On reflection, I probably shouldn’t have done an image search for ‘pearl necklace’
Or, perhaps more properly, The Great Gender Con.
The debate is toxic, whether you’re talking about gaming, genre fiction, technology or anything else where there’s a current gender disparity, yet I still keep coming back to it. I don’t know why really. All it gets me is opprobrium and misrepresentation but I feel that there have to be counter voices.
We are now at the point in this ‘debate’ that merely pointing out that there are any nice guys at all is somehow controversial and problematic.
Off the back of that Sarah got some flak and I, foolishly, felt compelled to stick my oar in.
Why?
Well, we’ve seen the fallout in the atheist and skeptic movements, it rumbles on in gaming. To see it spreading to genre fiction meets and conventions is depressing, for several reasons.
- There is no indication that sexual harassment is any sort of particular or special problem at any of these events any more than it is for the general public in any social situation. This isn’t to say sexual harassment isn’t a problem, just that making it seem that these sorts of events are hotbeds of sexual misconduct is not correct.
- Creating the impression that they are full of harassment reduces women’s involvement in these causes, activities and meet-ups. Completely the reverse of the supposed goal of the crusaders who spread the idea that it is. EG: The Amazing Meeting’s female attendance ratio dropped massively. Not because of any indication of endemic harassment, but rather because of the fearmongering.
- The scaremongering is predicated upon a demonisation of male sexuality and is thoroughly gendered, as the response to Sarah’s post shows.
- The proposed solutions, such as harassment policies, are unnecessary, negatively impact socialisation at events and cement the fear and sexism towards men in writing, subject to wilful abuse.
I don’t think it’s a good idea to create an inaccurate atmosphere of fear, particularly of something as serious as sexual harassment.
I don’t think it’s a good idea, or in line with what these people say they want to do, to put women off attending conferences.
I don’t think it’s a good idea to tar the male gender with the same brush.
I don’t think it should be controversial to point out that there are also nice guys – or that they’re the majority.
Why do I regard this pearl-clutching pseudo-feminism as a problem? Because it’s a lie, because it’s irresponsible, because it creates a bad impression that doesn’t reflect reality (as does their response to criticism), because it’s sexist, because it’s preying on people’s fears for no clear end.
The Daily Mail and other media create an impression of the rate of crime which makes many pensioners and others afraid to leave their houses and terrified of youths. It makes them afraid to a level utterly disproportionate to the actual levels of crime or the ‘risk’ they take in popping down to the shops. Sure, it sells papers (or webclicks) but if it’s causing unnecessary fear and genuinely causing harm is it a responsible thing to do?
How is this any different?
Grim's Tales 
The current desperate scramble among small, local SF cons to add “anti-harassment policies” irks me no end. Any behaviour that should be unacceptable *has* been unacceptable for many years. The people who (rarely) offend and the people who are (rarely) offended against already know this, because they found it out the hard way. The people who push for these redundant “anti-harassment” policies are usually self-aggrandizing pundits cynically playing the role of defenders of the poor, frail, defenseless womenfolk. I think it’s vile.
I think anti-harassment policies are necessary because they assure those people who have never attended such events—and thus don’t know how the organization would react to such complaints—that at least such issues have been considered. Women have been subjected to many decades of less than supportive responses when they complain about such harassment in the rest of society, why would they expect any difference at a con? “What’s wrong? He was just being friendly. You should be flattered,” has been a common response from men (and some women) when a woman voices her grievances. It is not just the harassment itself, but society’s slow recognition of such inappropriate behavior that makes such policies necessary.
And if a policy doesn’t apply to you, then IT DOESN’T APPLY TO YOU. Assuming that it is aimed at you, that you have been in some way targeted by it and thus feel slighted in some way, is bullshit. If you aren’t tempted to be a robber, then laws against robbery in no way limit your behavior. If you are a “good guy” then policies against being evil hurt you how? By preventing you from doing something you would never think of doing anyway? Get over yourselves, and recognize that sexual harassment is endemic in society, and anti-harassment policies show that the PTB have given at least minimal consideration to the safety and respectful treatment of all attendees.
CK
If the problem is the existing law etc isn’t being applied, how do more rules (ones that don’t have the backing of law or the ease of familiarity) help anything at all?
There’s a problem with ‘harassment policies’ being used to deliver trojan censorship and to introduce other agendas. They’re beyond unnecessary and they create a massively negative impression that has a real impact.
To reiterate. Anti-harassment policies are unnecessary and are used as cover for deeply problematic issues of censorship and control. Being against anti-harassment policies does not make one pro harassment.
One need only look at The Amazing Meeting to see the problem.
What laws are there preventing sexual harassment in non-work conditions (at least here in the USA)? None. Except in matters of employment, sexual harassment is a civil issue. So anti-harassment policies allow participants know what the con admins will do if such a problem is brought to their attention. They are far from unnecessary.
And I don’t understand the “censorship and control” comment. Freedom of speech in no way applies to private organizations, just the government. If a private con doesn’t want you to to make other participants feel unsafe or unwelcome with certain statements and behaviors, then they are free to do so. Don’t like it? Then don’t attend, and let them know why you aren’t.
Could you please list these trojan policies and other agendas are? I’m not trying to be hostile; I just really don’t know what you are referring to.
