I have a question

[la_marquise]

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.

Comments

[anna-wing.livejournal.com]

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.

[mevennen.livejournal.com]

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.

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

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.

[major-clanger.livejournal.com]

Not that I am aware of, although if a convention does call the police one of the first things to do (after making sure that the complainant is being taken care of appropriately) would be to let the venue know. In fact, my inclination if at all possible and if it wasn't likely to induce delay would be to go to the duty manager and say "there has been an incident that requires police attention, please call them now." That way, the venue is in the loop from the outset.

(I appreciate that to do this requires that the convention has staff confident about doing this, and a relationship with the hotel that means that such a request will be honoured immediately. This is thus the sort of contingency that ought to be discussed with a venue in advance, .)

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

Ah, that makes sense! Thank you!

[penguineggs.livejournal.com]

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"

[penguineggs.livejournal.com]

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.

[penguineggs.livejournal.com]

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?

[major-clanger.livejournal.com]

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.

[anna-wing.livejournal.com]

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.

[major-clanger.livejournal.com]

Actual crimes should be dealt with by the police and courts. But there are complicating factors, and (as an English lawyer) I've recently been discussing this with the committee of a convention who wanted some guidance.

For instance, what does a convention do if an attendee complains of harassment but does not want the police involved? This is not an unlikely scenario; there may be any number of reasons why a complainant wants some action taken (from a firm warning up to ejection from the event) but does not want to involve the law. It may be that the alleged perpetrator is a former partner, or has mutual friends, or that the complainant has issues with the police or concerns about how a complaint will be handled (cf penguineggs's comments. My day job involves dealing regularly with women who have suffered domestic violence and it is very common for them to have gone for years without wanting to involve the police.

This is an awkward position for a convention committee. My view is that if the behaviour complained of is at the less serious (if still very objectionable) end of the range of unlawful conduct - for instance, unwanted touching but not involving genitals* - then if the complainant makes it clear that he or she does not want the police involved, that should be respected. However, for anything more serious, the convention committee should probably call the police. That being said, I've suggested that the committee contact the Sex Offence Liaison Officer at the local police station in advance so that they can reassure a complainant that any police involvement will be dealt with as sensitively as possible.

* See the Sentencing Council Guidelines for the Sexual Offences Act 2003, particularly page 33.

[anna-wing.livejournal.com]

Yes, that seems a sensible course of action for the circumstances. I've never dealt with domestic violence issues directly but I have colleagues who have. Things are improving, with publicity for punishment of abusers and much more support for the victims, but in the old days women would mostly only complain once the men started beating up the children.