I don't know if I can leave an unbiased comment, as I've grown up in societies (UK and US) that have had ingrained patriarchy and gender roles, and so must be aware that what I think is "normal" or "right" is very much tinted by this.
So ... (after much retyping, and rethinking, and deleting...)
I agree. Using the tone argument, or wanting people to roll over, surrender, and apologise for how they feel, is wrong. (there, very simple).
And abusing people, online, in person, behind their backs ... is wrong.
(Terrible analogy follows) If you abuse a big guard dog, and it bites you ... you aren't very bright. If you a abuse a puppy, who doesn't have the power to fight back, you can damage it for life.
Men have had the power, the strength, and the societal support for so long, that it feels normal. Women who are now trying to establish an equal position are being attacked for it. They haven't had the power, the strength, or the societal support, and still don't.
Seeing that men have that power, strength etc. some people see an "easier" target to go after their wives, children etc. as a way of attacking.
I think a problem straight away is "why are we attacking?" You don't like something, say so. If you like something, say so. If the convention is organising, say, an exhibit celebrating the works of John Normal (the "Gor" books) and you object to them, then raise awareness, start petitions, boycott the convention, ask your friends to boycott the convention ... *don't* attack someone, don't attack someone's family, friends, employers etc.
Of course some people have gone through experiences that have taught them that protest rarely works, and so skip most of that and go straight on the attack (you can see this in many families and relationships, the "knowledge" that reasoning and asking nicely doesn't work, so you get to shouting and throwing things really quickly).
Dehumanising a person is the first step. "She's only a hysterical woman", "his point isn't valid, he's fat", "you can't understand, you're a man", "he's a public personality, that means he deserves abuse and has to take it, because he's not human anymore". Or the worst (and prevalent here) ... "it's ok, it's not a real person, it's a twitter account, or facebook ... I'm not talking to a real person with feelings, so I can be as rude and threatening as I want".
Compassion, understanding, empathy have all gone out the window, and we (if we are a community, then it is *us*) have allowed horrible things to happen here. We need to find a healing way forward (and no, I'm not suggesting reinviting someone devisive).
I do think that if an event said they were going to have, say, the EDL leader, as a guest, then you could choose whether to attend or not. But if an event says it's going to be open, welcoming, and respectful, takes your membership money, and then invites someone like that EDL person, you have bought into the event, you have invested your holiday time, your travel budget, your hotel budget etc. as well as your membership money, and so if the convention then deviates strongly from what you thought you'd invested in, you have a say in it. There's an old thought that if you don't like how a team is running a convention, run your own. That doesn't work particularly well for political parties, it works even less well for Worldcon. It's not a practical or sensible answer.
no subject
So ...
(after much retyping, and rethinking, and deleting...)
I agree. Using the tone argument, or wanting people to roll over, surrender, and apologise for how they feel, is wrong. (there, very simple).
And abusing people, online, in person, behind their backs ... is wrong.
(Terrible analogy follows)
If you abuse a big guard dog, and it bites you ... you aren't very bright.
If you a abuse a puppy, who doesn't have the power to fight back, you can damage it for life.
Men have had the power, the strength, and the societal support for so long, that it feels normal.
Women who are now trying to establish an equal position are being attacked for it. They haven't had the power, the strength, or the societal support, and still don't.
Seeing that men have that power, strength etc. some people see an "easier" target to go after their wives, children etc. as a way of attacking.
I think a problem straight away is "why are we attacking?" You don't like something, say so. If you like something, say so.
If the convention is organising, say, an exhibit celebrating the works of John Normal (the "Gor" books) and you object to them, then raise awareness, start petitions, boycott the convention, ask your friends to boycott the convention ... *don't* attack someone, don't attack someone's family, friends, employers etc.
Of course some people have gone through experiences that have taught them that protest rarely works, and so skip most of that and go straight on the attack (you can see this in many families and relationships, the "knowledge" that reasoning and asking nicely doesn't work, so you get to shouting and throwing things really quickly).
Dehumanising a person is the first step. "She's only a hysterical woman", "his point isn't valid, he's fat", "you can't understand, you're a man", "he's a public personality, that means he deserves abuse and has to take it, because he's not human anymore". Or the worst (and prevalent here) ... "it's ok, it's not a real person, it's a twitter account, or facebook ... I'm not talking to a real person with feelings, so I can be as rude and threatening as I want".
Compassion, understanding, empathy have all gone out the window, and we (if we are a community, then it is *us*) have allowed horrible things to happen here. We need to find a healing way forward (and no, I'm not suggesting reinviting someone devisive).
I do think that if an event said they were going to have, say, the EDL leader, as a guest, then you could choose whether to attend or not. But if an event says it's going to be open, welcoming, and respectful, takes your membership money, and then invites someone like that EDL person, you have bought into the event, you have invested your holiday time, your travel budget, your hotel budget etc. as well as your membership money, and so if the convention then deviates strongly from what you thought you'd invested in, you have a say in it.
There's an old thought that if you don't like how a team is running a convention, run your own. That doesn't work particularly well for political parties, it works even less well for Worldcon. It's not a practical or sensible answer.