One Consequence of Creeping
One of the reasons guys harass women is that they can. Their actions get excused as harmless flirting, or simply, “Bob being Bob.” The target of their aggression, whether it’s unwanted physical contact, stalking them around a convention, focusing unwanted attention and commentary on her body, or whatever, has generally been conditioned to not raise a fuss. If she does say something, she’s told she’s overreacting, or looking for reasons to be offended, or simply to lighten up.
So much of the time, the harassment appears to go unchecked.
But you know what? Fandom is a fairly small, interlinked community. People in fandom tend to know each other. Take a purely hypothetical situation where you, a random writer, were harassing a woman at a convention. Maybe she didn’t say anything to you. But–hypothetically speaking–she might have said something to a friend later, warning that friend about you. They might have started keeping an eye out for you, watching each others’ backs and passing the word.
They might even have mentioned what happened to someone like me.
I admit, I sometimes have to fight my own White Knight syndrome, the desire to charge out on my horse and smite creeps like you from our ranks. But of course, I didn’t witness what happened. And this was told to me in confidence. The only reason I’m talking about it here is that it happens so often that there’s no way to identify the specific person–the specific people–I’m talking about. Heck, just at ConFusion, I’m aware of at least three different instances of this kind of crap happening to people, and unfortunately, that’s not unusual.
If you’re worried that the creeper I’m talking about might be you, well, that seems like something you really need to sit down and think about.
I won’t get the rapier out of storage and go on a smiting spree. Nor will I call down the Wrath of the Internet to publicly shame you.
On the other hand, I get a fair number of review copies from various publishers. And what do you know, I recently noticed that you were the author of one of those review copies. Yes you, the same dude who was creeping on a friend of mine. What a fascinating coincidence, eh?
Guess which book will never get reviewed on my blog.
Guess which author will never get a retweet, a linkback, or any kind of promotion from me whatsoever.
I may not have the biggest following on the internet, but I’ve built up a pretty good readership over the years, and your actions toward this woman–actions you probably didn’t even think about…actions you assumed would have no consequence–have cost you the chance to have your book plugged to thousands of SF/F readers.
It’s a shame, really. And I can’t help but wonder how many potential readers you lost, all because you couldn’t treat a woman with more respect…
Hypothetically speaking, of course.
jennygadget
January 28, 2013 @ 5:09 pm
” His inevitable failure was evident when he asked the room for a simple show of hands from everyone who “likes looking at beautiful people” and only about 2% did (including my wife and I). What this told me is 98% of the people in that room were liars who were caught up in the moment.”
More likely it means that they are not stupid and can recognize a leading question when they see it. Also that they were annoyed enough at a man defending a calendar full of imaginary sexualised women deciding that suddenly he was going to talk about people – and beautiful ones at that, as if the issue was with how pretty they were, not with the combination of gender and objectification.
Not raising your hand at such a rhetorical question does not necessarily mean that you are saying “no” to the question. When we are talking about audience members it’s more often a sign of overall disapproval. Of refusing to engage with someone that they don’t feel is engaging with them honestly or fairly.
Considering the arguments he’s used to defend the calendar in the past, this would not shock me in the least.
Daniel R. Davis
January 28, 2013 @ 5:12 pm
Part of the issue is, you don’t want to drive away the women of geekdom from cons. They’re awesome! 😀 I understand that “put on a pedestal” comment that women gave on reddit, but there are better ways to do it. More chivalrous ways. Those stalkerish guys, the macho, overconfident, condescending, shark in the waters sort of guys? I’ve known them. They’re typically in it for the short sell. I put my wife on a pedestal all the time, because she deserves it. And I did when she wasn’t my wife. But I also didn’t treat her like a fine piece of meat in a butcher shop case. Or someone that I could bang that could get me what I wanted. That’s not a pedestal. That’s objectification. I’ve flirted before. People like to feel like they’re being paid some attention to, but there’s a line. And crossing that line could get you made a pariah at future cons due to word of mouth, or worse. Especially if those women are established writers in their own right or agents, or editors, or shop owners, etc, etc. And how to tell? There’s a chasm of difference here between compliments/flirting, and downright harassment, which is the crux, I believe, of what Jim’s posting about. Know the limitations, and know when no means go the heck away and don’t come back because you’re giving me the creeps now.
Rob B.
January 28, 2013 @ 5:12 pm
Let me clarify, again. I am not “rushing to the defense” of harassers. I agree with you, Jim, and just about everyone else on this comment thread. I am just offering a slightly different perspective. Everything you stated regarding boundaries I stated in my post. I am not implying that people who “repeatedly cross boundaries or harass others” should be accepted. What I was trying to get across is that those boundaries need to be clarified at times. I am not making excuses for the assholes of the cons, I have ran into my fair share. I was just pointing out the difficulty of the task of eradicating said behavior.
Lauren 'Scribe' Harris
January 28, 2013 @ 5:14 pm
^Yes.
Rob B.
January 28, 2013 @ 5:19 pm
“Introduce yourself. Indicate you find him/her attractive. If that goes well, express interest in him/her. If that goes well, ask if he/she’s into whatever it is you’re into. If at any point the response is negative, for the love of all that is awesome about conventions, STOP.”
And therein lies the key. When the boundaries of acceptable behavior are fuzzy, people just need to learn when to STOP when it is apparent the behavior is not welcome. That is the essential skill that creepers either lack or choose to ignore.
Rob B.
January 28, 2013 @ 5:25 pm
I can see why you would feel that way, but it is good to remember that not everyone shares your views. Like I was told a friend of mine that is very opinionated is very set in his ways, “Your perfect world is one where everyone agrees with you, correct? (Yes, I know, thats a leading question too) He said enthusiastically, “YUP!”. I told him that my idea of a perfect world is where EVERYONE understands and is ok with the fact that not everyone shares their believes or values.
I whole heartily agree with the purpose of Jim’s cause, but I also understand that there will be some people (women included) who are ok with with the status quo.
Rob B.
January 28, 2013 @ 5:29 pm
I forgot to include that I think you would have been pleasantly surpised by Pat’s views if he had shared them fully. He just understood that it was not the time or place for it.
Also, beauty is subjective. You make it seem like he was being piggish by bringing up beautiful people.
Rob B.
January 28, 2013 @ 5:31 pm
Agreed.
Tasha Turner
January 28, 2013 @ 5:34 pm
I’m pretty sure that the cons should NOT be accepting of everyone. I don’t want to go to cons where murderers, rapist, pedophiles, thugs, etc. are welcome. If I guy can’t figure out that making lewd comments or advances to a stranger is wrong than he should not attend cons. If I guy doesn’t understand the word “no” than he should not attend cons. These guys could get some education on how to behave appropriately. A simple socially challenged nerd/geek is not the problem. It’s men using sex as power and blaming those behaviors on the women “asking for it” that are the problem. And there is no way to know if the guy harassing you might be a rapist and reason to believe he might if he can’t understand no.
Jim C. Hines
January 28, 2013 @ 5:35 pm
I’m pretty sure everyone in this conversation is very well aware that not everyone shares their views. At least, I’ve seen nothing to suggest otherwise.
Not trying to speak for everyone else, but in reading through the comments, I don’t think anyone is trying to say that we all have to think and believe the same things. They are saying that people need to respect boundaries, and that if you’re harassing people, there should be consequences for that behavior.
Daniel R. Davis
January 28, 2013 @ 6:01 pm
Yes, this. Some folk at cons should grow some tact. Or perhaps, a conscience. There shouldn’t need to be succinct rules telling you the basic precepts of society…
Lauren 'Scribe' Harris
January 28, 2013 @ 6:05 pm
That is true. Many creepers lack the ability to see that line or choose to ignore it, which is why having an open dialog about creeping (like this) is so important–ignoring it ain’t going to make it go away.
When the boundaries of acceptable behavior are fuzzy, especially when it comes to anything that might jeopardize someone else’s sense of personal safety, I think the best thing to do is back off rather than push one’s luck.
That said, the first time I attended a convention “by myself”, I still knew a large number of the people who were there because we were all podcast fiction folk. I invited some attention, turned other attention away. I was groped, and let the guy know it wasn’t okay. I was backed up on that point, and the guy apologized to me publicly and privately over twitter. If he was fuzzy on the boundaries before, he surely isn’t now and I doubt he wants to feel that kind of embarrassment again.
That said, it’s nice to know there other other folks at con who will drop everything to back up an almost-stranger. Nobody stepped in and put me behind them, which is good, since I didn’t feel so much threatened as that the guy had overstepped a line. I think it’s great that, even though these uncomfortable situations happen, there are always folks around who will help out. 🙂
Annalee
January 28, 2013 @ 6:07 pm
honestly, if a written list of rules is what it takes to convince creepers to keep their hands, personal space, and unsolicited opinions to themselves, let’s grab some butcher paper for the con suite. Maybe get a sky writer. I’ll spring for the sharpies.
Tannie
January 28, 2013 @ 6:09 pm
Travel in packs with people who are loud and generous with their “She said NO, now go away!” and “Dude, you are being creepy, leave and do not bother us again.” It’s not an ideal solution, but in my experience it works more often than not. Social pressure works.
You don’t have to be explicitly ugly (e.g. profanity, insults). Just polite, repeated, firm, GO AWAY.
HelenS
January 28, 2013 @ 6:10 pm
BLACKOUT BINGO!
KatG
January 28, 2013 @ 6:15 pm
Rob B.: “I know this sounds like I am perpetuating the false “she asked for it” view, but I am really not.”
Yeah, you really are. You’re saying, if you are female and cosplay, you should put up with guys coming on to you because you are just asking for it. You are saying that women should be treated according to what they wear and what activities they participate in. If they are dressed in what you think is a slutty way and doing slut-like activities, then men are going to hit on them and the women should put up with it. Also, that women who do cosplay are doing so because they are sluts who like sexual attention from men, so of course they should put up with it, (no matter how threatening it may be to their personal safety.) Now I’m sure that you would never think of your friend as a “slut,” except that’s how you’re thinking of your friend. And you’re insisting that since she handled it one way and expressed certain sentiments to you, that’s how all women should have to react. So you are really saying “she’s asking for it” which is an argument about female cosplayers we’ve been hearing all year. Because then it’s all the woman’s fault, never the man and the man doesn’t have to think about or change his behavior so that the woman cosplayers can simply enjoy the con.
“but it could be said that people gather at these cons to escape the societal norms present in their everyday life.”
Yes, it is for many people a societal norm that a woman is a human being who should not be forced to interact with people against her consent at a recreational con. Look, if you want to go to a con to hook up with a fellow S&M enthusiast, fine. But that doesn’t mean that the female cosplayer or anyone else actually is a S&M enthusiast and that harassing her will get you some fun time. Social and sexual interests you may have at a con does not take preference over my getting to experience the con my way just because I’m female.
