TAM’s harassment policy was secret. Why?

One of the biggest victories I was really, truly hoping for in the harassment policies campaign came to pass. But rather than crowing about it like I did with the American Atheists and CFI policies, I can barely fathom what’s going on and can’t bring myself to celebrate at all. TAM’s harassment policy appears to have come to pass in one of those strange “but you won’t like it” sort of ways, like we’d all been wishing on a Monkey’s Paw instead of making cogent arguments for these policies.

I honestly hoped that DJ Grothe and/or other powers-that-be at JREF would realize that the people DJ claimed are trying to hurt The Amazing Meeting by discussing the harassment they’d experienced, and proposing countermeasures, were instead trying to help TAM, and him, rectify the situation. I had hoped that DJ et al would come to understand that it was not about painting his specific convention as an “unsafe space“, but rather as a place that SHOULD be better than background levels of harassment but WASN’T.

But, until now, nobody has shown any indication that harassment was being taken seriously. In fact, it looked quite a bit like they’d decided harassment policies themselves were the problem, when they removed all mention of the weak-tea and toothless policy that had existed the year prior.

Then a tweet tipped us off.

[blackbirdpie id=”224283317732777984″]

(@Maria_Myrback Yes. For others’ info, volunteers had training on proper process to follow if any kind of harassment is reported at ‪#tam2012)

The reply:

[blackbirdpie id=”224281865090105344″]

(@ErikB120 Thanks Eric. People need to know we have a process in place for handling harassment ‪#tam2012)

An easier way to show people that a process was in place for handling harassment would be to include information about your harassment policy in the hand-out literature, on the website, or even mentioning in the introduction ceremony that harassment isn’t tolerated and to report harassment to TAM staff. That’s how you get the word out to people that you have a process in place — you tell them yourself.

As though that wasn’t enough, Surly Amy provided Ophelia with the following quote, with the relevant details bolded by me:

I think one of the most hurtful things I experienced while attending TAM was Harriet Hall’s Tshirt that she wore three days in a row. I told her through tears, in the speakers’ lounge, that it was dehumanizing and gender/color blind and very hurtful to me specifically as a person who does have to deal with harassment regularly. I said I was glad she felt safe and that I wouldn’t have sent 22 women to the event if I didn’t think it was safe for them either. So who was she talking to?

I felt that it was a personal attack (whether or not intended as such) since I was the main public representative of Skepchick at the event and it said ‘skepchick’ on her shirt and I told her that. I know she had a right to wear that shirt even though it was hurtful. But one day would have been enough when she was at the podium to send her message. To continue wearing it every single day, especially after I had expressed how upset I was with it, was cruel and shortsighted to say the least. That was very, very disappointing since I used to have a lot of respect for her. But there were so many detractors there that I’m sure she was getting a lot of love for slamming “skepchicks” everyday, and so my feelings were the minority and so became irrelevant.

It’s this kind of dehumanizing and angry sports-fan mentality that is driving people like me away from this group of skeptics. And I am one of the people actually doing something quantifiable with the grants (which I plan on continuing to do btw.) Seriously, imagine if half the energy used to make angry shirts and fake websites were dedicated to helping me send women to science events or to do any sort of good in this movement. We could change the world. Skeptics are supposed to fight back against psychics and scam artists, they aren’t supposed to make people like me cry and leave events early. We need to stop the harassment and hate and this sort of instigating should not be tolerated by a group of rationalists. It is certainly not going to be tolerated by me.

There was definitely an us against them feeling that I personally experienced at the event, with groups of people who wouldn’t get within 10 feet of my table. Many identifiable online FtB- and Skepchick-detractors and their friends. Oh and there were undercover harassment people, which just seemed so strange and creepy to me. I was told there were 19 people secretly monitoring the event for harassment but no public policy or message on how to report incidents other than some info hidden on the JREF website under FAQs that I never saw. I only found out about this after I was in tears in the speakers’ lounge with a few people and suddenly a super-secret harassment specialist team was brought in to talk with me. After I reported to them that the TAM twitter feed with the anonymous blogging from the event and Harriet’s shirt had upset me to the point of wanting to leave, I had security cameras trained on me and my table where I sat with my mother the entire time. A security/harassment person checked on me regularly. They said I was being monitored and recorded. It was intended, I was told, to help me feel safe but instead it just exacerbated the stress I felt. I changed my flight and left a day early.

