Incidentally, I have been really annoyed by people saying “there is no evidence.” In criminal law, there are three categories of evidence. In alphabetical order, they are:
You have a very good point about the police. As I understand it, different police departments treat complainants with different levels of sensitivity and kindness. Hopefully, we can use the good departments and units to shame and reform the bad ones. It’s taken decades to get us where we are now, and it will in all probability take more decades to get us to uniformly sensitive and fair police.
As I’m sure you know, sexual harassment/assault accusations could easily bring legal consequences in a variety of ways (eg, criminal investigation, lawsuit for tolerating sexual harassment, libel/slander lawsuit, breach of contract lawsuit [if, say, someone is removed from a con based on allegations of harassment and given neither a fair chance to hear said allegations and respond nor a full refund], etc).
Not to mention strictly legal standards don’t spring from the brow of Zeus. They’re not implemented by judges and juries dropped on our planet from outer space. They grow out of our own society’s norms. And we, as a society, believe strongly that an accused person is innocent until proven guilty.
Even in strictly legal terms, our laws sometimes expect people to only penalize others after giving them a fair chance to give their side of the story. For example, employers can find themselves in hot water if they just punish or even fire an employee on the basis of a complaint.
Also, under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, credit bureaus are required to (1) note if a reported debt is disputed (and also, the creditor itself, if it receives notice of the dispute, is required to update the report accordingly) and (2) give the consumer space to insert a short statement. While it does not require prospective creditors to take this information into consideration, the requirements it does impose only make sense if we assume that prospective creditors do in fact want to hear both sides before making a creditworthiness decision.
Even in the purely social realm, in the book _Up the Down Staircase_, the new teacher Sylvia Barrett faces the smart but defiant student Joe Ferone who — through long experience — has learned to reject the school system in general…and her by extension. In a letter to him, she urges him to give her a chance…and points out that in our society one is innocent until proven guilty.
Last but not least, a social norm of innocent until proven guilty, if respected, can dampen bullying in the form of malicious gossip (eg, slut-shaming).
AJHall August 22, 2013 @ 10:34 am
Jeffrey, you’re a tin-eared rape apologist and you don’t know nearly as much about the law as you think you do. Innocent until proven guilty except when in the specific context of an actual trial would result in the following hilarious* Catch 22:
“Officer, I want to report [name] for sexual assault.”
“I’m sorry, Missy, that’s a very serious allegation.”
“I know; that’s why I’m taking it seriously, and reporting it to you.”
“Very well, can you tell me when [name] was convicted of assaulting you?”
“Convicted? But he hasn’t been convicted, that’s why I’m reporting it to you!”
“Hang on a minute, NOT CONVICTED? Officer! Arrest this woman! She’s made a false report of sexual assault!”
“But it’s not false – he- ”
“He’s innocent until proven guilty, Missy. Handcuffs!”
Also, I refuse to believe that on any ordinary occasion – that is, one not involving people being sexually assaulted and/or harassed – you apply anything like this standard of so-called proof to ordinary human interaction. If someone pulls out without warning in front of you, do you refrain from calling them a dangerous idiot who shouldn’t be driving before you see evidence they’ve been convicted of dangerous driving?
*Well, it would be hilarious if it didn’t so often actually happen in practice; try Googling “Metropolitan police” and “Sapphire” for another example to add to the numerous ones you’re ignoring already
I seriously couldn’t believe I read that from the same poster who said, “it’s simply stats.” It’s the kind of thing Stephen Colbert would say to mock… Well…
Unless maybe “stats” actually means “from my butt.”
therufs August 23, 2013 @ 8:26 pm
Thank you for demonstrating why it’s so hard to get people to report sexual harrassment effectively.
Exactly! Just like when my wife was mugged. She was all upset and emotional, but I didn’t want to jump to any conclusions until I got the muggers’s side of the story.
Disclaimer: My wife was not actually mugged. Story was made up for effect. What do you expect? This is what I do for a living.
