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

[esmeraldus-neo.livejournal.com]

No one is going to come out and say "I am in favor of an unsafe environment for women at SF conventions."

However, what I saw was a lot of disagreement about what constituted a safe environment and how to achieve it.

The disagreements I have with you are these:

1. Sexual harassers are not simply "jerks". If you cut in front of me in line at the movies, you're a jerk. If you grab me, you'e a predator.

2. I think we've proven that the public, and fandom, have the memory of a goldfish--I am not convinced everyone will be watching. Maybe a few people will remember, but the number of apologists and excuse-makers convince me that no, not everyone will e waiting to pounce on the offender three years from now if he misbehaves. And besides, why should the female fans be the ones to watch their backs?

3. The offender in question was a *pattern* offender. The ReaderCon incident was not the first offense. There was at least one other, and I don't want another ReaderCon--or any other woman, but it's ReaderCon we're dealing with--attendee to be his third strike. I do not buy his apology given what I know about serial predators. The offender committed the offense, let him bear the burden of finding somewhere else to be, and let female attendees attend without worrying about watching their backs. He may be capable of redemption, but he can do it elsewhere.

What this says to me is you think it's more okay to let one guy, a serial harasser, come back to ONE convention, no matter how many women are made incredibly nervous by this. One man's convenience > lots of women's emotional and/or physical safety.

When you say to people, mainly women and their allies, that they should stay away from the con if they don't like the idea that this guy might come back, you are definitely telling me that you are, in effect, in favor of an unsafe convention environment.

[smofbabe.livejournal.com]

#3: The "offender" in question is *not* a "pattern offender." The second person who came forward had shared rooms with the person at at least two conventions to my knowledge and gone traveling with him. Whatever occurred between them, it was definitely not a case of a convention attendee randomly being harassed by a stranger, nor does it therefore serve as any proof that the person is question is likely to be a threat to a random female convention goer.

[(Anonymous)]

I have seen your comments elsewhere and there is disagreement on this. We needn't rehash it on in Kevin's space.

[smofbabe.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure how there could be "disagreement" on this: I've stated facts that can be backed up by neutral data.

[esmeraldus-neo.livejournal.com]

I am not unaware of what you have said about the history between the two parties--you have repeated it elsewhere and I have followed the discussion closely.

There is no disagreement about whether that history occurred, to my knowledge.

Where the disagreement lies is whether what happened later/in totality was harassment. The word "random" never came up in my assessment.

I read the letter, and I am aware the shared hotel rooms. I find the shared hotel rooms irrelevant. It's not lack of knowledge--it's that I disagree with you about what the data means.

So, are we clear? I think this ends it as both/all sides have been amply represented in many spaces on the internet.

[smofbabe.livejournal.com]

No, we are not clear. I have not seen any details about the harassment suffered by the second person, if any. My point (which was not dealt with in my previous posting of these facts because the original poster immediately cut off any future comments) is that whatever went on between people who had some sort of relationship is being used as evidence that this person has a history of harassing random women at conventions and therefore should be banned from conventions because female attendees are not safe from him. The second case does not support that contention if you take into account that relationship. And I believe my single post in a single location is the only place where that aspect has been mentioned in the various discussion of this issue.

[avram]

between people who had some sort of relationship

When you say "relationship" here, do you just mean to say the two were acquainted with each other, possibly friends?

Or are you using it in the common euphemistic sense, to say that they were romantically/sexually linked in some way (dating, sleeping together, some kind of reciprocal thing)?

And we're talking about Kate Kligman, right? I don't see any need to make our comments more confusing with "this person and that other person but not the same other person as the other other person" stuff when Valentine and Kligman have both publicly associated their names with the events. (And if we're not talking about Kligman, there's further evidence that leaving names out confuses matters.)

[smofbabe.livejournal.com]

I have absolutely no idea whether Rene and Kate had a romantic relationship or a friend relationship. That's why I said "some sort of." Whichever type of relationship it was, and whatever happened between them, does not negate my main point. Her published account that supposedly shows that Rene is a "serial offender" does not mention that they were at least closely acquainted and appears to be a "me, too" claim similar to Genevieve's, of his accosting women he does not know and "stalking" them. That is patently not true no matter what went on between them, yet that account is what many people are using to bolster claims that his presence creates an unsafe environment for females at conventions he attends. Without her creating the impression that he exhibits this behavior repeatedly with female attendees he does not know, I think some people might have a different reaction to him and to his behavior.

[esmeraldus-neo.livejournal.com]

Genevieve's account of what happened is clear, there were witnesses, Rene does not deny it, and I do consider it sexual harassment. Genevieve kept her cool far better than I would have, but that's irrelevant.

Kate Kligman came forward afterward with a letter to the Readercon board. The letter dos mention a working relationship, but not room-sharing. I read about the room sharing in a comment of smofbabe's in a discussion of the Readercon incident somewhere; I cannot recall where.