That’s not how you deal with harassment. That’s — dare I risk Godwinning our conversation? — too much like secret police, too much like Stasi spies. Is this anything like what we asked for? Did we ask for people to be treated to their own personal SWAT team and 24/7 surveillance whenever they reported that they were being mistreated by someone? Well, I sure as hell didn’t at least.

And what did the JREF and DJ gain from this course of action, by proving that they’re taking harassment seriously while simultaneously creeping the harassed right the fuck out? Is it that they simply don’t want to admit that maybe they should have a code of conduct, or a harassment policy, in place after all, and all those people they’ve been yelling at and whipping furore up against were right? Is it that this would be too much of an admission that everyone at JREF, from the top down, fucked this one up way too badly and they just wanted to deal with the problem without admitting they were wrong to deny the problem in the first place?

I can’t even begin to speculate why some people in our community would twist themselves into knots to root for Pamela Gay’s inspiring anti-harassment speech at TAM, and try to ferret out harassment in our community though by the most secretive and creepy means imaginable, while simultaneously calling us Freethought Bloggers “bullies” and “stasi” out of the sides of their mouths. All because we dared suggest that we should all do something about the harassment in our communities. How do rationalists square that? How do you overcome that level of cognitive dissonance?

I’ll say it again: I can’t even begin to speculate. I’ve tried. I simply can’t.

Update: In the comments, UAJamie relates another incident that I strongly recommend you read.

Update 2: More clarity from Surly Amy over at Ophelia’s.

{advertisement}
TAM’s harassment policy was secret. Why?
{advertisement}

258 thoughts on “TAM’s harassment policy was secret. Why?

  1. 151

    *sigh*

    julian:

    I went looking and I am sorry Amy but you need to get a backbone

    Mind if I tear yours out and give it to her?

    Dude, I get where you’re coming from here — a place of righteous anger — but maybe it’s time you took that break you were suggesting.

    I’m pretty much going to call the harassment policies campaign an unmitigated victory and ignore DJ and TAM and JREF from now on. Let them fade into obscurity for all their concerted efforts to that end.

  2. 152

    @Jason Thibeault, 152:

    “I’m pretty much going to call the harassment policies campaign an unmitigated victory and ignore DJ and TAM and JREF from now on. Let them fade into obscurity for all their concerted efforts to that end.”

    I think in the end, you’re quite likely right.

  3. 153

    @Niki M:

    And what’s with the “you gotta grow a backbone and get over it” bullshit? Never mind the sheer sexist implications (cause bitches be havin’ emotions, amirite?), but when did it become a bad thing to be affected by a near direct – fuck it, a direct – slight against you?

    There’s a certain type of skeptic that pretends that having strong feelings about things they don’t care about automatically invalidates your viewpoint. Being personally emotionally involved means you’re automatically wrong, in a warped version of “skepticism” that can only exist from a place of false objectivity and ignoring the reality of other human beings as people.

  4. 154

    julian says: (in response to my “I went looking and I am sorry Amy but you need to get a backbone”)

    Mind if I tear yours out and give it to her?

    How civilised! Instead of a reasonable argument against my opinion, which I am perfectly prepared to accept may be wrong, I get threatened with physical violence. The art of debate is obviously not lost here.

  5. 155

    I love that second tweet. “People need to know we have a process in place for handling harassment.” Do they? Do they really need to know? Because if they did, if it was something the attendees needed to know, it might be useful for that knowledge to be, I don’t know, posted somewhere. Somewhere other than, say, a Twitter feed.

    John @136:

    I went looking and I am sorry Amy but you need to get a backbone

    I’m curious: what’s the response of someone with “a backbone” in this case? Is it to sit in silence, suffering a chilly climate expressed explicitly on the back of a t-shirt worn (for multiple days) by someone you considered a friend, colleague, and hero? Is it to let people on the Internet dictate to you what you are and are not allowed to take offense at? Is it having your genuine feelings, emotions, and responses dismissed as weakness and hypersensitivity?

    I would think, and this is just me, that the response of a person with “a backbone” would be to confront the friend and colleague wearing the shirt that directly insults you and paints you as some kind of outside “other,” something shameful to identify as. I would think a person with backbone might tell the person wearing that shirt how it made them feel, and how hurtful it was, and what kind of message they were sending (and what kind of climate they were contributing to) by wearing it. I would think a person with “a backbone” might, while acknowledging the t-shirt-wearer’s right to wear such a t-shirt, explain that it was mean-spirited and kind of a jerk thing to do.