“someone who is normally excluded from participating in social activities due to their perceived differences can gather with others who they know will be accepting of them, regardless of their social awkwardness.”
This is a Bob is being Bob argument. The women have to be accepting of behavior that threatens, bothers and spoils the con experience for them, but the men should not have to feel icky ever. The assumption that any woman must be accepting of what you want because she is also at the con is a large part of the problem and what allows creepers to do all the stuff they like to do.
“So with that knowledge, how does a convention attendee who may already lack self confidence (I know, gross generalization) act when on one hand they are told that almost any advance of a sexual nature will be frowned upon, but on the other hand they know that there are many people who attend cons in order to receive that kind of attention? It is quite the conundrum.”
Your argument here is that some women may be looking to hook up at a con, and (most) are not. Because some might be willing to hook up at a con, all women at the con must not be upset if they are sexually harassed as if they wanted to hook-up, because it’s just too hard to treat all women like individual human beings. Instead, we must treat them all as sexual objects and potential sex partners and if they are not, well they just should be okay with the mistake and not make the guy who made them feel icky feel icky over it. Which is pretty much the whole of sexist culture in a nutshell.
“agree that some go too far with their advances and am in no way defending harassers, but the only solution to the problem is to completely sterilize conventions and make them no different from any other social situation that many in fandom loath due to the inherent limitations placed on them by having to meet the lowest common denominator of societies (prudish) views of acceptable behavior.”
This is known as the men should not have to restrain their sexual desires and women should be okay with them being forced on them because they are women defense. Also known as the everything allowed but rapists argument. Because if men have to be conscious of their behavior at cons and treat women as individuals, not potential sex partners, then they won’t have a good time. The convention will be “sterile,” i.e. men can’t do what they want to women at the convention in pursuit of sex. Nobody worries if the women have a good time, or feel safe, or get to do the activities they wanted to do without having to worry if men regard this as a sexual invitation. Men’s needs come first, women get to suck it. And that is the societal norm. Which apparently women don’t get to escape at the con.
Look, you’re a nice guy who’s married, but in trying to defend that the men’s needs should take preference over the women’s at the con and that all women should be open to sexual advances because some women there might be horny or because they are wearing a costume for a costume competition, you are taking the position that boils down to “men want, women shut up.” Men are people whose needs get to be met and women are not people and definitely not individuals but those who must accommodate male needs whatever they may be and just short of the rapey-thing. Because it’s a social setting. And in social settings, men apparently are in charge. So you might want to think about it.
Think about it in terms of having an 18-year-old daughter. She puts on a costume because she wants to compete with a team in a competition at a con. She’s not there for S&M group sex, even if some people are. Men harass her, make sexual suggestions, grab her breasts, get angry and tell her she’s a slut because she’s wearing a costume when she’s upset and tells them to leave her alone. She gives up trying to do the contest and comes home from the con early in tears. And your response is, “Well, what did you expect when you wore a costume? Of course they thought you wanted sex. And I bet you enjoyed their attention, even if you didn’t act like it. You shouldn’t be so upset with them. They probably just are socially awkward nerds or unconventionalists trying to escape societal norms at the convention. They didn’t do anything really bad to you. You’re over-reacting. You should have been nice to them.” To your daughter. What then are you telling her about what her place in the world is supposed to be as a young woman? What are you telling her about how to behave with men out in the world? You’re telling her to defer to men, watch what she wears and put up with sexual harassment so as not to hurt the feelings of men. You’re telling her she isn’t a person with any rights at all, even if she doesn’t wear a costume. Men will touch her and say things to her and this is good and fine and she should let them without objection, and even be flattered. Because she’s female and that is apparently, according to you, her job.
This isn’t “hate.” I’m trying to point out what you are actually saying about women that you don’t even realize you’re saying. Put simply, if it is a choice between a “sterile” convention where men don’t get to harass women, or women being treated as men’s play-toys whether they want it or not, then I will take sterile, thanks. Because in the sterile one I apparently get to be a human being even though I have boobs.
celia
January 28, 2013 @ 6:23 pm
I think that if you are looking for Strong Female Protagonists in general, your best bet is to start with The Stepsister Scheme, and then branch out to his other stuff after you decide if you like his writing.
Rob B.
January 28, 2013 @ 6:23 pm
Wow, I guess I should specifically excluded criminals when I said everyone. I didn’t think is was necessary in a rational discussion, but it is the internet after-all.
Tannie
January 28, 2013 @ 6:26 pm
And of that last kind of White Knight that Droewyn was talking about, there are gradiations.
I used to have a professional scientific diving license. During training, there was a man older than me, VERY traditional, who was mortified that a Young Lady (snort, snicker) would do some very normal diver things…..like carry my own tanks. Most of the time it was simply annoying, but then there was the time he dropped his own tank on the deck of a boat (remember, dive tanks are giant aluminium bombs with demand valves), pushed aside another diver, and stepped on my foot in his mad scramble to make sure that I did not have to lift my own weight belt. It was dangerous to him (running on a wet deck), dangerous to me (my poor fot), dangerous to my dive buddy (could have been knocked overboard), all because the Little Woman couldn’t do that.
I pulled him aside and explained that if we were in the shop, he could hold doors for me all he wanted, but once we were on site, I expected to be treated like a capable, competent professional. Were his feelings hurt? Oh yeah they were. Did I care that his feelings were hurt? Yes, I did. It was a Distress of the Privileged kind of moment, and even while I was telling him off for doing what every inch of his acculturation and socialisation ordered him to do, I did it kindly. But that doesn’t mean that I should be placing myself OR my colleagues in a dangerous situation just to cater to what he was doing. Nor should I subject myself to sexist, infantilising behaviour (I can open a door, for goodness’ sake) simply because that’s how this White Knight behaved.
That man? It was annoying and physically dangerous, but it stopped when I asked. There’s a more dangerous kind of pseudo-White Knight, the one who creates drama so that he can come to somebody’s rescue (after which they are, in theory, obligated to him). Those kind are at best dedicated riders of the Drama Llama and at worst are predators, manipulating the social behaviour contract to get what they want. It’s the same thing the Hare Krishnas used to do, thrusting copies of their book in your hand and then expecting a donation in return (which they usually got, grudgingly, and pissing a lot of people off in the process). When you get a creeper or sexual predator acting as a White Knight, who creates drama, rescues somebody from said drama, and expects sexual favours in return? Those are very very dangerous people indeed.
Contrast this to the situation that you are thinking of, which is better described as “ally.” Allies let nations fight their own battles if the wish, and step in IF ASKED.
Daniel R. Davis
January 28, 2013 @ 6:35 pm
Absolutely. I just wish more people would actually grow a conscience or a bit of empathy and understand that their actions have consequences. Use the big brain, not the little one. There’s a difference between being flattering and a jerk. Thankfully, even when I’m published, I’m not Misery material. But my wife want, no idea why, and I’m good with that. 🙂
Rob B.
January 28, 2013 @ 6:35 pm
Wow, thanks for lumping me in with the a-holes. You misinterpreted my post. I in no way agree with everything that goes on at a con and I don’t think that problem behavior should be ignored or allowed.
The intent of my post was not to rationalize or excuse the behavior. It was only intended to spur further conversation. Mission accomplished.
I’ll get back to your other arguments after I eat dinner.
seabeegirl
January 28, 2013 @ 6:37 pm
I have never read any of your books or your blog, but I will start doing so now! I found this post via one of my favorite authors, Faith Hunter. It is so refreshing to find a male with such a refreshing way of bringing attention to this matter without sounding too pious. 🙂 I look forward to reading some of your books. Any suggestions on where to start?
Ian Osmond
January 28, 2013 @ 6:46 pm
I’ve explained people that the Bechdel Test (or Mo’s Movie Test, as Bechdel herself calls it) is a good first-order approximation of whether a work treats women, as a group, as beings with agency, as characters with goals, interests, and motivations of their own. Yup, passing the test doesn’t PROVE that it does, and there are works that DON’T pass the test, but nonetheless treat women as human beings. But, still. It’s a simple, objective test which is good for analyzing populations of works. Yes, there are individual exceptions. But it’s real, real good for statistical analysis of the scope of the problem. If that was the only thing that DYKES TO WATCH OUT FOR created, I think that would be enough, on its own, to count Allison Bechdel as a Hero of the Revolution.
Tasha Turner
January 28, 2013 @ 6:47 pm
As I pointed out bully/harassing behavior can lead to criminal behavior rape, stalking, violence. By saying behavior that objectifies and harms women is acceptable because “some women don’t mind it” or “find it funny” you set up cons to be a place where criminal behavior may be believed to be acceptable because you’ve condoned socially unacceptable behavior towards women. And yes as a women when being harassed/bullied I do worry about the behavior going into the criminal as it happens.
denelian
January 28, 2013 @ 6:51 pm
if you’re very specifically looking for strong female protags who kick ass, then the Princess books. i swear, these books need to be used as a class to most authors on “How to write believable female characters CORRECTLY”
i mean, a wife and mother, going on adventures, and it WORKS! and that’s not all!!!
Annalee
January 28, 2013 @ 7:20 pm
I was just pointing out the difficulty of the task of eradicating said behavior.
I’m not sure why you think those of us who have to put up with this behavior on a regular basis, and who have been working to eradicate it for years, need to be told that it’s difficult.
You may think you’re providing a ‘different perspective,’ but you’re actually providing the exact same perspective that people who don’t have to deal with this and don’t want to think about it provide every time someone has the audacity to start a conversation about it in public: the perspective of someone who has an easier time identifying with lonely, socially-awkward guys than they do identifying with women who have to live in constant fear of harassment and assault.
No matter how socially awkward someone is; no matter how badly they are bullied and ostracized in their life outside of conventions; they are not entitled to other people’s social attention or affections. They are not owed a chance to hit on people without fear of being rejected. They are not owed an opportunity to engage in their sexual fetishes or fantasies with non-consenting people. Period.
When you say that “the only solution to the problem is to completely sterilize conventions and make them no different from any other social situation that many in fandom loath due to the inherent limitations placed on them by having to meet the lowest common denominator of societies (prudish) views of acceptable behavior,” you are not “pointing out the difficulty of eradicating said behavior.” You are saying that you do not believe that eradicating that behavior is desirable, because the only alternative you see to women suffering harassment and assault is creating a social situation you would loathe.
Ursula K Le Guin has a fabulous short story called “The Ones Who Walked Away From Omelas.” It’s about a paradise where everyone has access to creature comforts. But that paradise isn’t real. It’s maintained by a very powerful magic spell. To maintain the spell, and by extension the paradise, an innocent child must suffer a lifetime of misery and neglect. Everyone in Omelas knows this. Everyone knows that child is suffering so that they can enjoy a life of ease. And like everyone in Omelas, you are telling us that it is Too Hard to build a just community where innocent people don’t have to suffer so that others can enjoy the illusion that everyone is happy.
