investigate it and deal with it – but I’ve been around the block enough to know that someone that kill me doesn’t give a shit about the law. What you’re saying is that because somebody puts something on paper – all is right in the world. That’s simply not the case.
To me – part of this whole “free thinking” movement is not just about thinking for yourself, but acting for yourself. If you have a problem, handle it. If somebody threatens you, go to the proper authorities (which news flash, is exactly what TAM organizers are going to do if someone needs to be removed – go to venue security)
Now I can already picture the “blame the victim” or “attacking the victim” responses i’m going to get – but I disagree. I think it’s empowering the victim to know that they don’t have to rely on someone else. Knowing that one is capable of affecting their own safety without having to run to a middle man. I think it’s kind of belitting to talk to people like “oh – don’t worry, we’ll take care of it for you”. I think there should be a lot more encouragement for people to stand up for themselves, and take their own safety and security into their own hands, instead of turning that responsibility over to a legally powerless 3rd party.
But hey – that’s just me.
I find it offensive that some feel the need to even have to post policies or a public notice about it, or that it’s even a serious topic of discussion.
I don’t find the feelings of the people who need such policies offensive. I find it offensive that not everyone seems to be able to act decently without such policies. You’re blaming the wrong people, in other words. We have laws and rules and such because some people are creeps and assholes and assaulters and rapists. They need to be told how to behave and how not to behave. We need to have people to handle them when they don’t behave well. Why are you putting down the people who want to be able to participate just as free of care as you instead of the assholes who can’t seem to act with a minimum of respect for others?
“The implication that everyone is a potential offender,” “The idea that everyone is a ____”: They are. Can’t know ’til we open the box…
As others have said, why doesn’t NN4N direct his anger where it can actually matter–run along and go fix that ostensible minority of “creeps” who are giving NN4Ns and his non-creepy ilk a bad name?
But really? The whinging about PC and drama and why we need rules since most people are decent donchaknow is just a smokescreen for what’s really the issue: the barely (if even) obscured assumption in NN4ANs comments that harassment isn’t a problem. Doesn’t really happen and when lightning strikes and it does happen a “victim” ought to just man up and handle it herself. Jesus, aren’t we done with that shitty argument and attitude?
Campbell – I never said it’s not a problem. In fact I’ve said quite the opposite a number of times.
I just find it utterly confusing that people rally against someone thinking for them (such as in the case of religion) – yet when it comes to physical safety, they look to others for protection.
And not just others – but a body that is legally powerless, and frankly useless when it comes to providing any type of real physical security.
Look at it this way:
You go out to dinner. You come out of the restaurant and find somebody broke into your car.
Do you:
a) go back into the restaurant and demand the manager track down the thief and do something.
b) call the police.
Event organizers are not law enforcement. They have zero legal authority to do anything. If they want someone physically removed from the venue, legally they have to go to a licensed security agent to do so. If some big guy just grabs the offender and throws him out – even if it’s at the direction of event organizers, it’s assault. So what is their purpose actually? They are not law enforcement, They are not licensed security professionals. They have ZERO authority whatsoever to do anything. So why not deal with it by going straight to someone who DOES have some authority and CAN deal with it appropriately?
Frankly, letting such a powerless body deal with issues like this lets offenders off easily. Go to someone with real legal authority, and there might be real legal consequences for the offenders.
That’s not saying there’s not a problem – that’s saying it IS a problem, and should be addressed a bit more seriously than a stupid freakin piece of paper that isn’t worth using it to wipe.
If the server singles you and only you out, yeah, I could see where that might be insulting. But that’s not what’s happening. It’s more like a sign on the door saying “No Smoking”. No one’s assuming that anyone decent like you would be so crass as to smoke while other people are trying to eat. But the restaurant sometimes attracts people who aren’t like you and would think nothing of blowing smoke in the direction of the asthmatic child at the next table. That is, if there weren’t such a sign. And, hey, there’s an added bonus. If someone does light up, the parent of that kid can point to the sign and say “There’s no smoking in here, thanks.” and if that doesn’t do the trick, they can report to the management who can kick the offender out.
But you know, the more you whinge about how offensive and embarrassing anti-harassment policies are, the more I think that you’re exactly the kind of asshole they’re directed at.
NNFN:
It’s not all about you.
I just find it annoying that some people find it necessary to have to remind the entire male population not to rape or harass.
First, no one thinks it necessary to have to remind the entire male population not to harass. But we don’t know who needs the reminder and who doesn’t, so we remind everyone. In the same breath, organisers indicate that they actually care and will do something when harassers do their thing. That’s a big deal since there’s such a problem for victims of harassment to be taken seriously. (And no one thinks that all rapists or harassers are male, by the way–you’re strawmanning.)
Second, why don’t you direct your annoyance at the harassers and rapists instead of the people who don’t want to be harassed or the people who inform everyone that people don’t want to be harassed?
It’s called living in society you nitwit. You fucking “self reliant” libertarian types are ridiculous.
No – if I was being a self reliant libertarian type – I’d suggest a nice glock to deal with the problem. I’m saying when people do something borderline (or sometimes even outright) illegal – they should be held accountable. Event organizers lack the power to provide that accountability, and have a vested interest in avoiding the PR nightmare that calling the police might create.
Event Coordinators are trying to create an event. That’s their job.
Police are there to “protect and serve” the public. That’s their job.
Let them both do what they’re best at.
And having policies helps them do their job.