    Man, if only Surly Amy had done any of that.

  6. 156

    You know… this is all sort of a shame. JREF has done some good things, and people have had great times at TAM. My wife and I have always wanted to go, you know? And now this is threatening to become their legacy, because of what? Because they can’t take criticism from their friends? Because they value their “freedom” from rules more than making people feel safe and comfortable? Because some few of them in power have maybe been honestly singled out as engaging in harassing behavior, and they’d rather sink the reputation of JREF/TAM than give up their privilege?

    Whatever the reasons, they have been given a dozen opportunities to turn things around, and they keep choosing to double down.

  7. 157

    More related to the post: that has to be the single stupidest way imaginable to deal with harassment complaints.

    That is what happens when you don’t listen to people who are actually experiencing harassment! What a surprise, DJG didn’t understand the problem because he refused to listen to women about harassment, also refused to listen to women on how to solve it.

    He doesn’t think we are credible in all this, period.

  8. 158

    John says:

    julian says: (in response to my “I went looking and I am sorry Amy but you need to get a backbone”)

    Mind if I tear yours out and give it to her?

    How civilised!

    How predictable! Instead of responding to any of the several reasoned responses to your tripe, you chose to highlight the one abusive response and treat it as if it was typical of all the responses you received.

    Nobody’s surprised by this, and nobody’s fooled by you.

  9. 162

    @Improbably Joe

    There’s a certain type of skeptic that pretends that having strong feelings about things they don’t care about automatically invalidates your viewpoint.

    Oooh, the Vulcan brand of skeptics?

    Yeah, fuck a whole bowl of that.

  10. 163

    Yeah, “Vulcan skeptics”… except that the dress their own extreme emotional reactions and obsessive hate towards their enemies in a mask of objectivity. Real indifference and lack of emotional involvement would preclude their need to constantly snipe at people.

  11. 164

    If you are going to complain about an organisation then I am afraid you need to man up and accept that not everyone will agree with you and that they may even get t-shirts that attack your organisation.

    Man up?

    FFS

    Look – I “accept” that I’m going to have bad days at work or that someone might flick me off while I’m driving or that one of my children might pee on me when I change their diaper. That doesn’t mean I have to like it or shut up about it.

    “Man up” is just a stupid way of saying “suppress your feelings” – because y’know “Boys don’t cry”.

    It’s just another conflation of “male”, “non-emotional” and “rational”.

  12. 165

    Right, seems like all the “get a backbone” and “she’s so hypersensitive” skeptics, just a few days ago, were all “what if someone falsely accuses me?” and “I like being looked at as a potential rapist!”

  13. 166

    Tom Foss (156)

    I am quite aware of what Amy did, exactly the right thing.

    She confronted Harriet and expressed her point of view. Harriet then had several options to choose from, she could have apologised and replaced the shirt as soon as possible, she could have said i don’t agree with what your organisation is doing but out of respect I will remove the shirt when I can or she could be obnoxious and say “stuff you, I don’t respect your point of view and just to rub it in I will continue wearing this shirt even if it does leave me smelling like a skunk at the end of the weekend”

    I think she made the wrong choice but in the end it was her right to make that choice.

    Unless you can convince me that the skepchicks have been completely uncritical of TAM then I have to accept that some supporters of TAM might wish to be critical of the Skepchicks. Amy should have accepted the criticism, ruled Harriet off her Christmas card list, and ignore her for the rest of the weekend.

  14. 167

    Jason: thanks for the attempted fix – “How civilized!” is also quoting John though. Sorry for borkquote fail.

    John: yes, I did read #150. Should have known to quote the rest of your comment at #155 for specifics.

    Instead of a reasonable argument against my opinion, which I am perfectly prepared to accept may be wrong, I get threatened with physical violence. The art of debate is obviously not lost here.

    These two sentences are ambiguous, and could easily be inferred as assertions that there had been no reasonable arguments against your opinion “here” on this blog as a whole.

    It has been frequently observed that some interlocutors on blogs use such semantic deficits in clarity as features of their rhetoric rather than bugs, usually for the purposes of plausibly deniable obfuscation, and I’m reserving judgement right now as to whether you are one of them.