Copyleft August 29, 2013 @ 3:32 pm
Then it’s a good thing you know your wife personally and know that she wouldn’t lie to you, instead of relying on the claims of anonymous stranger online, isn’t it? Because that would be silly.
Strangely enough, I don’t see a single comment questioning his account, asking to hear the muggers’ side of the story, telling him he’s not being specific enough to be useful, or giving him any of the shit we pour out every time a woman talks about being sexually harassed or assaulted.
Gosh, I wonder what the difference could be. There’s no more “evidence” or “proof” in Chris’ account than there was in Elise’s account of being sexually harassed. Hell, Elise had witnesses chiming in to verify her account. But she was the one who got criticized, questioned, attacked, etc. when she shared her story.
And please don’t waste everyone’s time by trying to nitpick details to prove why Chris is more believable than Elise, because it’s not about these two individuals. It’s about the fact that this is a larger, ongoing pattern. Which is why so many people identified with the scenario in the comic.
At least I know the difference between conclusive and rebuttable presumptions. Since apparently you do use Google, feel free to look those terms up if they’re not already familiar to you.
Here’s a hint: without those distinctions, the only alternative to your reductio ad absurdum would be:
“Mr. Johnson?”
“Yes, that’s me.”
“I’m Officer Williams, please come along with me.”
“What for?”
“You’re going to prison for that rape you committed. Five to fifteen years, you perv!”
“What?!? I’m innocent!”
“Oh no. We’ve got the victim’s testimony on file. Under oath, even. And presuming you innocent until proven guilty would mean never prosecuting anyone — in fact, punishing anyone who dared make a complaint — so hands behind your back please!”
Also, in answer to your question no in fact I don’t jump to the conclusion that someone who pulled out without warning in front of me is a dangerous idiot who shouldn’t be driving. For one thing, I don’t know about your driving record…but if you’ve never made a single mistake behind the wheel in all your time driving you should do speaking tours.
For another thing, life happens sometimes. Somebody could be in a hurry to get somewhere and, say, have been waiting multiple minutes to cross a busy road. Newsflash: under such circumstances people may not turn into dangerous idiots but they will take risks they wouldn’t take otherwise.
Not to mention, pulling out in front of me without warning is a matter of judgment. Just how close to me would s/he have had to be, and what would constitute warning? If I’m frustrated by having to suddenly slow down, I may not make a good call as to whether the other person wrongly pulled out in front of me without warning, whether I should have been more alert a minute or so before or even whether I’ve got unreasonable expectations in terms of space and warning.
Now, if someone pulls in front of me by changing lanes (and I’m sure they didn’t in fact use the turn signals, as opposed to my having missed them), then zooms away at, say, 20mph over the speed limit, weaves in and out of lanes rapidly, passes other vehicles on the right and so forth, that’s aggressive driving. And if I can safely pull over and/or take the car’s picture (complete with license plate), I may contact the police.
Of course, I’m personally witnessing this behavior anyway — not taking someone else’s word for it.
Last but not least, we’ll be much more likely to have a productive discussion if you would be so kind as to:
(1) Refrain from name-calling. If you’re not a closet Nazi because we don’t see eye-to-eye on just what it means to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, I’m not a “tin-eared rape apologist” for the same reason.
(2) Watch your assumptions. For one thing, I never said, and do not believe, that only an actual trial and conviction justifies believing someone has done wrong. Given that your own example shows how a conviction has to come from evaluating the evidence which obviously can’t include a conviction, you know what a straw man this is anyway.
For another thing, you don’t know what conclusions I tend to draw on matters relating to sex or otherwise. Kindly don’t project your own decision rules onto me.
Note that Jim Hines seems to be clamping down on problematic comments here. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that you may not be a troll. But do you want his goblins getting hungry and eating your comment because he jumps to a conclusion?
Ah, Jeffrey. You are worried that a woman’s statement will somehow be weighted more heavily than a man’s, and, of course, you are worried about that 3% chance that the woman is lying. Please don’t let that possibility distress you.