Those of us who have to play the role of the innocent child to maintain your paradise are not particularly interested in how hard you think it is. We just want to stop suffering. And you’re acting as if we should care that Omelas might crumble.
Lauren 'Scribe' Harris
January 28, 2013 @ 8:20 pm
When you say that “the only solution to the problem is to completely sterilize conventions and make them no different from any other social situation that many in fandom loath due to the inherent limitations placed on them by having to meet the lowest common denominator of societies (prudish) views of acceptable behavior,” you are not “pointing out the difficulty of eradicating said behavior.” You are saying that you do not believe that eradicating that behavior is desirable, because the only alternative you see to women suffering harassment and assault is creating a social situation you would loathe.
Agreed. And I would like to point out that there is no MAGIC ANSWER that will get rid of this kind of harassment forever. It’s got to be a constant dialog between convention goers about what kind of behavior is welcomed and what is not, and what to do about it. Likely, each fresh crop of convention goers will turn up new creepers that will have to be shown how to behave since, as you pointed out in one of our exchanges, not everyone is able to pick up on those signals.
Just like our society is only recently shifting the message of “don’t get raped” to “don’t rape people”, conventions are beginning to pick up that flag and shift the “don’t complain at getting crept on if you’re wearing a corset” to “a corset is an article of clothing, not an invitation”.
Rob B.
January 28, 2013 @ 8:22 pm
“No matter how socially awkward someone is; no matter how badly they are bullied and ostracized in their life outside of conventions; they are not entitled to other people’s social attention or affections. They are not owed a chance to hit on people without fear of being rejected. They are not owed an opportunity to engage in their sexual fetishes or fantasies with non-consenting people. Period.”
I never said or implied any of those things. We are arguing the same side of the coin here. Who is making the assumptions? Who said that I haven’t been on the receiving end of this? I have actually, on numerous occasions. I have even experienced getting unexpectedly groped, just as Jim has. I am fairly certain I have never been on the giving end because I don’t even give out compliments to people for fear of it being misconstrued as an advance.
I have never said that women should accept the behavior. There are soooo many assumption being made about my intentions. Too many for me to refute.
Kristin
January 28, 2013 @ 8:24 pm
So I am the friend Rob speaks of, *waves*. Yes I did wear a corset at the convention while wandering around room parties and such, and yes I did receive attention. I think it can be assumed that if you are well endowed and you wear a corset that you are going to attract attention from others. The things left out of the original post and the comments were that I mostly wore that corset because it made me feel good about myself and I thoroughly enjoyed wearing it. I am known as a very outgoing person, I have no problem talking to new people, especially at conventions. That being said, there were plenty of creepy moments at ConFusion this year. One in specific was a guy rubbing my shoulders without any invitation while my boyfriend was standing next to me, all because I had a conversation with him ( without any flirting on my end). It got creepier after that until I had to address it and walk away. Lucky for me, I am thick-skinned and have no problem telling someone off if I have to, but not everyone is comfortable doing so and that is why I think that all creepers, men and women alike, need to figure out how to act socially acceptable with others, especially at conventions where people dress up in fun costumes and outfits and are having a good time. Rule number one being do not touch unless you are given consent.
Basically, watch this for starters if you think you are bordering on creep-tastic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=U2Df2AihAao
Kristin
January 28, 2013 @ 8:26 pm
^^^^ This.
Lauren 'Scribe' Harris
January 28, 2013 @ 8:32 pm
That’s a great video.
Rob B.
January 28, 2013 @ 8:36 pm
Jim,
I kinda sensed that the question was planned. I never thought that you were calling him out. I just think Pat was surprised by the response he got. I think he wanted to provoke thought and discussion, but he sensed that it would be a losing endeavor in that environment (not to mention the lack of time). I just seemed that Pat was made out to be the bad guy when I think that he holds similar beliefs when it comes to equality for all.
Ohhh, reddit… Bad reference. There are some sick people out there. I was just trying to highlight the fact that some times, people can’t win. For example, if men are confident and pay a women a compliment, they are chauvinist and only care about her body. If they don’t compliment her looks, they are uncaring. If men cry during a heart wrenching movie, they are pansies, if they don’t they are heartless. If we don’t hold the door for women, we are rude. If we do, we place women on a pedestal and are sexist. The same goes for women. If they stay at home and raise their kids, they are letting men stifle their abilities and dictate to role in society, if they work outside the home they are bad mothers who are more focused on their careers than their kids. If they wear revealing clothes, they are sluts. If they don’t they are prudes. See what I mean? Too many absolutes when we all know that these assumption are not reality.
I agree that there is a difference between flirting and harassment. I never meant to imply that their wasn’t. Creeps are creeps are creeps.
I agree with you regarding acceptance of people at cons. There are certain unacceptable behaviors that are universal, regardless of the crowd or event. I was just attempting to keep people from jumping from one extreme to the other and make people think before they jumped on the bandwagon.
Rob B.
January 28, 2013 @ 8:42 pm
Again, I never said that behavior that objectifies and harms women is acceptable. All I was saying is that some women seek out POSITIVE attention from males and visa versa. I never said they seek out CREEPY attention. There is a HUGE difference.
Tasha Turner
January 28, 2013 @ 8:52 pm
Great video. Thanks for the link.
Rob B.
January 28, 2013 @ 8:54 pm
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PEOPLE, I NEVER SAID HARASSMENT WAS OK!!!!! OR THAT WOMEN SHOULD BE OBJECTIFIED!!! OR THAT THEY SHOULD BE OK WITH IT!!! OK THAT IT SHOULD BE IGNORED!!! OR THAT WOMEN ASK FOR IT!!! OR THAT MENS NEEDS COME FIRST!!!! I should have know this would go badly when someone assumed “everyone” included rapist, murders and thugs. Oh the joy of internet conversations with strangers.
I seem to have riled up the feminist when if people actually knew me they would understand that I whole heartily support feminism up to the point where it tries to place women above men. At that point, they are just as evil as the male with a superiority complex.
StaceyHH
January 28, 2013 @ 8:57 pm
This is beautiful. I’ve heard the “I’m a nice guy, so don’t take this the wrong way, but here’s how you’re totally wrong about what you girls think is harassment” argument so many times, but this is the best response I’ve seen yet. My response is a little less sophisticated, ie: Instead of “short skirts make men have rapeythoughts, so girls shouldn’t wear short skirts,” why not “if men can’t control their rapeythoughts when they see short skirts, they shouldn’t go where they can see short skirts.”
Rob Meyer
January 28, 2013 @ 8:59 pm
Jim, the one thing that really disappoints me: you leave your rapier in storage??? For shame, sir, for shame.
Kathryne
January 28, 2013 @ 8:59 pm
Here is my issue – we are too reliant on the “just joking” defense for bad behaviour.
Yeah, he’s a jerk and makes inappropriate comments in public but hey, he’s just joking. Which leads to “can’t you take a joke?” and too often then quickly devolves to “geez, what a b… no sense of humor.”
I have been involved in this loop far too often to take it lightly. It started when I worked with a guy who thought that rape jokes were the height of hilarity. No one said a bloody word to this jerk because, you know, it was just the way Rob was. He pulled this idiocy on me and having had a bad year with horrible bosses and being a temp (no worry, if this doesn’t work another job will arise tomorrow) I said something. I flat out said that I saw absolutely nothing funny about rape. And wow. It was just a joke, it was just Rob, it was just Rob’s sense of humor. And hey, Rob is basically a good guy. He can’t be sexist because well, Rob’s been married forever. When it happened again (because now he had to goad me) and I spoke up again, I didn’t have a sense of humor. I must hate men. Perhaps I was a closet lesbian. And besides, no one else has complained… never mind that it is exactly this sort of response that keeps every one else from complaining.
So yes, perhaps more women need to speak up. Which should work. Until you see what happened at Readercon this year. Even with the heartening response to that incident, the fact that it took Ms. Valentine turning to the internet and the threat of a massive boycott – not to mention completely overthrowing the board of the con – to get justice. And at that? The number of people who went out of their way to find a reason why the guy should be excused for his behavior was of a high enough count (men and women) to be ridiculous. Among them – well, he’s French, (I know a number of French men, none are so crass as to harass a woman they barely know), maybe he has mental illness issue, maybe he has Asbergers. The truth was that he was just a jerk. AS a result of the attention, for 15 minutes cons were safer to go to. Until the Fake Geek Girls arose.
And so it goes. Every time you buy into ‘it is just his sense of humor (or hers, for that matter), every time you find an excuse for bad behaviour – such as we all have worked together for a long time and have “develop[ed] a peculiar humor that may be abusive in language and even sexually charged.” (And shouldn’t the very idea that you are using humor as a justification for abusive language be a sign that maybe, just maybe, you’ve gone around the bend?)- every time you do that, you add to the problem. You make it just that much harder for your daughter, for your sister, for your gay sibling, for anyone who isn’t brash and bold, for the 18 year old intern who is afraid to speak up, for the 50 year old who is uncomfortable with the language, for the woman who would just like to go to a con and maybe meet an author or two. Because you’ve made it their fault, the object of the language, the humor, the bawdy pawing. You’ve said to the creepers and the jerks and the self-styled ‘alpha males’ that no, really, we’ve just so misunderstood you; sorry it had to come to this, but you know how women are…
I don’t know the answer. I would like to believe that at least part of the answer is for all of us, male or female, to speak up more. To call it when we see it, either in a polite aside, in a question to the person we thing is being harassed (I’ve been watching what’s going on, how can I help/support you?). Part of that is to stop calling such help ‘white knighting.” As I said on another blog, this fight belongs to all of us and anytime a man wants to stand shoulder to shoulder with me in battle, I’m happy – grateful – to have him in the melee.
Jim C. Hines
January 28, 2013 @ 9:00 pm
Rob – I’m not sure what you mean about riling up the feminist, but may I suggest that this would be a good time to step away from the internet for a while?
Jim C. Hines
January 28, 2013 @ 9:01 pm
I have a very curious but not all that coordinated seven-year-old…
StaceyHH
January 28, 2013 @ 9:01 pm
As a side note: it sure seems like you are using “feminist” as a perjorative here. “Riled up the feminist” is rarely perceived as a complimentary turn of phrase. If a feminist (or many feminists,) are telling you that your words are coming across as sexist, then ask yourself how you “heartily support feminism?” And please explain how any of this conversation places women ABOVE men? Those evil feminists… always trying to get equal rights, how dare they. Maybe they need to just chill out and see it from the man’s side.
Rob B.
