la_marquise | I have a question

Current Mood: aggravated

Entry tags:

I have a question

Dear SFF Community,

Most of the time, I'm proud to be part of you. I'm proud to be part of a community that Matched It For Pratchett and regularly raises money for Talking Books for the Blind. I'm proud to be part of a community that is strongly, vocally, actively working to ensure our space is fully accessible, convenient and pleasant for people with disabilities. I'm proud to be part of a community that set up the Carl Brandon Society and Con Or Bust. I'm proud to be part of a community which, on seeing institutionalised racism, sexismn, trans*phobia, homophobia, hostility to people who reject gender normativity, turned around and, yes, argued, long and loud and continuously, but also set out to clean house and make ourselves better. Very few other groups linked by common interest have done that. Most of them seem to prefer to gaslight and bully those who raise such issues. I'm proud to belong to a community that sees its own shortcomings. Yes, we could do better. We can always do better.

There are some great things going on in our community right now. Nine Worlds is working to create and maintain a con environment that is welcoming to PoC, QUILTBAG people, fans with disabilities, new fans. Many cons now have and enforce Codes of Conduct aimed at fostering inclusivity and safety. Con committees are working to find ways to recruit new fans, younger fans. SFWA is working actively to end a culture of normative sexism and racism. Women writers are banding together to address equality in bookshop promotions. Writers of colour are speaking up and working to address the inequality they face. People from across the fan spectrum are supporting and signal-boosting them.

And we are all rooted in the societies that raised us, societies that are, mainly, institutionally racismt sexist, tran*- , xeno- and homo-phobic, hostile to people who face physical and mental challenges, wqhich blame the poor and underprivileged for their difficulties. We were most of us raised in cultures that fostered this, often unconsciously. We are surrounded by images and actions which reinforce an unequal status quo. It awes me that so many in our community fight this, in both their cultures and themselves. IT awed me that we stand up to those who are within the community who seem to revel in their prejudices and tell them, No More.

But, right now, I have a question for you. Why, when we fight these battles, do we so often resort to the same old patriarchal norms? Why do we reserve our greatest spleen for *women* and defend our right to do so? That, I put to you, needs addressing and it needs addressing now. I really don't want to comment on Loncon 3 and Jonathan Ross: enough has been said and said in all kinds of ways. My personal view on it, for those who will demand to know such things, is that I think the chairs made a mistake here. He is a fan, certainly, but he is also controversial and divisive for well-rehearsed reasons. At the same time, he's very popular, particularly with the younger demographic and would certainly have drawn in new, younger attendees. So I can also see that the chairs had reasons on their side too. I don't think the chairs are bad people. I know both of them, have done for years, and they have both worked long and hard for inclusivity in UK fandom. This time, trying for one kind of that, they made a mistake in another kind. We all make mistakes. They don't -- they shouldn't -- cast us into pits of hellfire for all eternity. If that were the case, then the Vox Days have won: they don't care about making mistakes, they just carry on. If we throw each other out of the lifeboat one by one, we end up with no-one.

That's one thing. But I want to go back to my question. Why is the worst reserved for women?
Here's what I saw: a woman, who is a survivor of bullying and class oppression, expressed her concerns over the material that might be used by Mr Ross and how it might affect her. A large number of people, male and female, lit into her for daring to express her fears in public, for being 'mean', for being out of line.
Women must be Good.
A young woman, who is related to Mr Ross, tried to reassure her and was distressed by all the things that were being said. Another woman, the mother of that young woman, stepped in to defend her daughter. She perhaps did not do so tactfully, but she was faced with an upset and unhappy child. And, a number of people lit into her for daring to express her feelings in public, for being 'mean', for being out of line.
Women must be Good.
Both the adult women are now silent on twitter. One has felt driven to delete her account. These women have in fact spoken to each other calmly and come to mutual understanding. But people on all sides -- pro-Ross and anti- him -- are continuing to abuse both these women. I'm seeing more of that than I am people questioning his form of comedy or the chairs' decision. I'm seeing women as a group involved in this being demonised in the press and on social media, for being strident mean girls, bullies, sell-outs etc etc etc.
Because Women must be Good.
Neither of these adult women committed a crime. It's not a crime to be distressed and triggered about potential harassment. It's not a crime to feel the need to defend your child verbally. But people are using the tone argument on both of them, because women Must Be Good. They are demanding complete recanting and surrender. They are demanding recognition for a perceived right to abuse women.
Because women must be Good, and a woman out of line is far worse than a controversial man or a questionable decision.
This is patriarchy at its best, using us to undermine each other. I've seen you, men who position as allies, poking fun at that first woman, implying her concerns are trivial, stupid, blamable. I've seen you, women who I love and admire and support, demanding a right to punish a woman for being married to a man you disapprove of. I've seen male allies and vocal feminists falling straight into the patriarchy trap and blaming the women.
Shape up. Look at who is gaining here. Not us. Oh no. The winner> The system that says women must bear responsibility for policing and controlling male behaviour, that women must adapt their bodies and thoughts and actions to suit male expectations and desires, that women must attain to and keep far higher standards than men at all times, that Women Must Be Perfect.
Mr Ross will not be hosting the Hugos. The concerns the community had over inclusivity and safety were heard. Inclusivity and safety won out.
Yet somehow the long term winner seems to be patriarchal thinking.
And I want to know why.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