In the one case I know of in which a woman quit her job, citing harassment by “XY”, the investigation was thorough and immediate. The entire department was put into lockdown; no one could talk to anyone else. Then, one at a time, they interviewed every woman in the department. By the end of the day, “XY” had been fired, for repeated acts of sexual harassment. (After all, when, say, the tenth woman tells the same story of harassment, the number 3% ^ 10 becomes vanishingly small, right?)
In the more serious matter of rape, Masachusetts, the state where I live, takes it very seriously. Every possible rape prosecution must first receive an indictment from the Grand Jury. (I believe that this 100% level is not reached even for all homicides.) Admittedly, this means that the chance of conviction for any given rape is far less than one in three hundred, whereas the national average is about one in one hundred twenty, but it is clear that “innocent until proven guilty” is a strongly held conviction here.
What you might do, is articulate the idea that “innocent until proven guilty” also applies to the woman making the initial accusation, just as it applies to the man accused. That would be perfect fairness, right?
You posted a cartoon that specifically draws attention to claims of false* accusations. How does responding by talking about said false accusations change the focus of the conversation, as you put it?
If you were against New York City’s “stop and frisk” policy, on the grounds that it unfairly targeted minorities, and some people respond by wondering if crime will now shoot up in the city, is that changing the focus?
Suppose you were worried about America’s energy supplies, and wanted the Keystone pipeline approved. If some folks were to respond with concerns about the possible environmental consequences — such as oil spills which may be particularly hard to clean up — would that be derailing the conversation?
Like I said before, it’s your site and your rules. I’m questioning their merits.
[*] And otherwise wrongful, like mistaken memories of sex during drunken blackouts, overly broad definitions of personal space, giving someone what you think is a fair hint that you want them to leave but they legitimately might have missed, etc.
“You posted a cartoon that specifically draws attention to claims of false accusations.”
I didn’t, actually. I posted a cartoon that specifically draws attention to the ways victims of sexual harassment are silenced, belittled, and shut down. One of those ways is by people insisting that every conversation about harassment and victims must become a conversation about false accusations.
Which is one of the reasons we’re not having that conversation again here.
What’s silencing, belittling and shutting down is a matter of opinion. That the responses portrayed in your own cartoon include mentions of possible false accusations is a fact.
Any legitimate concern can be abused. Yes, even concerns about false accusations. Abusus non tollit usum.
In fact, one might argue that — for example — a Keystone pipeline advocate who tried to tar* environmental objections in general with labels like “derailing,” and even demanded that people stop “changing the focus” of the discussion, would be silencing, belittling and shutting down people.
(Or would it be OK if environmentalists agreed to, say, only raise their concerns a specific percentage of the time? Maybe on half of the occasions one side argued for Keystone, environmentalists could argue their side too, and only let the pro-Keystone folks have the field to themselves the other half of the time?)
[*] Rim shot!
Pfusand September 17, 2013 @ 12:24 pm
Jeffrey,
What is there to discuss further?
You hold in your mind that this woman is probably (97% chance) making a true statement, and react accordingly. At the same time, you hold in your mind that this man is innocent until proven guilty, and react accordingly.
Yes, these two ideas are in conflict, but we are sf fans, and we can handle this.
And we show that we are handling this by asking any questions in a neutral-to-positive way (for both parties). Not by blatting out comments like those in the cartoon.
I’ve asked Jeffrey not to continue the false accusation discussion here. At least one of his responses ended up in the moderation queue, so I suspect he was hoping to follow up with you on that.
[…] “Sex cartoon” was in the top five queries for the month. I’m guessing most of these folks were rather disappointed to land on this sexual harassment comic. […]
Gerd Duerner September 26, 2013 @ 12:23 pm
“Sexual harassment against men is on the rise because women are increasingly earning leadership roles in the workforce.”
I can’t even begin to describe how wrong that statement is.
Not that it is wrong to say that men, too, fall victim to sexual harassment – but the included general attack against women in leading positions is… well, I’m at a loss for words.
“In box #1, Argument #2 is completely legitimate. In box #2,… and #5 are completely legitimate.”