January 28, 2013 @ 9:04 pm
*waves back* Thanks for clarifying Kristin. I was trying to make a point that some attention is good and some can be creepy, but I fear that message got lost due to my unwillingness to share all the details.
Daniel R. Davis
January 28, 2013 @ 9:09 pm
I’m not necessarily a feminist so much as a humanist and feel all should be treated with the respect they deserve. No matter gender. Or attributes.
Rob B.
January 28, 2013 @ 9:11 pm
My apologies, Jim and Stacey. It was not intended that way. It was not meant as a pejorative at all. I feel that ALL should have equal rights. I just don’t like people making assumptions about me because I choose to offer a different view point, but I also can’t correctly articulate my thoughts in this medium.
Tasha Turner
January 28, 2013 @ 9:13 pm
Maybe you need to look at why you are getting the response you are. Reread your original post. Read the comments especially from KatG where she pulled quotes and explained what those phrases sound like. Sit down with a few female friends and go over your original comment and ask them for help in stating what you mean so you don’t sound like you are saying its ok or women are asking for it. One thing I’ve learned is that if people are misunderstanding me I need to look at how I wrote something and also ask myself tough questions about what I really think.
But whenever you find yourself saying things like “I know this sounds like/seems” 99% of the time that should be a hint NOT to say it. Frankly I can’t figure out how to read your comment:
” I know this sounds like I am perpetuating the false “she asked for it” view, but I am really not. What I am saying is that some actually DO ask for it, even if they do not intend on acting on the advances.”
BUT “some women ask for it” .
So I’m sorry if we took your comments wrong but that is why choosing your words carefully when knowing you are going to post something controversial is so important.
Rob B.
January 28, 2013 @ 9:13 pm
Thank you! I almost said I am a humanist, but there are too many meanings to that term so I didn’t.
Rob B.
January 28, 2013 @ 9:16 pm
Understood. What I meant by that sentence was that some women seek positive attention from men. Not that they ask to be harassed.
denelian
January 28, 2013 @ 9:23 pm
ah, your sarcasm is a thing of beauty and wonder 🙂
KatG
January 28, 2013 @ 9:23 pm
I didn’t lump you in with the a-holes — that’s the point. You made the same arguments that many perfectly reasonable men make, and you weren’t even making them wholeheartedly. The problem is that you aren’t saying what you think you are saying. I didn’t misinterpret your post — I pointed out what your statements were actually saying for women. And you can either spend your time defending yourself against what you think are accusations of a-holery, thereby making it all about you and ignoring the issues that women face, or you could consider that what you said put women in a position of being potential sex partners first, people second, when it really is the other way around and usually only the human being part. Women are not in charge of agendas that con participants have, whether it’s sitting around in a bar talking to people, joining a tiddlywinks competition at the con or going to a sex party with trapezes. Women are not in charge of the agendas, interests and beliefs of other women, nor do those other beliefs then get to represent them or be the excuse for guys hitting on them. Women are not in charge of making sure all the straight men participants in the con get to hit on them freely and without censure or consequences. Basically all the things you brought up are pretty irrelevant to the whole issue, and they are all focused on the needs of men at the expense of women con participants.
My daughter’s generation is very different from mine, as mine was from my mother’s. They dress sexy and they don’t accept that means they are offering sex. They put up with a lot less insistence that they be nice, accommodating women. And the young guys are more likely to “white knight” stand up for their right to be that way. There are young women who aren’t that way and frat boys who still think it’s the fifties — but there are fewer of them. And if we avoid the Atwood dystopias that some want to have, there will be fewer of them every year. And the young women get called bitches, etc., for speaking up, but they also get called oversensitive, unreasonable, not sufficiently nice in tone, etc., by not a-holes but perfectly nice men — because they are not being accommodating to the needs of men, because their views of what is “problem behavior” are deemed not sufficiently narrow, not sufficiently gray about say touching them, hitting on them, and following them around. And that knocks some of them back a bit, but most of them get back up again, and again, more and more will each year. Which means when you start babbling about corsets and some women liking sexual attention from men and unconventional escaping from societal norms, more and more people are going to see you as not an a-hole, but as clueless about what you’re thinking women should simply accept. So clueless, in fact, that you may not even get that you are asking women to accept the behavior.
For SFFH writers, this issue is going to have a bigger and bigger impact. Most fans who go to conventions are deep fans who read and talk about a lot of books. They are what in the book business are called persons of influence, since fiction is predominantly sold through word of mouth, and they are often given the early scoop in hopes that if they like a book, it will build good buzz. And at this point, about 50% of those persons of influence, if not more given all the females in poor money book publishing, are women. And fiction authors are also symbiotic — they help each other sell, which is why we have conventions at all. So, with each year, male SFFH authors who creep at conventions are cutting down more and more opportunities for good buzz, even without guys like Jim. And with the younger male fans, that behavior gets less and less acceptable too. Can they surmount it? Yes, very possibly. But with each year, it’s going to get harder.
Daniel R. Davis
January 28, 2013 @ 9:33 pm
My meaning of humanist is that all of us are of one race, no matter gender, color, nationality, religion, sexual preference, clothing type, etc, and are all worthy of my respect, unless they show me otherwise.
Rob B.
January 28, 2013 @ 9:38 pm
Agreed. That is my view of it as well.
Tasha Turner
January 28, 2013 @ 9:43 pm
Yeah I don’t think anything you think you meant came across at all the way you wanted. I really do suggest you look at the language your using in the original comment and your responses and take some time to figure out how you could have written the comments in a positive way that could have been heard. The only way to get better in this medium is to work at it.
When I have something important to say that I’m concerned will be taken wrong I write an offline draft, I take 24 hours to think about reworking the draft, then I have 1 or more people read it and tell me what they think before posting. It’s done wonders for my being better understood on the Internet.
For other helpful hints you might want to check out http://tasha-turner.com/intelligent-poster/
KatG
January 28, 2013 @ 9:47 pm
I don’t like people making assumptions about me, either, but that very seldom stops them, especially when it’s a guy talking about women’s issues. What you seem to be saying is that you’re all for feminism — equal rights for both genders — but if you think a woman is being uppity about it, she’s a riled up feminist and that’s bad. It’s a polite way of telling a woman she’s being a bitch because she made you feel bad. And the implication is that women better not be bitches and say those things to you. Which is not exactly equality, is it? You get to natter on about how some women like getting hit on, using as an example your friend who then came forward to say that actually she didn’t like getting hit on. And we’re supposed to discuss it, but only the way that you want to discuss it, apparently. Again, this issue is not how you feel about how women express their concerns or complain about what you said. It’s about what women have to put up with at cons. And the fact that some women jump guys’ bones at conventions, or don’t mind or at least put up with without complaint men looking at them at conventions, is actually utterly irrelevant to that issue. But you thought it was relevant and so you might want to think about why it was so important to you to bring it up and in the terms that you did. You might want to think that maybe your bringing up that some women seek out or like sexual attention from men at conventions was indeed implying that it’s reasonable for guys to hit on them/harass them because some women might like it. The things you are bringing up are things that women in these discussions have heard hundreds of times before and they’re all used as arguments that women are going overboard on this sexual harassment area and maybe should be nicer and accommodating to groups of men judged by men to be okay guys in their behavior. If you meant it differently, you really, really did not make that anyway clear. And if you have a script that there are bunches of feminists trying to vault women over men and that better be put down right now, harumph, I’m not inclined to buy the just raising conversation line.
Rob B.
January 28, 2013 @ 9:58 pm
KatG,
I agree with your views on sexism and the crap that women have to deal with. Maybe in my enthusiasm for discussing the issues I inadvertently drew the wrong attention to it. I never meant to marginalize the experiences of women regarding sexual harassment or their place in this world. Quite the opposite actually. I was actually hoping to discuss how to solve the issues at conventions. I wasn’t asking anyone to accept any type of behavior. Sometimes its not about having all the answers, but about asking the right questions. I am glad that my post spawned this discussion.
Rob Meyer
January 28, 2013 @ 10:17 pm
I understand. I had a three-year old who thought he could eat a broadsword. We moved stuff higher, and by ten he was more trustworthy. Fencing lessons never start too young though, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVSn5Eogv5Q.
Sally
January 28, 2013 @ 10:33 pm
Jim, you aren’t a White Knight so much as… hmm… too important to be a sidekick…
A partner and ally who happens to have a bigger megaphone than the rest of us.
I also encourage you to recycle the book you mentioned. Then the paper can become something more worthy in its next life. If you donate it, the creep’s work lives on and spreads. If you throw it out, it might still be found at a dump or in a future archaeological dig. Nope, recycling it is the best use.
Liz Argall
January 28, 2013 @ 10:37 pm
Yay (to the help). It’s such a feeling of relief to have a comrade at arms 🙂
Rob Meyer
January 28, 2013 @ 10:37 pm
I think the word you are looking for is mensch. Jim deserves an honorable mensch-un.
adelheid_p
January 28, 2013 @ 10:59 pm
One other consequence of this informal network is that, as a person who helps to run a small local convention, if I somehow come into the knowledge that this particular author has engaged in harassment then I will be telling my fellow con programming people. We definitely want to ensure that our con is a safe space for all attendees. And then that author has one fewer place at which to promote his latest book.
Marta Savage
January 28, 2013 @ 11:32 pm
Thank you! I can usually quell the creepers with a stern look or sharp word, but by far the biggest help is usually being told by others (especially other men… and most especially other men who are prominent in our geeky corner of the world) that it is NOT ok. So thank you for being all white-knight-like today, and for your long memory about the creeper’s actions.
KatG
January 28, 2013 @ 11:48 pm
Rob B. “I never meant to marginalize the experiences of women regarding sexual harassment or their place in this world.”
Yeah, we knew that; that’s why we didn’t actually think you were an a-hole. 🙂 The biggest way to change the situation at conventions is unfortunately slow, but it works — keep talking about it and don’t back down on why it’s a problem. And go right at the people who run the conventions with that conversation, who cannot prevent everything but who can run a con with a culture that the con’s main purpose is not to serve as a hook-up service or excuse men who use it that way, however nice or prominent those men are. So Jim is going to get a lot of crap for saying what he says, for being angry about that behavior, but he keeps talking about it. It takes a lot of effort because it’s making people, men and women, look at things that they don’t want to look at, in ways that may require them to change some of their behavior, and in ways that treat women as human beings who can yell, rather than as biddable sweet things who need harassment explained to them. (Or for that matter, that in the majority they are vicious manipulators who exaggerate to harm men.) It’s very risky, physically, for women to do, and certainly it’s not a requirement that women do it. But like water making canyons out of what seemed immovable sheer rock, it cumulatively, gradually changes things so that women do have more equal status as human beings, and can more more freely about the cabin.