This is the part I really want to clarify--I consider Kate Kligman's account harassing behavior, and I don't consider the fact that they had previously worked together or shared rooms a mitigating factor AT ALL.

The harassment need not be random and it need not be at cons. These are not my criteria, these are things you have added to my comments.

With Valentine and Kligman together,I consider this a pattern of behavior, although I suppose in the geometric sense it's only a line.

NOW are we clear? You have made your point, I have your neutral facts, and I STILL disagree with you, apparently about the core fact of what constitutes harassment. And I am comfortable with that.

[avram]

The "pattern" here is a pattern of inappropriate behavior towards women. In one case, it was a women with whom Walling was previously unacquainted, and the behavior took place at a single convention. In other, it was a women with whom he was acquainted, and it took place over the course of several conventions and convention-planning events.

Kligman did not claim that Walling did not know her (quite the reverse). She didn't use the word "stalking", but the words she did use ("him following me at events", "he followed me around at SF Contario 2") do describe stalking behavior.

Harassment is still harassment regardless of whether the perpetrator and victim are acquainted.

[womzilla.livejournal.com]

I will confess that I'm puzzled by the idea that Janice seems to be presenting.
"Well, he originally only acted inappropriately with people he knew well, and then he acted inappropriately with a stranger" does not strike me as a *comforting* thought. I'm genuinely curious what point was being made.

[avram]

I suspect she has an idiosyncratic and highly specific definition of "harassment".

Or maybe she believes that a "pattern" of behavior needs to follow a very specific MO, and Walling was instead displaying two different kinds of harassment that don't constitute a "pattern", and therefore... I dunno, some kind of legalistic principle about extending the benefit of the doubt, I'd guess.

[smofbabe.livejournal.com]

Here's the point I was trying to make: Kate's account does not at all mention the fact that they had some sort of relationship close enough to share rooms at more than one convention and to travel together. Whatever happened between them to me cannot possibly be lumped together with the behavior that Genevieve described: it was not acting inappropriately to random convention attendees that would make a convention that he attended potentially unsafe to female attendees.

I am equally if not more puzzled in return that people see Kate's response as confirmation of the same behavior (which would be something like "Oh, yeah, that same guy was following me around too"). It might be some sort of relationship problem, or it might be some other problem, but it's not the same situation. And frankly, if I were that good friends with someone that I had shared a room with him at more than one convention and traveled with him, if he *were* to start to follow me around, I'd certainly either confront him about it or know the reason why myself.

I think this prior acquaintance information is absolutely germane to her complaint, and to other people's perception of him. I think there is indeed a difference between some guy harassing random women and behavior with a specific person with whom he had some sort of relationship. I also wonder why it was not mentioned in her claim.

[womzilla.livejournal.com]

I can see the distinction you're making, and I agree that there is a virtue in drawing distinctions between specifics of behavior. I mean, the whole point of my original post is that careful distinction is important to understanding even in difficult and upsetting circumstances. (And there were a few posts in the whole Readercon discussion that I felt did sloppily equate very different types of behavior, in ways that reflected poorly on those making the posts.)

However, the type of distinction you're drawing seems to me of most relevance in a case where the facts of the later incident are in dispute. If people were asking, "How can we know that Genevieve's account is accurate?", the facts in the case of Kate might or might not be indicative. But given that the facts of Genevieve's account are not in dispute, the fact that another person has complained of earlier upsetting, stalker-y behavior from Rene is indicative of an unpleasant trend.

[smofbabe.livejournal.com]

the fact that another person has complained of earlier upsetting, stalker-y behavior from Rene is indicative of an unpleasant trend

Given that she did not disclose her prior relationship with Rene in the report I saw, as I said, it puts his behavior, and her reaction to it, in a somewhat different light *for me*. I find it puzzling that she would report it, and characterize it, as the same behavior as the first case even though she knew him and was clearly good friends with him over a period of time. For me, it seems possible that this falls in the category of "interpersonal relationship issue" rather than "stalker-y behavior by male fan to female fans."

[barondave.livejournal.com]

"you are, in effect, in favor of an unsafe convention environment."

Now you've stepped over the line. You've destroyed your entire argument. You owe me an apology before we can continue a reasonable discussion.

Emotions are running high, so I'll give you the second chance you're denying the Readercon offender. Seriously, you need to back off.

[(Anonymous)]

Then we will add another point on which we disagree. Or three, if I count all of them.

You have only said the same things I saw in a lot of other discussions. I don't feel apologetic for taking it apart. You are saying you would rather tell the women to stay away rather than the offender, whether they are safe or not. Dubiously safe isn't safe.

--esmeraldus


K, the anon was me. On an iPad and didn't know it would do that.

[avram]

It did it again!

[esmeraldus-neo.livejournal.com]

But I signed it that time!