Dear Sir, your and my idea of legitimate are obviously worlds apart…
No, reporting an incident of sexual harassment does not condem the perpetrater without trial – not even on the internet. It may lead to a short heated debate, but those are soon forgot and the perp can usually move on unscathed.
Secondly, no, women to not report sexual harassment because they “seek attention”, this statement is just plain stupid and eerily close to the idea of harassed women simply being lonely housewifes with an overactive imagination because a “Bob Smith” would never do such a thing…
Elkian October 5, 2013 @ 7:55 pm
I know you were trying to be funny, but all you did is come off as insensitive.
Dagda October 21, 2013 @ 8:16 pm
Thank you for making this comic, it illustrates things quite effectively.
Pfusand
August 20, 2013 @ 6:09 pm
The very, very first part of this describes what usually happens:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/08/08/what-do-you-do-when-someone-pulls-the-pin-and-hands-you-a-grenade/comment-page-1
Incidentally, I have been really annoyed by people saying “there is no evidence.” In criminal law, there are three categories of evidence. In alphabetical order, they are:
Circumstantial evidence
Physical evidence
Testimonial evidence
Got that? A victim’s statement is evidence.
Jeffrey Deutsch
August 22, 2013 @ 9:28 am
Good morning Jim,
You have a very good point about the police. As I understand it, different police departments treat complainants with different levels of sensitivity and kindness. Hopefully, we can use the good departments and units to shame and reform the bad ones. It’s taken decades to get us where we are now, and it will in all probability take more decades to get us to uniformly sensitive and fair police.
As I’m sure you know, sexual harassment/assault accusations could easily bring legal consequences in a variety of ways (eg, criminal investigation, lawsuit for tolerating sexual harassment, libel/slander lawsuit, breach of contract lawsuit [if, say, someone is removed from a con based on allegations of harassment and given neither a fair chance to hear said allegations and respond nor a full refund], etc).
Not to mention strictly legal standards don’t spring from the brow of Zeus. They’re not implemented by judges and juries dropped on our planet from outer space. They grow out of our own society’s norms. And we, as a society, believe strongly that an accused person is innocent until proven guilty.
Even in strictly legal terms, our laws sometimes expect people to only penalize others after giving them a fair chance to give their side of the story. For example, employers can find themselves in hot water if they just punish or even fire an employee on the basis of a complaint.
Also, under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, credit bureaus are required to (1) note if a reported debt is disputed (and also, the creditor itself, if it receives notice of the dispute, is required to update the report accordingly) and (2) give the consumer space to insert a short statement. While it does not require prospective creditors to take this information into consideration, the requirements it does impose only make sense if we assume that prospective creditors do in fact want to hear both sides before making a creditworthiness decision.
Even in the purely social realm, in the book _Up the Down Staircase_, the new teacher Sylvia Barrett faces the smart but defiant student Joe Ferone who — through long experience — has learned to reject the school system in general…and her by extension. In a letter to him, she urges him to give her a chance…and points out that in our society one is innocent until proven guilty.
Last but not least, a social norm of innocent until proven guilty, if respected, can dampen bullying in the form of malicious gossip (eg, slut-shaming).
AJHall
August 22, 2013 @ 10:34 am
Jeffrey, you’re a tin-eared rape apologist and you don’t know nearly as much about the law as you think you do. Innocent until proven guilty except when in the specific context of an actual trial would result in the following hilarious* Catch 22:
“Officer, I want to report [name] for sexual assault.”
“I’m sorry, Missy, that’s a very serious allegation.”
“I know; that’s why I’m taking it seriously, and reporting it to you.”
“Very well, can you tell me when [name] was convicted of assaulting you?”
“Convicted? But he hasn’t been convicted, that’s why I’m reporting it to you!”
“Hang on a minute, NOT CONVICTED? Officer! Arrest this woman! She’s made a false report of sexual assault!”
“But it’s not false – he- ”
“He’s innocent until proven guilty, Missy. Handcuffs!”