Rob Meyer
January 29, 2013 @ 12:02 am
Not that I think spending money is the way this should be handled, but http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Digital-Flash-Recorder-ICD-PX312/dp/B004M8SSZK/ref=sr_1_1?s=office-products&ie=UTF8&qid=1359435603&sr=1-1&keywords=recording+pen might be sufficient for proof. At least it works on politicians.
Mindy
January 29, 2013 @ 12:08 am
Well this is certainly a lively blog post. I agree with pretty much everyone here to some extent. Should men feel that they have the right to harass a woman simply because she’s at a Con, or wearing a costume, or a corset? Absolutely not. And as a woman, I feel like if I say no or stop, that should be the end of it. As we know, there are some men who just don’t get it, or who chose to ignore it for whatever reason. I don’t feel that wearing a revealing outfit excuses bad behavior or that women are asking for NEGATIVE attention when they wear something that makes them feel better about themselves. At the same time, I am a realist. If I put on a corset or a cute outfit or a costume, it’s because it makes me feel better about myself…WHY does it make me feel better? Because it LOOKS GOOD! I feel better about myself when I like the way I look. That’s just human nature. It’s also human nature to notice OTHER people who look good. What I think looks good and what you think looks good may not be the same thing…but if you deny that you enjoy beauty, you’re a liar. If you walk around in public wearing a whole lot of nothing, people will notice. Men will probably hit on you. That is to be expected regardless of how you may feel about it. As a woman, you KNOW this. If you didn’t want ANY attention and you were truly ONLY wearing it for yourself, you would wear your lovely outfit in the privacy of your own room, and sit admiring yourself in the mirror. I don’t think leaving your room and wearing whatever you want means that you’re asking for some creeper to get all handsy with you…I do think it means that you understand that people are probably going to look…some of them will come talk to you…some of them might even ask if they can touch you (honestly, a con is the ONLY place I have EVER heard a man ask permission to touch a woman). The question is, HOW do you enforce a line of what’s acceptable and what isn’t in this type of event where so many people’s lines are in a different place? I think that was Rob’s point. I believe he was intending to spark a conversation about HOW this can be addressed. There is certainly never any reason for a man to touch a woman without her permission no matter when, where, or why. When a woman says no, she means no…end of story. (Realistically, this issue goes both ways. I don’t feel like a woman should be able to walk around groping every guy that walks by with no consequences. If we’re all talking equality here, why has no one else mentioned this? There are some pretty creepy women out there too.) I know Rob B, and he would be the first person to step in if some creeper wasn’t taking no for an answer. He is actually quite the opposite of how he comes across here. I’m sure there are many of you who will disagree with me…but this is the way the world is at this point in time. I am all for trying to change the status quo, but denying it won’t help accomplish that. Whether you agree or disagree with my assessment, this is our reality in 2013. It’s the reason why more and more books are being released every day with women in ridiculous poses wearing clothing that barely covers their naughty bits…and people buy them.
JCB
January 29, 2013 @ 12:14 am
Aww and here I was thinking we could just use the Sharpies and write “CREEPER” on their foreheads, a la “Snow Crash”.
erikagillian
January 29, 2013 @ 12:17 am
I’d like to point out that none of this is new to us. Every time this subject comes up, multiple people drag out the ‘for further discussion’ points you are. In fact it came up so often in the Readercon debates I’m surprise we don’t have a three letter acronym for it yet.
You seem like you’re an ok guy, and I am not intending to be mean or to start a fight, but when women talk about this subject, you may want to really pay attention to what they are saying. They have been socialized from the moment they were born in a way you never even saw. Even before birth now, I guess. I’m not saying you can’t grasp what the experience may be like, but you’re not acting like you’ve seen it here, and I think these people are being very kind and patient trying to explain it to you. Have you read Schrodinger’s Rapist? I’m not bringing it up because we’re talking about rape (though we are on that continuum) but that the article explains how differently women seen things than men do, in a really straight forward way, and if you can see how different that is, maybe you could just believe some of these women say.
And bringing up the socially awkward nerd, and the non-conformists who want to be free of societal who-sis isn’t a lead in to more discussion, it’s a way to get some people to reiterate something that’s been talked to death until you understand it. These are not new issues, they are not new ideas, they are defenses we have seen over and over from people who don’t want to have to change. I’m not saying that’s what you’re doing, but you are using their arguments, that’s why you’re getting lumped in with them.
Ms. Elise
January 29, 2013 @ 12:40 am
Ah, but the solution doesn’t just lie in stopping when the behavior is evidently unwelcome (as in, girl or guy withdraws and flinches or ignores your attention). It lies in stopping when your behavior is not openly welcomed. A friendly conversation without sexual innuendo is great, as is light flirting. But if the person you’re talking to ignores, skips over, or simply doesn’t return your flirtatious behavior? Stop. Be friendly if it still feels comfortable, but stop right there. There will be someone else to flirt with, someone who will be much more receptive.
Summary (also, here be minor DS9 spoilers!): if you find someone attractive and want to talk/flirt/whatever with them, it’s fairly safe to say “Wow, that’s an awesome outfit. You look great in it. How’d you make it? [or something else interesting, like the character they’re cosplaying or whatever happens to be near, or whatever]” If they don’t react like Leeta* does to Rom* before the two of them finally admit they’re in love*, stop. Do not pass go. Let them make the next move, if they want to, or just keep up light conversation because, hey, friends are great. People you meet anywhere, no matter how they dress or act or whatever, owe you nothing – not flirting, not friendliness, and certainly nothing more than that.
* – See http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Doctor_Bashir,_I_Presume_(episode) if you don’t get it.
Rob B.
January 29, 2013 @ 12:43 am
I can understand where you are coming from. I did not participate in the Readercon discussion (but I was aware of the uproar it created), so if I am bringing up topics or arguments that have already been discussed, I apologize. I also should have made it more clear that the problem didn’t need to be explained to me.
I have read many books on the subject of socialization of the sexes and the different ways men and women view the world. As you said, it is not new to me. With that said, aren’t men also socialized since the day they are born? Couldn’t the problem stem from there? If so, what more can be done that doesn’t create a boring homogenized world? Our differences (even of opinion) are what make this world worth living in.
Steph
January 29, 2013 @ 12:53 am
My interest began waning after a Very Famous Filker grabbed my ass and felt me up when we were alone in an elevator at Dragon*Con. The premise was that he was giving me a hug because he recognized me from a prior con. It was not a hug. I was 19, and so shocked and hurt that all I could do was walk out when the doors opened.
I’ve never supported any of his endeavors since. And I (privately) discourage people from giving him money.
This was 18 years ago. I wish things would get better.
Sally
January 29, 2013 @ 1:20 am
That is indeed the word!
AJHall
January 29, 2013 @ 2:38 am
Unfortunately the comment threading doesn’t allow me to reply directly to you, Martin, but I don’t share your faith in the power of youth, given the last year has shown, in the UK alone, Imperial College student magazine publishing a Valentine’s day article explaining how to synthesise Rohypnol, the Sussex Univeristy magazine has also published pro-sexual assault material and the University of Oxford and Cambridge Unions have made a point of issuing speaker invitations to Dominic Strauss-Kahn and Julian Assange, who admittedly have things to say on economics and internet secrecy respectively but who attracted no such interest from the universities before the sex crime allegations were raised against them.
AJHall
January 29, 2013 @ 3:15 am
As a matter of fact, you were the one who specifically included criminals when you said In the “real world” they are required to march to the same drum as everyone else. If cons are meant to foster an acceptance of everyone, how can you place limits on their behavior? Don’t get me wrong, I still believe that there are boundaries that need to be enforced, but sometimes those boundaries are very gray. Especially to a congregation of people who, on the aggregate, are not known to fit society’s opinion of “normal”. To put it another way, a convention can be a place where someone who is normally excluded from participating in social activities due to their perceived differences can gather with others who they know will be accepting of them, regardless of their social awkwardness.
You may not be aware but a very high percentage of the objectionable behaviour at cons which gets swept under the umbrella term “harassment” includes criminal behaviour of one sort or another, including sexual assault, common assault and battery. The fact that it rarely results in complaints to the police and virtually never results in convictions is for a whole host of reasons, including
– most people regard the law and still more the criminal law as the last resorts for problem solving, not the first port of call
– if victims are (justifiably) nervous about the kick-back of making any response, however mild, from the con community and the pressures are particularly strong when that response is a criminal complaint
– evidential issues including problems of identification and reluctance of witnesses to be drawn in
– the very factors you mention of lack of conformity to social norms making complaints from people in that group less likely to be taken seriously by law enforcement
– historic lack of effective enforcement of allegations of sexual crimes by law enforcement generally
– transience of victim and harasser in location of crime – if both of them have travelled several hundred or indeed thousand miles to attend a con from two different states or conceivably sovereign territory the difficulties of a successful prosecution are increased several hundred-fold
etc, etc.
In any event, you’re perpetuating the myth that harassers harass because they can’t read social cues. This is simply not born out by relevant scientific evidence. See the studies linked here
Or, if that’s too much work, just consider this simple example.
How many men when hearing this from a friend “Where do you want to go to watch the match? There’s a great deal on lager at Benjy’s and they’ve just installed new wide screen TVs, but I suppose we could go to the Nag’s Head as usual” have any doubt which bar the speaker prefers? And yet, the very same men are supposed to get all confused about what communication is intended when a woman they’ve been pestering at a con all evening leaves their vicinity on five separate occasions, retreats to the loo for half an hour at a time, surrounds herself by a defensive wall of female friends three deep and, finally, when pressed for her phone number hands over -scrawled in leaky biro on the slimy side of an individual butter pat wrapper from the buffet – a number which turns out to be that of a Domino’s pizza in an industrial district on the far side of the county which closed down three years ago.
Martin
January 29, 2013 @ 3:32 am
Kathryne, i wouldn’t include “rape jokes” in the humor section. And i agree that this isn’t just joking. On a con or at a workplace, this has no justification.
A reason why i am always reluctant to enter such discussion is, that you can not provide an accurate image. If you interpret my “develop[ed] a peculiar humor that may be abusive in language and even sexually charged” in the light of your experiences, you may see a complete different scenario than what has happened and what i tried to describe.
If someone were to crack a rape joke to an 18 year old trainee, he would find himself in for a shock frost treatment at least.
There are several levels less severe than this. But even with the jokes there, people may already start to feel uncomfortable.
My goal at that point is:
– The culprits become aware that not everyone may be OK with their style.
– That they find out if someone is OK and rather err on the side of caution.
– That they adjust their behavior accordingly.
I am not shy of using a big stick to teach. But i rather try to change heads than cut them off.
I agree with the “speak up” thing. That is not only targeted towards the women involved but also towards male witnesses noticing someone wincing at a joke or avoiding a certain office.