  15. 168

    Would it be fair to say that’s what this approach seems to be better geared for?

    Oh yeah.

    This approach is the opposite of encouraging people to report harassment, doesn’t allow those who have experienced harassment to choose the level or type of support they might receive, and does nothing to prevent it in the first place.

    I’m just saying – it’s more helpful to focus on what actually happened, what was done, and what the policy is – than focusing on what people were thinking or what they might do in the future.

  16. 169

    Amy should have accepted the criticism, ruled Harriet off her Christmas card list, and ignore her for the rest of the weekend.

    As far as I know that is exactly what she did. Please correct me if anyone knows different or if I missed something.

    In fact, the problem that a lot of people are pointing out here is that Amy was not given a choice as to how TAM responded to her being upset. She instigated nothing with the staff concerning the shirt, she was simply upset by it and doesn’t think that other people should think treating her badly is good.

  17. 170

    Tigtog, thank you for your clarification. I accept that my comeback against Julian could have been interpreted in the manner you state, however it was not intended as such.

    The bulk of the blog I agree with, I find the actions and attitudes of the JREF and their harassment policy at TAM deplorable. I hope DJ Grothe accepts that he has been wrong on this issue and corrects the matter before the next TAM and if not that Randi takes responsibility and replaces DJ as soon as possible.

    However I still consider Amy’s reaction to be overly emotional and feel she should have accepted the criticism, ignored it and got on with the conference.

  18. 171

    Instead of a reasonable argument against my opinion,

    You don’t get a reasonable argument when your opinion is “grow a backbone”. Make a reasoned opinion, and you might get a reasonable argument in return. GIGO.

  19. 172

    John #171:

    However I still consider Amy’s reaction to be overly emotional and feel she should have accepted the criticism, ignored it and got on with the conference.

    You appear to be conflating Amy’s actual contained reaction to the t-shirt at TAM itself with the large online WTF reaction to the t-shirt.

    Amy has been very clear that HH’s t-shirt was simply the single hostile conduct incident which was clearly visible to everybody, and definitely was not the only, nor the most upsetting, hostile conduct incident she faced during her days at TAM2012.

    Amy did just “get on with the conference” for another two days after she discussed the t-shirt with HH. She admits to being in tears during that discussion, but there’s no indication that she stayed in tears for the whole rest of her time at TAM2012.

  20. 173

    John, if you considered that a threat of violence you’ve lead a very sheltered life. In the real world that was merely a somewhat sarcastic remark.

  21. 174

    Carlie

    My opinion was given in my original post, that Harriet Hall, under freedom of speech was perfectly at liberty to wear whatever she wanted. I have attempted to clarified my opinion in subsequent posts.

    I admit that I am an emotionless heartless male.

    I also accept that Amy’s reaction to the shirt is a very minor point in this blog and probably the least important aspect of it.

    My problem with Amy’s reaction being put out there is in my opinion it is detrimental to the main issue.

    Thunderf00t, (cursed be his name), has already linked to a video on this issue and to be frank it does not put Amy in a good light when you compare her tearful reaction, to the actual words on the shirt, which without any of the context, does seem completely inoffensive. Amy’s tearful reaction is in effect being used as an argument against her view on the harassment issue.

  22. 175

    -sigh- That’s fucking it. This isn’t some damn co-evolution of the assholes at TAM and a badly implemented policy.

    We have a policy that was done completely wrong. Exactly wrong. Wrong in every way possible. Wrong in every way that any article on chilly climate will tell you is wrong. Wrong in every way that every single other harassment policy in use does the exact opposite of this.

    Then you have Harriet Hall’s shirt, worn either for the duration, or (and this would be worse) not on the last day, which was the day after Amy left.

    And now an account of someone being full-out interrogated. I guess speaker status does convey some privilege, since Amy apparently didn’t quite get that. We hope.

    All of this, furthermore, falls perfectly in line with DJ’s original statements about the complaints being the problem, not the harassers.

    This reeks.

  23. 176

    bubba707

    I have lead a very sheltered life, but no, I did not take the “threat” seriously. I have seen some of the threats that many women bloggers have had to put up with and they make me ashamed to be male.

    My comment was intended to be a gentle nudge away from that sort of debate which can escalate to no useful purpose. however rereading my comment I accept it was misguided and would have been better not made.