Also, I refuse to believe that on any ordinary occasion – that is, one not involving people being sexually assaulted and/or harassed – you apply anything like this standard of so-called proof to ordinary human interaction. If someone pulls out without warning in front of you, do you refrain from calling them a dangerous idiot who shouldn’t be driving before you see evidence they’ve been convicted of dangerous driving?
*Well, it would be hilarious if it didn’t so often actually happen in practice; try Googling “Metropolitan police” and “Sapphire” for another example to add to the numerous ones you’re ignoring already
AJHall
August 22, 2013 @ 10:40 am
And a perfect example from Caroline Criado-Perez on How To Be A Good Victim
Zweisamkeit
August 22, 2013 @ 11:35 pm
I seriously couldn’t believe I read that from the same poster who said, “it’s simply stats.” It’s the kind of thing Stephen Colbert would say to mock… Well…
Unless maybe “stats” actually means “from my butt.”
therufs
August 23, 2013 @ 8:26 pm
Thank you for demonstrating why it’s so hard to get people to report sexual harrassment effectively.
therufs
August 23, 2013 @ 8:27 pm
*harassment /me facepalms
Two excellent but long comic strips about sexual harassment | Alas, a Blog
August 24, 2013 @ 2:23 am
[…] thought this cartoon by sci-fi novelist Jim Hines was terrific, despite his lack of technical […]
Copyleft
August 29, 2013 @ 12:42 pm
“I need to hear his side of the story.”
I especially like that one… after all, what kind of callous, inhuman monster would want to hear both sides of a story before making judgments?
Jim C. Hines
August 29, 2013 @ 12:49 pm
Exactly! Just like when my wife was mugged. She was all upset and emotional, but I didn’t want to jump to any conclusions until I got the muggers’s side of the story.
Disclaimer: My wife was not actually mugged. Story was made up for effect. What do you expect? This is what I do for a living.
Copyleft
August 29, 2013 @ 3:32 pm
Then it’s a good thing you know your wife personally and know that she wouldn’t lie to you, instead of relying on the claims of anonymous stranger online, isn’t it? Because that would be silly.
Jim C. Hines
August 29, 2013 @ 3:43 pm
Sigh. Okay, first of all, I don’t think you understand the meaning of the word “anonymous” here.
Let me try again. Real world example this time. Here’s a blog post in which author Christopher Barzak talks about being mugged earlier this month: http://christopherbarzak.com/2013/08/07/my-mugging/
Strangely enough, I don’t see a single comment questioning his account, asking to hear the muggers’ side of the story, telling him he’s not being specific enough to be useful, or giving him any of the shit we pour out every time a woman talks about being sexually harassed or assaulted.
Gosh, I wonder what the difference could be. There’s no more “evidence” or “proof” in Chris’ account than there was in Elise’s account of being sexually harassed. Hell, Elise had witnesses chiming in to verify her account. But she was the one who got criticized, questioned, attacked, etc. when she shared her story.
And please don’t waste everyone’s time by trying to nitpick details to prove why Chris is more believable than Elise, because it’s not about these two individuals. It’s about the fact that this is a larger, ongoing pattern. Which is why so many people identified with the scenario in the comic.
Jeffrey Deutsch
September 2, 2013 @ 10:45 am
Hello AJHall,
At least I know the difference between conclusive and rebuttable presumptions. Since apparently you do use Google, feel free to look those terms up if they’re not already familiar to you.
Here’s a hint: without those distinctions, the only alternative to your reductio ad absurdum would be:
“Mr. Johnson?”
“Yes, that’s me.”
“I’m Officer Williams, please come along with me.”
“What for?”
“You’re going to prison for that rape you committed. Five to fifteen years, you perv!”
“What?!? I’m innocent!”
“Oh no. We’ve got the victim’s testimony on file. Under oath, even. And presuming you innocent until proven guilty would mean never prosecuting anyone — in fact, punishing anyone who dared make a complaint — so hands behind your back please!”
Also, in answer to your question no in fact I don’t jump to the conclusion that someone who pulled out without warning in front of me is a dangerous idiot who shouldn’t be driving. For one thing, I don’t know about your driving record…but if you’ve never made a single mistake behind the wheel in all your time driving you should do speaking tours.