My biggest concern is not about acting wrongly but not realizing something is wrong.
Nick
January 29, 2013 @ 3:53 am
I agree with you on a couple points: 1)When Kristin (my lovely girlfriend) left the room with a corset on, she did and should have expected a certain level of admiration, 2) I really do believe that it is human nature to appreciate beauty, but it needs to be done respectably. She should not have had to expect to be followed around, leered at, or made to feel uncomfortable in any way, let alone have to expect to be hit on simply because the clothing she was wearing, and especially not expect to have strangers ask to touch her (all of which happened, repeatedly). I think that most women who dress up in revealing clothing know all of these things will happen, and that is the problem, and instead of passively aggressively accusing people of being out of touch with reality if that isn’t something they can accept, we should be discussing how to change it, and quite simply, that means not making excuses for the poor nerds with no social skills, and making them aware that their behavior is not acceptable. I know my girlfriend, she is tougher than most, there was nothing she couldn’t handle, but not everyone is cut from the same cloth as her (myself included) and I think it’s a really unfair expectation that women be expected to “handle” anything. It’s not a burden we ask of men. I think a HUGE misconception that’s been perpetuated in some of these posts is that boundaries are “gray” at conventions. Social norms and boundaries are exactly the same at a convention as they are in any other social situation, specific to the individual, and should always be respected to an extreme. It’s a true statement that when a woman says no, it means no, but for God’s sake, don’t make her say no. If you want to know if you can touch her, you have to take the time to say hi, get to know her, flirt, see if she reciprocates etc, the same thing that happens in male-female relationships anywhere else. Anything short of that is harassment and despite being a reality in 2013, shouldn’t be condoned. The convention is not a magical place where social norms disappear, it is a place where, in appropriate situations, they can be circumnavigated. Some are harmless, like dressing up as your favorite character and not have people look at you like you’re crazy. Others, like BDSM and polyamory have to be approached very carefully so as to protect all uninterested parties (ie erotica BDSM panels, poly meetups). But to make a blanket assumption that boundaries are gray because we are at a convention is a dangerous and socially irresponsible stance.
Martin
January 29, 2013 @ 4:46 am
I don’t expect the problem to get fixed due to new people, but i expect it to get better. On the other side: the examples you have mentioned are pretty disturbing.
Would you agree on that the current generation being better at that topic? I cannot rule out, that just my personal bubble is getting better :-(. And from the way the discussion is going, that option has gotten a probability raise the last 24 hours.
AJHall
January 29, 2013 @ 5:52 am
Your experience as a professional diver resonate so much with my experiences as a Yachtmaster and yacht skipper. Obviously when doing a manoeuvre (such as mooring the boat) the skipper’s job is to allocate jobs to the crew, and that allocation has to take into account the strengths and skills of individual crew members. Equally, that takes into account labour saving gadgets such as winches and pulleys, which allow sensible gearing of effort. The number of times I’ve seen a man drop the job allocated to him so as to “help” a woman pull in a rope without using a winch, when she’s using the winch perfectly properly, sensibly and with due regard to safety beggars belief. And not only does that mean the man’s neglecting his proper job and making the woman feel inadequate but he’s expending more energy than necessary on each task. Since crew fatigue is a major contributory cause of loss of life at sea, this is another example of that type of White Knighting being dangerous as well as annoying.
AJHall
January 29, 2013 @ 6:13 am
Well said!
I think what you’re describing is what I call “the leopard in the living room fallacy” (perhaps I was overly impressed by Katharine Hepburn and Cary Grant in Bringing Up Baby at a young age). That is, there are undoubtedly people who could cope with finding an escaped leopard in their living room and emerge unscathed and not in a state of gibbering panic. But is it reasonable to expect anyone to do so, still less expect them to do so and have their behaviour judged against that of people who aren’t having to deal with leopards in their living rooms on a daily basis?
Martin
January 29, 2013 @ 6:30 am
Universe itself has a peculiar sense of humor. We have this discussion and just today there is an incident here which leads me to doubt the existence of at least two working brain cell in some other people.
Jim C. Hines
January 29, 2013 @ 7:52 am
Thanks, Seabeegirl! Another commenter asked the same thing upstream, so I’m going to cheat and just copy/paste that response.
Goblin Quest would be good if you like humorous send-ups of some of your typical fantasy cliches … The Stepsister Scheme if you want a fairy tale retelling with Snow White as a witch and Sleeping Beauty as a martial artist … and Libriomancer is my latest, and is about a magic librarian from Michigan’s Upper Peninsula who kills sparkling vampires, among other things. I’ve got previews of everything linked from the main page of the site.
Droewyn
January 29, 2013 @ 7:53 am
Rob – Even with a recording to use as evidence, that doesn’t help her survive in the short term if she gets fired *now*. And even if the threat is enough to make them fall in line, her chances of advancement have just become nonexistent. It’s really hard to prove “complaining about sexual harassment was the reason I never got promoted again.”
Mindy
January 29, 2013 @ 8:26 am
Nick, I agree with you completely. I don’t think it’s a GOOD thing. I absolutely do NOT think these things are OKAY, and I don’t LIKE it…but that doesn’t mean they won’t happen. I was simply pointing out the absurdity of thinking that it doesn’t or won’t simply because we don’t want it to. I agree that it should be expected for regular social rules to be followed no matter the time or place. Unfortunately that doesn’t always happen. That’s true at cons, at work, at the store, and any other public place. I don’t think what someone is wearing should give people license to leer or follow or make someone uncomfortable in any way. I was simply stating that some attention is to be expected. Negative attention is never okay (which I clearly stated above) and shouldn’t be expected or condoned. If people are making me uncomfortable, I tell them to back off. At a con, if someone isn’t stopping when you tell them no, you should go report them. That sort of behavior should have consequences and said creeper should be asked to leave. I do find it kind of strange that men at cons will actually ask to touch…although personally I would prefer the awkwardness of someone asking as opposed to the voilation of him taking it upon himself to touch me without my permission. It’s a trade off. I think he should certainly put forth some effort first (talking, flirting, etc. as you said) but at least asking first gives me the opportunity to say no and have that answer be respected.
AJHall
January 29, 2013 @ 8:36 am
I sometimes think that in employment issues the probability of having a working brain cell is inversely proportioned to the number of higher degrees and advanced professional qualifications possessed by the person in question. There’s a precedent sexual harassment case in English law, usually referred to as “the rude food sexual harassment case” and it begs the question, “in what possible universe could anyone think it was a good idea to take creme-filled chocolate genitalia to their office departmental Christmas party?”
glaciers
January 29, 2013 @ 8:49 am
Thank you for this post. I’ve admired your blog for a while now because of posts like this, but, like several others have mentioned in the comments, have yet to read one of your books. I just bought Libriomancer. Looking forward to reading it. Cheers. 🙂
Martin
January 29, 2013 @ 9:17 am
In this case it was nothing sexual, but making photos of a co-worker who was extremely over-medicated with pain relievers doesn’t strike me as a brilliant idea neither.
The problem was not the lack of capability answering the question “Is this a good idea?” but to ask the question upfront.
Tannie
January 29, 2013 @ 10:44 am
Getting down into the weeds a bit here–your comment about “the man’s neglecting his proper job and making the woman feel inadequate.” Oh wow. Oh yeah.
LEARNED HELPLESSNESS. If you put a person in a situation where everything they do is wrong, or in which they are undermined every step of the way, or in which they are in control of the situation and somebody wrests control from them, that person regardless of age, gender, or social situation WILL be trained to take no initiative, to not make the effort, to ask permission. The stereotypical Helicopter Parents who swoop in and undermine their children and other adults around their children are doing the same darn thing.
This is a common symptom of a seriously abusive, controlling intimate relationship, but by no means is it limited to intimate relationships. You describe perfectly how a capable, competent female sailor can have her ability thoroughly trashed by a man: and in his head, he’s being a hero and saving/helping her.
Yeah. White Knighting is BAD.
bluefoot
January 29, 2013 @ 11:24 am
Not only may it cost her her job, it could mean she won’t get employed ever again. It’s become common for companies to require (besides background checks, drug tests and credit checks) “legal history” checks as a condition of employment. These checks include whether or not you’ve ever filed legal complaints. A woman who has spoken up is considered a troublemaker and not worth hiring. HR departments are complicit in this. I’ve been in management in the supposedly progressive biotech industry, and I’ve seen this in person. There can be serious long term costs of a woman taking action against harassment. It very much depends on the company culture.
BigRed
January 29, 2013 @ 11:46 am
This:
is what’s currently happening in Germany regarding a politician who felt the need to comment on a female reporter’s chest. She wrote an article mentioning it and the amount of “it’s not sexism” and “why would anyone want to crack down on flirting” that’s being offered up by members of his party to protect him is remarkable.
KatG
January 29, 2013 @ 2:39 pm
The basic issue is that in society, men and women are trained culturally that women don’t own their own bodies and sexuality, at least not entirely — that they are not full human beings but must be sexually accessible to men. Women’s bodies are there for men to look at, and society dictates how uncomfortable women are allowed to be with sexual attention. If a guy came up to me and grabbed my purse and touched it, started going through it, that would not be considered okay. If he insisted I give him my purse and stuff, or said that he wanted it and shouldn’t I want to give it to him, and clearly I do because I have a purse that clearly people are going to want and ask for, and I’m now a bitch because I won’t hand over my stuff, all of that would be considered quite wrong by society. But if a guy comes up and touches my body, that is not considered wrong. If a guy hits on me and aggressively asks me for sex, that’s not considered wrong. I own my stuff more than I’m allowed to own my own body and sexuality because I am female and the society works on the belief — which perfectly nice, feminist men may also endorse — that women are equal and own their own stuff only to the extent where it does not inconvenience men, whereupon it’s not allowed.
The socially awkward men argument works on this theorem. And since any man might be socially awkward, women are to remain nice, accessible and receptive to all men who ask for their stuff and want their attention. This is what people mean when they talk about rape culture. It’s not about rape per se. It’s about the ingrained notion taught to both men and women that women only own their bodies and sexuality to the extent that the society feels like letting them. For a woman, going to a convention is exactly like the regular world. She doesn’t get to escape that world, throw off social conventions of proper female behavior, and indulge her inner geek on. Instead, she’s in a social place with a concentration of men who think it’s a sexual buffet and she is to allow them to try to touch her body and coerce her sexuality because she’s there and she’s female. If another male is with her, the flirter may back off because then the woman’s body is her husband or boyfriend’s property and he’s probably not going to give it to the other man. The same with a “white knight” — a male friend who asserts that he’ll protect the woman’s body and sexuality. But if the woman is alone, she’s fair game because she is not an equal and she does not own her body and sexuality. So the woman has to face each man as someone who is going to view her as potentially his property and how far he’s going to push it and whether that will include violence and rape first off, at a convention, an office, the grocery store, etc. There is no place that a woman is actually safe from anything, from rape to being asked for her sex stuff, because she is not seen as owning her body in the society.