On the issue of safety in conventions, why do convention organisers not uphold the law? Surely policing should be done by the police. Assault, harassment, verbal abuse and so on are offences either against the person or against public order in most Common Law countries (and in most Civil Law jurisdictions as well). So why are men who commit these offences not handed over to the police for prosecution as they would be if they were thieves or pickpockets or vandals? At the very least, hotel security should be called in. You would only need the occasional prosecution to have a permanent deterrent effect.

I agree. I do have to call the police on a regular basis, with aggressive or violent people; if I got groped at a con, I'd call the law.

At present, 'he might be nasty to me' is not, however, grounds for summoning the cops. I feel very patronised by a lot of the current debate over safe spaces: it is not a model by which I operate, but it is a model which is becoming increasingly applied.

I feel very patronised by a lot of the current debate over safe spaces

Yes.

"why do convention organisers not uphold the law? Surely policing should be done by the police."

You do realise those two things are contradictory? Is it a convention organiser's job to be the police?

"So why are men who commit these offences not handed over to the police for prosecution as they would be if they were thieves or pickpockets or vandals?"

I haven't seen many of those categories of people handed over to the police by convention organisers either. In my experience, if something of the thieves/pickpockets/vandals variety occurred, it would go through hotel security and they would decide whether to hand it over to the police. Unless a particular person wanted the matter handled by the police, in which case the convention organisers would assist (as we did at Eastcon 90 when several handbags went missing, we also staked out the communal areas to try to spot the people coming in to the hotel to steal stuff)

And yes, in part it is like "family" ... Uncle Herbert might get a bit gropey/clingy when he's drunk, but most families wouldn't call the police on Uncle Herbert, they'd get Uncle Frank to take him outside and explain that if he does that again, Uncle Herbert's fingers are going to get caught in a car door ... not saying that that is the right thing to do, but family/community often means allowing things to happen you wouldn't accept from strangers ... which sucks.

Perhaps I should point out that for me, conventions are not a community or family event, although I do have friends who attend. They are a professional commitment and I don't regard the world of work as a family affair. If I was assaulted by a colleague, I would act according to the law.

(no subject)

a-d-medievalist.livejournal.com - 2014-03-06 12:55 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/ - 2014-03-06 15:43 (UTC) - Expand

yeah.

I did ask somebody yesterday if they didn't feel a little patronized by some this. I was surprised that the answer was an emphatic no. But then we bump into some of the Geek Social Fallacies concerning inability to understand that for perfectly valid reasons people can have different opinions to you.

The short answer, speaking as a lawyer, that the resort to formal enforcement of law whether civil or criminal is intended as a last resort not a first. The existence of the law is intended to exist in terrorem - that is, it's the stick in the cupboard. It is a very bad idea to resort to prosecuting all transgressions, especially since every time people have tried zero tolerance policies they've tended to reinforce existing structural inequalities.

How would prosecuting men who molest women reinforce existing structural inequalities? I am a lawyer too, but not one living in either the US or the UK.

Edited 2014-03-06 11:23 (UTC)

I was told by the police here always to report. Reporting a person for aggressive behaviour establishes a paper trail, and makes it easier for them to prosecute if they have to. The last time this happened, which was a few weeks ago, the man in question was having a psychotic episode, stole from us, and I ejected him from the premises and reported him. He later assaulted someone in another bookshop. I understand that the police have picked him up, and there's a record of his behaviour. If someone molested me at a convention, I would take an exceptionally dim view of anyone who suggested that I refrain from calling the police.

My memory is that there is something in UK law whereby the venue has to be involved in summoning the police: hopefully one of the lawyers will know more. But yes, in general, reporting is a good idea.

(no subject)

major-clanger.livejournal.com - 2014-03-06 23:24 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/ - 2014-03-07 10:28 (UTC) - Expand

Oh, I wouldn't suggest you refrain. But as the Worboys case (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/dsd-and-nbv-v-met-police.pdf) shows, it may take 100 more rapes for your complaint to be taken seriously and for you not to be written off as "a drunk or an addict". The particularly telling evidence in that case is where the judge praises the MPS rape complaint handbook - and then takes on board the evidence of an MPS officer to the effect

The officers – as was accepted in court – were affected by pressure… to dismiss allegations so as to improve their clear up rates"

Because the police might no-crime or the CPS apply their prosecution guidelines (https://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/sexual_offences/) and decide not to prosecute (especially if the suspect has already returned to a jurisdiction from which extradition is difficult such as the USA) at which point it simply encourages the molesters that they're safe and legal.