For another thing, life happens sometimes. Somebody could be in a hurry to get somewhere and, say, have been waiting multiple minutes to cross a busy road. Newsflash: under such circumstances people may not turn into dangerous idiots but they will take risks they wouldn’t take otherwise.
Not to mention, pulling out in front of me without warning is a matter of judgment. Just how close to me would s/he have had to be, and what would constitute warning? If I’m frustrated by having to suddenly slow down, I may not make a good call as to whether the other person wrongly pulled out in front of me without warning, whether I should have been more alert a minute or so before or even whether I’ve got unreasonable expectations in terms of space and warning.
Now, if someone pulls in front of me by changing lanes (and I’m sure they didn’t in fact use the turn signals, as opposed to my having missed them), then zooms away at, say, 20mph over the speed limit, weaves in and out of lanes rapidly, passes other vehicles on the right and so forth, that’s aggressive driving. And if I can safely pull over and/or take the car’s picture (complete with license plate), I may contact the police.
Of course, I’m personally witnessing this behavior anyway — not taking someone else’s word for it.
Last but not least, we’ll be much more likely to have a productive discussion if you would be so kind as to:
(1) Refrain from name-calling. If you’re not a closet Nazi because we don’t see eye-to-eye on just what it means to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, I’m not a “tin-eared rape apologist” for the same reason.
(2) Watch your assumptions. For one thing, I never said, and do not believe, that only an actual trial and conviction justifies believing someone has done wrong. Given that your own example shows how a conviction has to come from evaluating the evidence which obviously can’t include a conviction, you know what a straw man this is anyway.
For another thing, you don’t know what conclusions I tend to draw on matters relating to sex or otherwise. Kindly don’t project your own decision rules onto me.
Note that Jim Hines seems to be clamping down on problematic comments here. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that you may not be a troll. But do you want his goblins getting hungry and eating your comment because he jumps to a conclusion?
If you’re in the States, Happy Labor Day!
pinboard September 5, 2013 — arghh.net
September 5, 2013 @ 1:35 pm
[…] Sexual Harassment Conversations, in Comic Form — http://www.jimchines.com — Readability (Source: https://twitter.com/seriouspony/status/375316368716886016) […]
Pfusand
September 8, 2013 @ 11:46 am
Ah, Jeffrey. You are worried that a woman’s statement will somehow be weighted more heavily than a man’s, and, of course, you are worried about that 3% chance that the woman is lying. Please don’t let that possibility distress you.
In the one case I know of in which a woman quit her job, citing harassment by “XY”, the investigation was thorough and immediate. The entire department was put into lockdown; no one could talk to anyone else. Then, one at a time, they interviewed every woman in the department. By the end of the day, “XY” had been fired, for repeated acts of sexual harassment. (After all, when, say, the tenth woman tells the same story of harassment, the number 3% ^ 10 becomes vanishingly small, right?)
In the more serious matter of rape, Masachusetts, the state where I live, takes it very seriously. Every possible rape prosecution must first receive an indictment from the Grand Jury. (I believe that this 100% level is not reached even for all homicides.) Admittedly, this means that the chance of conviction for any given rape is far less than one in three hundred, whereas the national average is about one in one hundred twenty, but it is clear that “innocent until proven guilty” is a strongly held conviction here.
What you might do, is articulate the idea that “innocent until proven guilty” also applies to the woman making the initial accusation, just as it applies to the man accused. That would be perfect fairness, right?
Jeffrey Deutsch
September 15, 2013 @ 5:20 pm
Hello Pfusand,
Please feel free to drop me a line, and I’ll be glad to discuss this in more depth.
Thanks!
Jeffrey Deutsch
September 17, 2013 @ 10:27 am
Good morning Jim,
You posted a cartoon that specifically draws attention to claims of false* accusations. How does responding by talking about said false accusations change the focus of the conversation, as you put it?