So it’s not just a matter of shutting down the creepers and assholes who indulge in openly sexist, extreme behaviors. It’s a matter of changing the entire culture, of people’s perspectives, to a view of actual equality where women own their own bodies and sexuality. And it’s definitely better at conventions than it was when the Good Doctor went around and grabbed young women’s breasts. But not that much better, because the notion persists, and it is a notion born of power in the society, that women don’t own themselves because men want to have sex with them.
So that’s something to think about — when you are tempted to tell a woman that she’s overreacting and that the attention she’s getting is only natural and that there are grey areas about what men are allowed to do to her, consider if instead of her body you were talking about her purse and men who wanted her to give them her purse. Would you say the same things? Probably you wouldn’t.
So
AJHall
January 29, 2013 @ 3:09 pm
I was once doing a training course aboard a yacht which =featured exactly the kind of undermining you refer to. It wasn’t the instructor-skipper’s fault; he was doing his best to deal with it, but there were two individuals out of the four trainees who were simply toxic and eventually it came down to damage limitation (it didn’t help that there were winds so strong that the Queen’s harbourmaster came out of Portsmouth in his launch to ask if we had seen the weather forecast, and did we really want to leave port in those conditions? Anyway, in the course of his damage limitation he told me a story about his experience on being on board a round the world yacht race on a boat which had a substantial percentage (but less than 100% because of the need for corporate commercial sponsorship, which set up its own problems) of Services personnel (I think a mixture of Army, Navy & Airforce). Anyway, the boat lost its mast somewhere near Cape Horn, and he made a particular point of explaining that one reason the mast went was that at the crucial tipping point when the forestay broke there was a sailor on the helm who was Services but who wasn’t an officer. And he paused before doing the obvious thing (which the skipper explained to me was bracing the mast using halyards as guy ropes; something which about eight months later meant I actually saved my own mast when the forestay broke) because he didn’t feel able to act without permission from an officer.
And that was a brilliantly non-gendered way of explaining learned helplessness and showing how it wasn’t the victim’s fault. It was the worst course I was ever on, but in many ways it was also brilliant because the instructor didn’t white knight in the wrong way, but actually showed incredible insight. He also mentioned that his personal hero was Shackleton, the man who said, “He who would be a leader, he must be a bridge” something I don’t think was a coincidence.
Merchickety
January 29, 2013 @ 3:28 pm
Rob, judging by your responses to people’s responses to your original post, I don’t think you’re getting why your original post feels like more of the same apologism we constantly hear on behalf of harassers and stalkers. Here is why it feels so gross.
We women are not stupid. We know the difference between the well-meaning, socially awkward guy and the guy who is purposefully, actively harassing us. If anything, we’re more likely to excuse the bad behavior of the real creeps because we’ve been socially conditioned from the first day we sprouted breasts to accept that as normal behavior. When we go to our friends, or to authorities if there are anti-harassment policies in place, we are not misunderstanding a well-intentioned but awkward advance. We are dealing with someone who refuses to take no for an answer, and even the most socially awkward person in the world knows the meaning of the word “no.” The word is so basic, it’s the same or similar in many languages- “NO.”
“I feel the need to caution you in your efforts to chastise people for their behavior at a con.”
Herein lies the problem. You are coming on to a comment thread where the subject is Jim’s *ahem* “hypothetically” shunning an author who harassed his friend. Not shunning a socially awkward dude who wasn’t sure when to back off, but someone who was actively making his friend uncomfortable. In this situation, since NO ONE was suggesting that we need to shun the socially awkward people who “just don’t know any better,” (though, given the amount of discussion this topic has had on the internet, that pool of people who “just don’t know any better” is surely shrinking) your post is of course going to be interpreted as apologizing on behalf of harassers who hide behind “social awkwardness” to get away with predatory behavior.
I guarantee you, the people we are complaining about know what the fuck they’re doing.
“Bring on the hate”
Oh, I get it now. Trolling. Having fun?
Kathryne
January 29, 2013 @ 4:41 pm
Martin, I’m in complete agreement with you. My ire is with those who try to find excuses, who use the “just joking” brush off to turn the tables on to anyone who might object. And too often the rest of us are complicit either through our silence or willingness to go along because we are afraid of being seen as humorless, not one of the guys, whatever. That was really the gist of my rant, because we should be past this. We should have been past this decades ago.
Tannie
January 29, 2013 @ 5:52 pm
Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Horn. Of ALL places to get dismasted. Even taking into account that the weather around the Horn is the kind of weather that will cause a dismasting, it’s still probably the last place on earth I’d like to be with no/limited propulsion. (I am no longer a diver, but I still work on ships for a living.) That’s the stuff nightmares are made of.
Another brilliant, non-gendered example of how truly vicious and destructive learned helplessness is, is evidenced by myths and facts about racial minorities in the USA. The entire concept of “putting the uppity negro in his place” was, in effect, a way of enforcing the power structure by creating and enforcing learned helplessness–if any attempt to do anything differently led to a savage beating, being lynched, having one’s relatives assaulted, etc, then people learned very, very quickly to NOT take initiative, NOT stick out, NOT do anything that would lead to horrible consequences. Then, as if enforcing a regime of learned helplessness with extraordinary systematic violence wasn’t enough, these people who learned to be helpless to save their own lives and that of their families were berated, shamed, and vilified for being lazy, parasitic, servile niggers. And as if that weren’t enough, the well-meaning social welfare and poverty reduction programs put into place in the 1960s were new and subject to the growing pains of all new things, and despite their best intentions, when combined with the drug war had the unintended effect of trapping people in intergenerational poverty and leading to the zombie myth of the cadillac-driving welfare queen. And as if THAT were not enough, even after legal segregation in the USA ended in the 1960s, the dominant narrative was, well, segregation is over, they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get on with it and oh by the way affirmative action is reverse racism, totally ignoring the effects of previous 300 years of enforcing a mentality of helplessness in the face of state-sanctioned violence and terrorism.
I could probably go on at length, but I think I’ll stop there, and let that pickle for a while.
Rob Morgan
January 29, 2013 @ 6:20 pm
You’re definitely right, genre fans like to think they are above the trappings of humanity. In truth I’ve found myself withdrawing from some of the community because of the other fans; in an effort to combat the terrible stereotyping and general mainstream mild disdain for genre, fans have built this insular community and in doing so have become fiercely protective of upsetting and excluding anyone even when someone needs to grab and shake creepers.
London Crockett
January 30, 2013 @ 12:19 am
Jim, as always a fine post. I honestly have a hard time expressing my admiration at your continual battle to point out the unconscious ways women are treated differently—and worse—by men, particularly within the sf/fantasy community.
That said, I have a concern about your hypothetical shunning concept, based on two personal experiences.* I’m somewhat reluctant to bring this up because I don’t want to make excuses for people who truly behave badly; nor create the impression that I believe that many people who complain about being harassed are imagining things. But there are people who imagine things. When you decide you’ll punish the alleged creeper for something you didn’t witness and didn’t discuss with the person, you make yourself a judge with only an accuser as witness. If you know the person well enough, that may be all you need (although people occasionally do horrendous things that surprise their friends). In other circumstances, I’m not so sure.
I hope you—and anyone who likes this idea—will be cautious before punishing someone without a trial. It’s easy to look at some of the horrible, even criminal, things women get exposed to and want to be a white knight. Alas, when punishment is removed from evidence, we get a downward cycle of grievances and pain.
*My experiences ended without any significant harm to me, other than a ruined night out. In one case, another employee accused my manager of singling her out as a black woman when my white manager told her (a smoker) about a new smoking policy, but not me (a non-black non-smoker). The absurdity of the claim was evident to all but the complainer. She grew up in a very racist time and place and I sympathize with her difficulties accepting that white people could treat her fairly. But with less obvious counterfactuals, could her distrust cause a lot of harm if championed by a white knight ignorant of the facts?
Another time, I had gotten tickets to a concert I knew a friend would enjoy. On the way to the venue, she wanted to get off at the wrong stop. I told her it was the next stop. She insisted I was wrong and I assured her I had been to the venue many times and was certain the next stop was the correct one. Then she began screaming very loudly. For a very long time. Why? Because she thought I assumed that, as a woman, she wouldn’t know what stop to get off. If you met her in most circumstances, you would have never imagined such a thing. Heck, I knew her fairly well and was still caught off guard by the way she turned a simple disagreement over a factual issue into a gender issue and the extent of her rage. (And for those who might look for an answer in the events early in the evening, prior to arriving at the incorrect stop, we had been having enjoyable conversation.)
In some ways, because the accusations were so obviously false and bizarre, it trivializes the real risk that we take in acting too strongly on unverified testimony. Had either accusation been more credible or the triggering event more gray, I could have found myself being reviewed by my employer or even the police.
AJHall
January 30, 2013 @ 2:50 am
Good grief. You do realise that your argument comes down to “Two women once behaved in a way I consider irrational which might (but in fact didn’t) have had severe consequences for me if their irrational behaviour hadn’t been obvious to everyone else and therefore no woman’s report of anything can be trusted unless it’s bolstered by sufficient independent evidence to stand up in a criminal court” don’t you?
Sarah
January 30, 2013 @ 4:01 am
Jim, I just wanted to let you know that as a life-long reader of fantasy novels who has slowly but surely been turned off by the cover art your blog posts on the topic have lead me directly to your books! I just picked up my first kindle book in one of your series and I suspect I will be sharing these with my young nieces in time.
Thank you!!
Laura
January 30, 2013 @ 9:45 am
I’d like to add that although certainly the most common and generally most menacing scenario is a man creeping a woman… there are a lot of non-sexual, gender-neutral scenarios, too, that I think stem from a similar root, which is a given individual’s refusal to accept that a person who doesn’t want your social company is 100% entitled to that choice and that, once they have made that choice, you should leave them alone.
I was friends for several years with another woman whom I eventually decided I did not want to be friends with any longer. I increasingly felt that this person, though amiable and kind, was a user, she crossed the line too many times despite my protests about it, and this trend was accelerating noticeably rather than slowing down. I decided I didn’t want someone in my life who treated me like that, so I ended the friendship. I tried to do so kindly. When that didn’t work, I did so very firmly: I said I wished her well and hoped to be cordial to her if we encountered each other in public, but our friendship was over and we would not socialize together anymore.