The other point, of course, given the original point of the post was about women being treated more harshly than anyone else in these cases, would anyone seriously WANT to be seen as "That uptight bitch who called the cops on poor socially awkward Joe accidentally putting his hand where he shouldn't when he'd had a jar too many? Christ, what is it with these blushing little Victorian flowers these days? Have they no sense of proportion?"

And yet, if the only option is "call the cops" where does that leave people who want to put a marker in the sand, just not that deep?

There is a range of behaviour that is not acceptable, or at least problematic, but falls short of that which the police would deal with.

Two examples of such behaviour I've had to deal with at recent conventions:

One was a young man who was reported to me as having a tendency to stare at women's cleavages during conversation. (We're talking more than just having a glance down here; it was more "he is making me uncomfortable by conversing with my breasts.") I had a discreet word with him to ask if he realised what he was doing and he appeared to be genuinely mortified and we had no more comments about him.

The other was a man, known to me as a regular con-goer, who was reported by several non-white fans as having engaged them in uninvited and rather patronising conversation centred on their race. Again, I took him aside for a discreet word. It turned out that he had thought he would try to be welcoming to non-white fans, but had not realised that he was been appallingly crass in his approach. I'm not sure he really realised exactly why he was annoying people, but he promised to back off and again we had no more comments about him.

Neither of those involved behaviour that was illegal and had we involved the police we would have been on the receiving end of a stern talk about wasting police time. But equally such behaviour was causing discomfort to some of our members and needed to be dealt with. That is where having a Code of Conduct is useful because you can point to it and ask people to comply.

Certainly. But where is the redress for actual crimes of molestation and assault? Claiming that the law should be the last resort lets people treat real criminal offences as if they are no more serious than bad manners, denies women legal protection to which they are entitled, allows criminals to escape scot-free and encourages everyone else to continue minimising the issue.

(no subject)

major-clanger.livejournal.com - 2014-03-07 10:37 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

anna-wing.livejournal.com - 2014-03-10 02:00 (UTC) - Expand

That makes sense.

It does happen, in fact. though in some places the hotel or venue have to do the contacting of the police. That's something to do with trespass, I think.

The way I see it, law enforcement ought to be only one of many options for how to deal with something that we want to stop. Many times, people find themselves in a situation in which someone is taking actions which aren't okay, but which also aren't illegal -- or, if they are TECHNICALLY, arguably, illegal, don't feel serious enough to involve the police.

Having other options available increases the range of possible responses. Law enforcement remains an option for things that are worth it, but having other things available gives you a way to deal with things that are still worth addressing, but not worth arresting.

That's very sensible, I think. Thank you!

Naturally, like most of us, I've been thinking about these things for a while. If I may point to something I wrote a couple years ago: users.www.livejournal.com/xiphias/669370

That's about the Readercon lifetime ban of Rene Walling, one of the events that started the wider conversation about anti-harassment policies, and, incidentally, is among the reasons I think zero-tollerance is a bad idea, and that the purpose of these policies ought to be to INCREASE the number of possible responses, not decrease them.

Which, again, is why I don't like having the police be the only option.

(no subject)

http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/ - 2014-03-06 17:08 (UTC) - Expand

The thing is that the best case in that scenario is that if someone is assaulted or harassed, she can file a complaint and have the harasser removed, ideally before they harass three other people.

The goal should be that said potential harasser bothers zero con attendees, not that they are stopped after one if security and law enforcement show up quickly, two or more if the security person is at the other end of the hotel and the local police are dealing with something they consider higher priority.

Also, a comic picking someone out from the front row of the audience and targeting her or him for obnoxious comments based on the person's appearance is likely to be dismissed as "just a joke" by law enforcement. Walk up to someone at a party and say "ha, you're ugly, what are you doing here?" might get you asked to leave; stand on a stage with a microphone and say "look at that ugly person" and even if the audience doesn't laugh, you're unlikely to get pulled off stage and replaced by someone who isn't harassing the audience. There's an argument that people who go to a comedy club for certain performers know what they're getting into; the Hugo Awards are not meant as a Don Rickles stand-up act.

The thing here is I actually think the probability of 'one of our own' saying something out of turn or insulting due to lack of experience or nerves is actually higher than a pro with experience and script doing it.

Regardless of his previous form, I actually thought Ross was less likely to make some of the messes we've had so much fun with over the years.

The problem is not with Ross's professionalism (how far he understands the limits of a particular gig, how far he understands the sensitivities of the community) - although they come into it. The main problem with him as host was and always has been with the permissions that his reputation gives others with less sense. Even if he were perfection personified and gracious and welcoming and charming and affirming, idiots would read the Wikipedia article and take his public presence as a permission.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only