If you were against New York City’s “stop and frisk” policy, on the grounds that it unfairly targeted minorities, and some people respond by wondering if crime will now shoot up in the city, is that changing the focus?
Suppose you were worried about America’s energy supplies, and wanted the Keystone pipeline approved. If some folks were to respond with concerns about the possible environmental consequences — such as oil spills which may be particularly hard to clean up — would that be derailing the conversation?
Like I said before, it’s your site and your rules. I’m questioning their merits.
[*] And otherwise wrongful, like mistaken memories of sex during drunken blackouts, overly broad definitions of personal space, giving someone what you think is a fair hint that you want them to leave but they legitimately might have missed, etc.
Have a great day!
Jim C. Hines
September 17, 2013 @ 10:37 am
“You posted a cartoon that specifically draws attention to claims of false accusations.”
I didn’t, actually. I posted a cartoon that specifically draws attention to the ways victims of sexual harassment are silenced, belittled, and shut down. One of those ways is by people insisting that every conversation about harassment and victims must become a conversation about false accusations.
Which is one of the reasons we’re not having that conversation again here.
Jeffrey Deutsch
September 17, 2013 @ 11:11 am
Good morning Jim,
What’s silencing, belittling and shutting down is a matter of opinion. That the responses portrayed in your own cartoon include mentions of possible false accusations is a fact.
Any legitimate concern can be abused. Yes, even concerns about false accusations. Abusus non tollit usum.
In fact, one might argue that — for example — a Keystone pipeline advocate who tried to tar* environmental objections in general with labels like “derailing,” and even demanded that people stop “changing the focus” of the discussion, would be silencing, belittling and shutting down people.
(Or would it be OK if environmentalists agreed to, say, only raise their concerns a specific percentage of the time? Maybe on half of the occasions one side argued for Keystone, environmentalists could argue their side too, and only let the pro-Keystone folks have the field to themselves the other half of the time?)
[*] Rim shot!
Pfusand
September 17, 2013 @ 12:24 pm
Jeffrey,
What is there to discuss further?
You hold in your mind that this woman is probably (97% chance) making a true statement, and react accordingly. At the same time, you hold in your mind that this man is innocent until proven guilty, and react accordingly.
Yes, these two ideas are in conflict, but we are sf fans, and we can handle this.
And we show that we are handling this by asking any questions in a neutral-to-positive way (for both parties). Not by blatting out comments like those in the cartoon.
It’s simple. It’s just not easy.
Jim C. Hines
September 17, 2013 @ 1:38 pm
Pfusand,
I’ve asked Jeffrey not to continue the false accusation discussion here. At least one of his responses ended up in the moderation queue, so I suspect he was hoping to follow up with you on that.
-Jim
Jim C. Hines » September Search Queries
September 26, 2013 @ 9:30 am
[…] “Sex cartoon” was in the top five queries for the month. I’m guessing most of these folks were rather disappointed to land on this sexual harassment comic. […]
Gerd Duerner
September 26, 2013 @ 12:23 pm
“Sexual harassment against men is on the rise because women are increasingly earning leadership roles in the workforce.”
I can’t even begin to describe how wrong that statement is.
Not that it is wrong to say that men, too, fall victim to sexual harassment – but the included general attack against women in leading positions is… well, I’m at a loss for words.
“In box #1, Argument #2 is completely legitimate. In box #2,… and #5 are completely legitimate.”
Dear Sir, your and my idea of legitimate are obviously worlds apart…
No, reporting an incident of sexual harassment does not condem the perpetrater without trial – not even on the internet. It may lead to a short heated debate, but those are soon forgot and the perp can usually move on unscathed.
Secondly, no, women to not report sexual harassment because they “seek attention”, this statement is just plain stupid and eerily close to the idea of harassed women simply being lonely housewifes with an overactive imagination because a “Bob Smith” would never do such a thing…
Elkian
October 5, 2013 @ 7:55 pm
I know you were trying to be funny, but all you did is come off as insensitive.
Dagda
October 21, 2013 @ 8:16 pm
Thank you for making this comic, it illustrates things quite effectively.