Thereafter, I kept finding email messages from her every few months, as well as the occasional phone message, inviting me together with her. I responded with a simply “no” the first few times, and soon ceased responding altogether. These contacts from her persisted over a period of four years and followed me through (unrelated to this) two changes of email address–which new addresses she managed to find even though (obviously) I did not give them to her. I blocked her on each address after realizing I was going to continue hearing from her, but the block doesn’t always work, and I found another message from her a few months ago. I have also (unrelated to this) changed my address and phone number, so I hope not to hear from her again… but am not confident.
I don’t feel at all threatened, menaced, or concerned about my safety in this particular matter. But I do feel that this is someone who has completely refused–over and over–to respect my right not to want and not to be in her company… Much like a creeper doesn’t respect a woman’s right to choose not to be in his company.
On the flip side, and unrelated to the above situation, another woman with whom I was friends for years started avoiding me several years ago, then stopped returning my calls, then stopped returning my emails. Since her voluntary explanation was always that she was very “busy,” I took that at face value for a while… until I finally realized she wasn’t too busy for friends, she was too “busy” for ME, specifically, and no longer wanted my company. I was very hurt by this, and I have my own suspicions about the reasons (there was no falling out or specific incident; I think this person just lost interest in the friendship for various reasons)… but I have never seen this as case to confront her and demand she JUSTIFY her reasons for vacating the friendship, let alone felt she had an obligation to remain in contact with me when she clearly doesn’t want to. My feelings were hurt (and, indeed, still are), but I let it go… because that person has the right, 100%, to decide she doesn’t want my social company or contact, and I don’t have the right to override that.
But I have direct experience of dealing with a former friend who continues to believe she DOES have the right to override my clearly-stated and consistent choice to have no further social contact with her. Just as, like so many women, I have experiences of a man refusing to accept that I have the right to choose not to accept his social company–and have been the subject of verbal insults and threats, as well as physical menacing and physical grabbing, when I have asked to be left alone.
London Crockett
January 30, 2013 @ 11:36 am
No.
My experiences were with women, but could have just as easily been with men. The problem isn’t that two women behaved irrationally, it’s that people sometimes egregiously misunderstand. When we charge in to correct the problem, we add to the confirmation bias that lead to the misunderstanding. If we harm somebody in the name of doing justice, we damn well better make sure we’re actually serving justice.
Jim means well and in many cases, his approach would probably do something good (or as much good as can be done without letting the person know what they’ve done—read Emily Bazelon’s recent NYTimes Magazine cover story on restitution for child porn victims). But in many cases isn’t in all cases. I want to put in a word of caution.
AJHall
January 30, 2013 @ 12:04 pm
The “harm” in this case is not giving air-time to the hypothetical creeper’s hypothetical book. Are you suggesting that it’s somehow obligatory to do favours for people one has been told something detrimental about because you might otherwise risk doing them an injustice? And isn’t it rather more sensible for the person who knows the people involved and the particulars of the allegation to decide how credible he finds it, not go with these “might be mistaken” weasel words? The last thing that’s needed in the area of sexual harassment is more disbelief: I can’t better Genevieve Valentine’s comments on that score: Coming forward is not an easy decision; it turns you, for a while, into an object lesson. I’ve been told I was both too rude and not nearly rude enough; that I was too quick to decide I was being harassed and also that I waited too long to decide I was being harassed; that I overreacted to what was clearly a well-established Canadian mating ritual, and also underreacted and should have kicked him so hard a lung collapsed. and 1. Even if it’s easy to decide to report (it isn’t) and even if the people around you are supportive (they were), and even if the organization takes it seriously (they didn’t, and then they did), and even if the community is supportive (the initial outpouring was amazingly supportive; the encroaching of naysaying is…unsurprising), you will spend an untold amount of time dealing with fallout.
2. The fallout may not be, but will certainly seem like, a Kafka novel.
There will be creeps in comments. (I’ve opted not to publish some anonymous ones, including the person who informed me, “You have absolutely no right to deny someone looking at you or in your eyes.”)
There will be threats. (I won’t link to the worst of these, but it’s not hard to find if you search Readercon and “they take people like you and kill them with rocks” together. Trigger warning for pretty much everything. It’s not a fun read.)
The responses by self-proclaimed rational people questioning your veracity, or the necessity of the discussion, will be somehow worse. In discussing the idea of actively discouraging harassment at conventions, they will use phrases like “thought police” and “mob mentality” and “lynching.”
3. You will have to relive what happened a thousand times.
You’ll describe the sequence of events to people on the scene whose help you enlist. Should you report, you’ll describe the sequence of events to convention authorities. Should you go public, you’ll have to describe the sequence of events on the internet. The level of detail is up to you; no amount will ever be sufficient.
Suggestions as to the best way to have handled your situation will be many, varied, and illuminating. Many will suggest deploying a martial art as the best way to counter harassment; many will suggest that you have just never experienced flirting, and were never harassed at all. None of them will come from people who were on the scene. People will question minutae like they’re Poirot in a drawing room with five minutes to credits.
Anyone who has ever described (even in a blowing off steam, what a bad day I’ve had sort of way) an incident of sexual harassment, assault, groping, stalking or whatever will know perfectly well that the last thing they need is someone standing up to say “Are you sure you weren’t mistaken?” Trust me, you can fill stadiums with people who’ll say that. It serves no useful purpose whatsoever. All it does is make someone already dealing with a bad situation feel worse about it. The number of false accusations in such cases is vanishingly small. The percentage of convicted rapists who turn out to have had a steady progression from minor acts of harassment and got bolder as they saw what they could get away with is practically 100%. The risk/detriment analysis you’re putting forward prioritises the wrong thing.
London Crockett
January 30, 2013 @ 1:11 pm
Ah! A misunderstanding 🙂
Either you think women never misconstrue a man’s intent or that all people who are accused of misdeeds are guilty; or I have miscommunicated the nuances of my position.
So sayesth AJ Hall: “The number of false accusations in such cases is vanishingly small. The percentage of convicted rapists who turn out to have had a steady progression from minor acts of harassment and got bolder as they saw what they could get away with is practically 100%.”
All that is probably true,* but blackballing an author who is on such a path won’t change his or her behavior—if you don’t know you’re being punished, you won’t know that changing your behavior would change the outcome.
My word of caution is not a denial of either the pain caused by sexual harassment and various related incidents, nor a suggestion that most such accusations reflect to a large extent the reality of the reported situation. It is a word of caution that anyone can misperceive, misunderstand and misconstrue, sometimes with horrific results.
I’ve been accused of having too much sympathy for the perpetrators and perhaps I do. But I’ve studied the misdeeds of the criminal justice system and how all sorts of biases have caused people harm. Social outcasts are often continual victims. That doesn’t excuse them if they do wrong, but it does mean we need to be aware of our own biases and exercise caution.
While nobody is owed a review by another author, minorities and women have often suffered because white male authors haven’t done them any favors. What’s another white man not getting help matter? It matters if you want to work towards a just society where everyone is afforded a reasonable chance at success.
* I use the word probably not because i doubt that your statement is true, but because rape and sexual harassment are hard to document. The lack of a report doesn’t mean a crime didn’t happen, nor does the lack of a conviction. False convictions do happen—particularly when the crime is black on white—but they are probably rare. The incidence of false accusation is most likely impossible to know.
KatG
January 30, 2013 @ 3:27 pm
Yeah, no. You are making the argument that men might be inconvenienced or hurt by the crazy women folk, and therefore all women should put up with harassment unless it happens in front of other people and can be proved in a court of law, because the possibility of the man being in a sticky situation from his behavior is more important than whether or not the woman is victimized. And that Jim should not believe any woman he knows or other witnesses of her being harassed, but only trust his own eyes that harassment occurred, because let’s face it, bitches be crazy a lot of the time. And he’s also not allowed to refuse to help out an author who he reasonably decides harassed a friend. Which is all curiously the exact same argument that sexual harassers use regularly to deny they did anything wrong or that anyone should be unhappy with them ever.
And your two examples of this had nothing to do with sexual harassment and a great deal to do with privilege thinking. In the first, your manager should have announced the non-smoking policy to all the employees in your office, male or female, white or black, currently believed to be smoker or non-smoker. That’s standard business protocol and it is standard exactly to avoid singling out employees and putting them in awkward situations in the office. Instead, the manager did single out the black woman smoker, which plays into business stereotypes that black employees, especially black women, need to be watched for bad behavior and carefully told exactly what to do. This is a stereotypical perception that your black co-worker probably has encountered more than once, and there may have been other incidents where this manager singled her out that you weren’t aware of. But instead of considering whether she might have a point, your office went with the racial stereotype of the crazy, oversensitive black woman and covered their asses for what was, in fact, bad business practice.
In your second example, I don’t suppose that it occurred to you that you may be regularly condescending and domineering with your female friend, that there may have been a number of past incidents where you’ve treated her like a clueless female who knows less than you and overridden her, that other men have treated her like she’s a know-nothing child because she’s female, and that your manner on the train was such that it boiled over for her. But no, she’s just an irrational female because you were right, right, right, and she should have just listened to you. And instead of dealing with her anger as your friend, the important thing you tell us was that your night was ruined.
We have no way of knowing if these women were indeed “irrational” and the events occurred as you say, since, as you argue, we weren’t there to witness them. You are insisting that you, the white guy, should be the one to interpret these women’s experiences for them and label them as mistaken and crazy. But if we know the women involved, we might be able to make a reasonable assessment of their positions that is quite different from yours. And yet, the reality is that your assessment — the women are mistaken, crazy and have no valid point — is the one that is regularly assigned to women who dare to complain about sexual harassment at a convention or elsewhere. For that matter, it’s regularly assigned to gay or straight men who experience sexual harassment from men or women. They are regularly told that they were mistaken that anything sexual was even involved, much less harassment. We are told that the victim’s perceptions are always most likely wrong, and that if there’s even a slim chance of that, no one can get angry at the harasser, even if they may be a witness to the harassment. And this is the number one argument used to protect harassers, even though it is exceedingly rare that these incidents ever involve police and courts, and even if there are witnesses and clear policies for an event such as a convention or for an office workplace concerning the harassers’ behavior, as we saw with ReaderCon.
And lastly, the idea that you think that people who have been harassed and their friends don’t consider the potential damage to the accused of making a claim, the difficulty if there weren’t other witnesses in having that claim believed, the dangers involved in antagonizing the accused with a claim (such as the danger of the crazy black woman losing her job at your office,) and the consequences they face in speaking up or taking “shunning” actions, is adorable. And also condescending. Jim doesn’t have to be reminded of what you feel is terribly important to remind him. He’s well aware of what is involved and actually happens to have a past of working professionally with women dealing with these situations.
And no, I don’t think you’re an a-hole either who is ignoring the plight of victims. I think you are a white male who doesn’t understand that women and black women live in very different worlds from the one that you live in.