A terminology quibble from the Readercon fiasco

[womzilla]

A "zero tolerance" policy and a "lifetime ban" are completely separate things.

"Zero tolerance" is a type of enforcement--true "zero tolerance" means that if you break the rule, you will receive the punishment, no exceptions. "Lifetime ban" is a definition of a type punishment that is available for those who punish those who violate the policy.

A zero-tolerance policy can have many levels of punishment, based on elements such as specific offense (a "zero-tolerance" rule against possessing weapons could still have different levels of punishment for carrying a knife vs. carrying a suitcase packed with explosives) or repeat offenses. "Zero tolerance" and "lifetime ban" aren't synonyms.

Comments

[redbird]

The problem with that argument is that it includes "anyone who has been harassed and doesn't see reason to believe a chazming offender's claims that he knows better now shouldn't go to the con." Calling an admitted harasser "a jerk" is minimizing the offense, and it's not just "anyone": the woman who was harassed stated publicly that she would not feel safe at Readercon if the offender was allowed back, and she had to worry that he would be lurking around the corner. That neither you nor I would feel unsafe in his presence is irrelevant.

Yes, you have been mercifully kept away from, or avoided, the people whose reaction to "Guys, don't corner women in elevators to proposition them at 3 in the morning" is to email rape threats. That incident was at a skeptical convention, not an sf con, but I do not believe that those men want a safe environment at sf cons either. Not safe for women, at least. (If someone keeps saying "I want you to feel safe" but objects to anything you say might help you feel or be safer, because it would be unkind to suggest that anyone else was endangering you or that any man's behavior might be objectionable, that person de facto favors an unsafe environment.)

[barondave.livejournal.com]

Now you're putting words in my mouth, and putting email threats into situations where none occurred. The question remains: How is chazming less safe due to actions actually taken? Whether she 'feels' safe is not the question; no one can control feelings. As you say, feelings are irrelevant. Is she (or anyone) actually safe? The answer appears to be yes.

[avram]

I think chazming was a typo for charming, the idea being that Walling is a charming fellow towards whom the board was favorably inclined, rather than being an annoying person like the guy with mental problems the con had permanently banned for harassment back in 2008.

[smofbabe.livejournal.com]

I don't think that the characterization "objects to anything you say [that] might help you feel or be safer" is fair. The benefit of all people has to be taken into account, and reasonable people can disagree about the levels of offenses, the length of punishment for those offenses, and so on.

[redbird]

If someone shoots down proposal after proposal for fighting harassment, and consistently demands a much higher level of proof for sexual harassment complaints than for any other charge, they are objecting to anything that might help women be or feel safer. They don't have to say "It's more important that no man ever feel insulted than that women not be attacked." Their actions and statements make clear that this is their priority.

In the midst of this, when the story was first posted to File770, someone responded by talking about it being unreasonable for someone to be punished based on "unsubstantiated allegations." He said this in response to an article that explicitly noted that the harasser accepted the charges. That's a reflexive "don't listen to the women" and/or "I know this guy, he can't be guilty." (In this case, at least, when it was pointed out that this was in the article, he accepted the coorection. Not everyone does.)

[smofbabe.livejournal.com]

Admitting that you did the actions does not equal admitting that you are a sexual harasser. And I'm not talking about proof but about levels of behavior and offenses. As I said, reasonable people might disagree. Personally, the scenario in question to me does not rise to the level of an "attack": the person stopped the physical behavior when requested, did not approach the woman alone, and I personally don't class putting your arm around someone (despite being incredibly rude and a clear violation of personal space) as constituting sexual behavior.

I'm not at all meaning to say that the woman in question didn't experience this behavior as harassment, just that objective policies need to define levels of behavior and the relevant punishments based on some stated standards and not subjective reactions, which could occur for a whole host of personal reasons. For example, my reaction and the woman's reaction are both legitimate but vary significantly.

[womzilla.livejournal.com]

Putting your arm around someone, uninvited, probably does not by itself rise to the level of sexual harassment, though it's borderline. And neither does aggressive flirting, by itself. The combination of the aggressive flirting accompanied by repeated physical contact, until told to desist, on the first day, and later, grabbing and proclaiming, "Well, you and I will have a good time!"--that doesn't just speed past my threshold of acceptable behavior, it bumps up against the edges of assault. Genevieve seems to have reacted with fury rather than terror, but man, that's just out there.

[barondave.livejournal.com]

"and consistently demands a much higher level of proof for sexual harassment complaints"

Whoa there. Just who is demanding such higher proof? "Someone" who wrote a letter? Certainly not the Readercon Committee, who came down hard on the offender. The argument here is about the punishment. No one in any of the comments I've seen here is denying the offense.

See below comment. You are awfully close to crossing a line.

[avram]

I like that the comment saying "No one in any of the comments I've seen here is denying the offense" came out right below the comment denying the offense. (Which I imagine wasn't there yet at the time barondave started typing his response to redbird, but it's still a great coincidence.)

[redbird]

If it is crossing a line to say that you have the luck to be able to ignore rape culture and the endless excuses made for harassers, I am perfectly happy to be over here on the other side of the line from you. (Excuses including completely baseless speculations that Rene might have Asperger's, as if people with Asperger's cannot understand "stop" or "go away," because the people posting the speculations apparently didn't want to consider that a "normal" male fan might be guilty of harassment.)