  24. 177

    John, perhaps you should take the lack of context up with Thunderf00t. It’s hardly Amy’s fault that his reaction to getting a copyright violation note from Amy is to try to smear her on video.

  25. 178

    John:
    1. Amy did not break down in tears solely because of that shirt. She has stated more than once that there were many people harassing her, and that although TAM attempted to do something about it, their actions just made it worse.

    2. Please see this comment for a nice rundown of the wearing of the shirt and what Harriet did and didn’t seem to know about it.

    3. It’s not just about that one incident. It’s the overall acceptance and encouragement of a chilly climate towards women in general.

    4. JREF was concerned in the first place about female attendance. They were told what to do, by women who were likely to go but hadn’t yet, what to do. They did not do it. In fact, what they did ended up driving one of their biggest supporters home early. You can argue whether you think she “deserved” to have that reaction or not, but the fact is that she did. If they wish not to drive big supporters like her away, they need to change what they’re doing. They can claim some kind of ideological purity and stand their ground and refuse to if they want, but then they shouldn’t complain if those big supporters take their efforts elsewhere in the future.

  26. 179

    John, #175, wrote:

    Amy’s tearful reaction is in effect being used as an argument against her view on the harassment issue.

    Which is handy in a way, since we can now assume that pretty much everyone who accepts that ‘argument’ as in any way valid is either a dishonest asshole or an ignorant fool who should be treated as such.

  27. 180

    On top of the issues others have taken with what you’ve said, John, I must absolutely take issue with:

    I admit that I am an emotionless heartless male.

    Coupled with:

    Man up

    Nobody knows what kind of lie that is like a feminist who wants to end the falsehood of societally enforced rigid gender roles. Don’t do that again.

    And the disingenuous “cursed be his name” as though you can’t disagree with someone without also enacting some kind of jihad against them? Yeah, don’t do that either.

  28. 181

    The original question in this post: “TAM’s harassment policy was secret. Why?”

    Again, just thinking out loud here, apologies for stating the obvious and re-stating what others have said. I am relying on what has been said on the Internet for these speculations, and we all know how reliable that can be, so get your bag of salt and keep it handy as you read.

    The only way this makes sense is to look at what a policy is. What most people think of when they hear “sexual harassment policy” is the general description of what is considered unacceptable behavior. Unfortunately, that’s not the case; those are the “policy goals,” or what the policy is hoping to prevent. The full policy includes the description of what situations are to be responded to with particular actions by the staff, and how those incidents are to be documented, and what the escalation paths are. The actual goals of the policy for the institution are not necessarily stated in the policy goals that are presented (i.e. the standards of behavior that are a no-no).

    The actions taken and the secrecy involved make sense if the institutional goals, or what JREF wants to accomplish strategically with a policy that focuses on observation of the person making the complaint* that I see connecting cleanly with the actions described above are twofold.

    1. To demonstrate that the “squeaky wheels” are not being harassed in order to stifle any attempt at litigation for negligence or discrimination (or whatever) by the amorphous mass of #FTBullies etc.

    2. To demonstrate that JREF is taking seriously its reputation and the charges leveled against it, and is not “taking this lying down.”

    In short, makes sense if you are coming from the perspective of someone who feels embittered, unappreciated, henpecked, slandered, and besieged. It makes sense if you feel you are the organizer and you feel you have been unjustly persecuted, and are acting to defend yourself. In short, this is a policy to prevent JREF from being harassed, not a policy to prevent its attendees from being sexually (or otherwise) harassed.

    This is majorly fucked up. I would appreciate it if someone could demonstrate that I am wrong, or (depressingly) confirm that my guess is right.

    * and again, I’m thinking out loud here, speculation disclaimer, etc., but this is insane.

  29. 182

    Carlie

    Thank you for the links.

    You will get no argument from me that the behaviour towards Amy was despicable or that Harriet Hall behaved like a jerk.

    But I still contest that Skepchicks and FTB have been critical of TAM. Rightly so in my opinion, but critical nonetheless.

    When you criticise someone they have a tendency to fight back. Harriet Hall appears to have decided to fight back in a particularly immature and spiteful way and unfortunately many others at TAM were similarly nasty.

    I am not condoning the behaviour of those at TAM towards Amy, but given the criticism Skepchicks have made against TAM Amy should have anticipated a backlash.