CK
There are plenty of laws covering sexual assault (unwanted touching etc), stalking, physical attacks, etc, etc. Harassment in the workplace is not what we’re talking about here.
A huge problem besides the censorship issue is one of shifting the burden of proof and presuming guilt rather than innocence.
If you refer to the Geekfeminism example ‘harassment policy’ you will see the payload. If you refer to Violet Blue’s altercation with Ada Initiative you’ll see an abuse of a policy in action.
I don’t think the entire concept of harassment policies should be rejected just because a minority of zealots want to censor the content of games displayed, sold or played at the convention.
There has got to be a middle way between not having any policy on harassment, and banning games that a noisy minority don’t like.
The reason this debate has become so toxic is because we’ve ended up with two opposing camps with entrenched positions who are both wrong.
Removing the problematic issues only takes a ‘harassment policy’ from very destructive to only pointless. Only there’s still harm that derives from creating the unevidenced impression that cons and events are hotbeds of harassment.
Yes, this is destructive. Just look at TAM.
We’re not talking about sexual assault. Do you really think that physical contact is the only way that women can be harassed?
Here is Geekfeminism suggested harassment policy, laid out in numbered list.
Harassment includes
1. offensive verbal comments [related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, religion, [your specific concern here]]
2. sexual images in public spaces
3. deliberate intimidation
4. stalking, following
5. harassing photography or recording
6. sustained disruption of talks or other events
7. inappropriate physical contact
8. unwelcome sexual attention
Participants asked to stop any harassing behavior are expected to comply immediately.
Which one(s) are really inflicting censorship? And what is this mysterious “payload” you keep talking about? You keep talking in generalities and code words. What exactly is being restricted?
CK
Most problematic section: “Sexual language and imagery is not appropriate for any conference venue, including talks. Conference participants violating these rules may be sanctioned or expelled from the conference [without a refund] at the discretion of the conference organizers.”
So vague as to be useless and has already been used for censorship purposes.
1. ‘Offensive’ comments is also open to abuse. Particularly the ‘religious’ one. Ideological faiths also have unreasonable standards of offence. Nobody has a right not to be offended.
2. See above. Define sexual. Given that the kind of people who advocate this consider Dora the Explorer to be sexualised and that a woman in full armour is sexualised because her tabard hangs between her legs I can’t trust this.
3,4,5,6,7,8. Don’t need an intrusive harassment policy to be enforced.
To be fair, the Ada Initiative themselves have stated that the clause is question isn’t necessarily applicable for all events, and is really intended for professional tech conferences rather than gaming or SFF conventions.
Haven’t seen evidence that anyone beyond a very small but noisy group are seriously proposing that Gen Con adopts that specific clause.
There’s also the problem that these people do not seem to agree on basic fundamentals like presumption of innocence and burden of proof.
Presumption of innocence and burden of proof apply to legal issues. These policies state what the con organizations will do if they receive complaints about unwanted behavior. If I, as a con rep, ask you to cease and desist from shouting racial slurs at a con because other participants claim to have heard you doing so, how have you been injured? Even if they were lying and you weren’t doing that, you’ve just been asked by me to stop doing something you weren’t doing anyway. So how does that hurt you?
CK
So we should suspect the demands of logic and an ethical obligation to truth simply because of the nature of the accusation? No.
How have you been harmed? What about when you get flung out because of a spurious accusation?
Flung out? The policy cited above states “Participants asked to stop any harassing behavior are expected to comply immediately” not “Any report of such behavior incurs immediate expulsion.” That would be reserved for criminal behavior. Of course, any policy is open for abuse. Such is the fallibility of human existence.
CK
This is the danger of taking claims as evidence in and of itself and this has been advocated. There’s nothing to stop people lying more than once either.
Last time I checked, the vast majority of cons take place on private property. So the cons greater latitude in what viewpoints and imagery they permit. Freedom of speech applies to government, not businesses. There is no reason why any business has to support or promote offensive views. If a con doesn’t want you to give a talk titled “Why [insert racial group here] Suck At Programming”, the fact that they don’t allow it is not censorship.
CK
It’s peculiar the amount of excuses people are willing to make when an unfair and censorious, even dangerous, action is taken by someone they happen to agree with.
There’s precedent for intervening to protect individual rights in a private context. Take laws against racial, gender or other discrimination. Given that private groups are far and away the biggest threats to free expression now perhaps it is high time we moved to guarantee these rights in private spaces.
That would be censorship, no matter how distasteful the topic.
Private groups are not the biggest threat to free expression. You are free to create your own convention, forum, magazine, website, publishing company, etc. But forcing the ones that exist to permit—and thereby provide tacit support for—viewpoints and behaviors they find inexcusable really would be a loss of freedom of expression on their part. You would be preventing them from choosing not to uphold certain positions, which would also be censorship.
CK
Paypal, Ebay, Google (if they succumb). There are choke points that are extremely vulnerable to control and censorship and all private.
I don’t think there’s any more useful discussion to be had. The only path I see is to make room for all forms of free expression.
Okay.
Thanks for an enjoyable conversation. I hope I didn’t come across as dissimive or combative. I’ve been accused of being a bit “tone deaf” in my online postings on occasion.
CK