  30. 183

    I am not condoning the behaviour of those at TAM towards Amy, but given the criticism Skepchicks have made against TAM Amy should have anticipated a backlash.

    I just think it’s sad that they can’t see constructive criticism for what it is and take it like adults. Even if they do fundamentally disagree with the notion of harassment policies, or of making it a safer place to be, their arguments to the contrary have been nonexistent, consisting solely of “nuh-uh” and “it’s your fault” and “you suck”.

  31. 185

    Based on this incident, I know which side I’m choosing. I won’t be attending any TAM events* and have done my best to dissuade friends from doing so.

    Let them twist on their own petard.

    *(I’ve only been to about four skeptic events in the past two years, most of them about as distant as this TAM was from me. I plan to attend more; just not TAM.)

  32. 186

    …but given the criticism Skepchicks have made against TAM…
    Gosh I wish someone would criticize ME by helping support and publicize and fundraise for me.

  33. 187

    @ Jason Thibeault

    I am emotionless and heartless, and I happen to be male.

    Harriet Hall appears to be vindictive and heartless and is female.

    Amy is generous of spirit, giving her time and energy to a cause which then turned its back on her, perhaps she is too emotional. she happens to be female.

    We are all different, perhaps my heartlessness makes me unable to empathise with Amy and the treatment she received.

    I used “man up” to be deliberately provocative, Perhaps because I am cold and heartless.

    I used “cursed be his name” for no other reason than for humour given Thunderf00ts alleged islamophobic tendencies. However I accept that being emotionless my sense of humour may be lacking.

  34. 189

    Surly Amy almost certainly DID anticipate backlash. Her fellow Skepchick, Rebecca Watson, withdrew from TAM and they discussed that decision and how to go about supporting the grant recipients. Anticipating it doesn’t make it tolerable; and she could not have anticipated TAM’s anti-harassment staff making her experience even more miserable.

    Saying ‘she SHOULD have anticipated a backlash’ is just a veiled way of impugning her competence while removing responsibility from TAM.

  35. 190

    Fire DJ Grothe, hire competent people to run events, put a simple sexual harassment policy and reporting procedures in place.

    And please, people, do this soon.

    THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE!

  36. 191

    Carlie said:-

    “I just think it’s sad that they can’t see constructive criticism for what it is and take it like adults. Even if they do fundamentally disagree with the notion of harassment policies, or of making it a safer place to be, their arguments to the contrary have been nonexistent, consisting solely of “nuh-uh” and “it’s your fault” and “you suck”.”

    I completely agree.

    I hope that as more skeptic conference’s introduce harassment policies TAM will find themselves forced to follow suit. If they don’t then I hope more of the Skeptical celebrities decide to boycott the event until they do so, as Ophelia Benson did this year.

  37. 192

    Pteryxx

    Saying ‘she SHOULD have anticipated a backlash’ is just a veiled way of impugning her competence while removing responsibility from TAM.

    Perhaps I am impugning her competence, or at least her decision to blog about the events in such detail. but am in no way removing TAM’s responsibility, read my previous comments, I don’t think you will find much support for TAM in them, quite the opposite I would hope.

  38. 193

    John: as I said, the disturbing response of TAM security could not have been reasonably anticipated or planned for. Therefore, by blaming Amy for not anticipating it, you’re eliding TAM’s direct contribution.

  39. F
    194

    So who the hell did the hire for these “trained anti-harassment personnel”? Was it Academi (formerly Blackwater)?

  40. 195

    Pteryxx says:

    John: as I said, the disturbing response of TAM security could not have been reasonably anticipated or planned for. Therefore, by blaming Amy for not anticipating it, you’re eliding TAM’s direct contribution.

    True, I agree that the absurd behaviour of TAM security and their arse about face secret harassment policy was worthy of being brought to our attention. I still don’t accept the tearful reaction to Harriet Hall’s offensive shirt needed to be raised though.

  41. 197

    John: when security *came to her* because she was visibly upset, the shirt was *one of* the things she reported. The comment quoted in the OP spends two paragraphs explaining specifically why the shirt and Hall’s reaction were hurtful and dismissive, but you’re finding fault with the words “through tears” ? News: crying’s a perfectly normal stress response that actually exists in the world. I’m sure it’s more manly to have flashbacks (hi, PTSD) but mentioning her own emotions in passing is *part of* the account of harassment and how it was handled.

Comments are closed.