It's a weird day

[drwex]

It's a weird day when multiple people take the time to thank me for being the voice of reason. You all who know me can stop laughing now. Any minute. I'll wait.

I've been posting a good deal in both sunspiral's LJ and shadesong's LJ. I'm glad to be able to have discussions with both of them. This is where I stand:

- Judah is a self-admitted abuser and has a restraining order against him for domestic violence and other related offenses. As such, I do not want him at my house and I am probably not comfortable going to other parties where he is welcome. That might change in the future; or, maybe not. I'm in new territory here and the Magic 8 Ball is cloudy.

- My comfort is about me and my loved ones. It's not a standard for other private individuals to follow. I am not the boss of you (unless you're one of my kids and they have some vehement objections to my Boss status anyway).

- When I go to a party I expect to follow the hosts' rules. When people come to my parties I'd like them to follow my rules, which are often summarized as "don't piss off the hosts." Part of why Judah is not welcome is because I'm so angry at what he did. I want him to be banned from other events where I might attend because I have my visceral, fist-clenching furious reaction to imagining someone doing to my loved ones what he did to Shira.

- I recognize that my response to the situation is seated in a position of vast privilege, including white, able, cis-male, wealth privilege. I also don't know what to do with that, except try to keep it in mind when I write or speak.

- There are people I like, love, and respect, on all sides of this debate. I am struggling to understand how these people I respect have reasoned to the positions they hold. I think we have now a large rift in the circle of people I like and if people do not understand each other there is no hope for dialog. Because this is all about me, I feel like I want to understand all the sides first.

- I am currently using the theoretical basis of framing ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences) ) to think about this. I believe we have a framing problem, not a Rashomon problem. In Rashomon, every witness tells their own version of events, and no two of them agree on all the facts. In this situation I think pretty much everyone agrees on the facts, but is using different framings to interpret those facts.

- I have a long and friendly relationship with Scott & Rachel. I have a much shorter acquaintanceship with Shira and even less so with Adam but I'd like to think that Shira and I are at least on friendly terms.

- I am intensely sad that this situation has now become a conflict between these households when I think that conflict was entirely avoidable. I see people responding to perceived attacks on each of these people, being protective of the people they love. I understand that, deeply. I continue to believe that this level of self- and other-protectiveness is preventing many people from recognizing the framing differences.

- We accuse each other of lies, deceptions, exaggerations, denials, etc. But I think these things are all distractions from the core issues. I care about how you treat the people who commit these violent acts; how you treat the people who are the victims of these acts; how you treat the people who have to deal with the consequences of these acts; and how you treat the people who are trying to navigate these unknown and shark-infested waters. I reject any formulation that says, "It's simple, just XYZ." It's not simple.

- I would like to be able to focus on the problems that having Judah in the social circle brings and how we can deal with that. Unfortunately the grounds have shifted and people are choosing up sides in a wholly unnecessary war. Perhaps I'm falling into a geek fallacy, but I also see this as an important test case. If we cannot find a way to work with each other - despite our different frameworks - to deal with an abuser and social gatherings then we have a pretty deep problem.

Comments

[archangelwells.livejournal.com]

1) Thank you for writing this. You seem to have a useful framing of the situation.

2) I see a third group, which potentially seems to fall more on 'Song's side of things, but many of the third group say they have little/no personal knowledge of 'Song. That third group being:
"I am responding emotionally to finding out that a space I thought was safe, and I thought was somewhere threats would be handled appropriately, is not somewhere that is safe *for me* and where threats *to me* will be handled in a way that makes *me feel safe*."

I have to say that, despite my ongoing friendship and support of 'Song, I fall more strongly into that group than I do into a "'Song v. Scott" narrative. I have never been to one of these parties because I don't know the hosts well - I've met them at a couple cons, and I think I gave them my email, but I don't know them well. These are large parties, and I know my limits in social situations, and I don't trust large gatherings. At a con, I have (in theory) a way to report, and a process that will (again, in theory) protect me. I don't have that at a private party, especially as someone the hosts *don't* know well. What I've gotten from Scott's responses is that the hosts will side with people they like over people they are less familiar with. I agree with you that the rule of "don't piss off the hosts" is the salient one for Scott and Rachel, and that is not one that I personally feel safe attending their parties under.

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

I agree, and would count myself in that third group, from another direction. I will miss that big house and its denizens, with whom I was once so cheerfully familiar, but I don't think I can in good conscience attend or recommend friends from other social circles any more.

[shadesong.livejournal.com]

I would actually define my own position as falling into that third group, with the extension from "me" to "me and others". I have always rejected a me vs. Scott narrative; that's a huge derail. (And note that he's the one who started throwing punches, metaphorically; I'm blocking the blows, not punching back.)

Which is why my "I'm trying to disappear myself" comments to Wex above (as you don't need to know or like me in order to agree that a policy which doesn't allow victims of violence to access the protection under the law that they've fought for is a bad and actually illegal policy, and that allowing known rapists to your party full of young women who are Their Type and not telling people you know he's a rapist is a bad decision), but I think your comment encapsulates it better. I do not want me vs. Scott. That is irrelevant. What's relevant is safer communities and the responsibility of hosts to screen for known bad actors or make it clear if they choose *not* to do so.

[drwex]

Err, hang on a second. While I agree that the conflict between you and the Leftons is a derail I think you bear significant responsibility for creation and propagation of that narrative. I warned you two weeks ago (http://drwex.livejournal.com/503054.html#comments) that you were acting in a way that was going to create conflict.

I get that you feel justified in how you've acted. I understand from your comment above why you've spoken in the language you've used. However, those choices have led to pretty much exactly the outcome I talked about. When you construct a narrative, and are unwilling to modify your narrative even when you agree that such a modification would further your goals, you should realize how that narrative affects people. You are not the owner of other peoples' reactions, but your narrative is a contributor to those reactions.

I agree with you that we ought to be working toward safer communities, but I feel that your narrative construction is creating a polarization that enables blame-shifting and opening up rifts. We are none of us perfect. Trying to "disappear" yourself while maintaining your construction of the narrative is going to end up looking like you want to escape responsibility.

(I want to say more, but I have to go to work now and it's not well-formed in my brain. Please excuse me if I've misspoken above.)

[shadesong.livejournal.com]

Hm. I disagree; when you said that (and when we spoke in e-mail), I was clear about that not being a thing I was doing, and even posted to make that clear (http://shadesong.livejournal.com/4507570.html). Scott's e-mails to me show that that came from them.

[taura-g.livejournal.com]

I have to agree with Wex here, Hon. You may believe that you weren't doing that, but the language you have been using wrt the whole incident has definitely contributed to the us vs. them rift that has occurred.

Both sides have used language out of anger, defensiveness and hurt that has created this derailment into the "us vs. them" fight. Both sides need to drop that anger defensiveness and hurt before a real discussion about the issue of community safety can occur.

This is why I was suggesting in my post that everyone needed to just back away for a bit. The heated argument, attack, counter-attack, defending and blocking is just creating a larger rift.

[trowa-barton.livejournal.com]

I agree, especially given the information I received

[drwex]

I recognize and accept your disagreement. Yay, we are mature adults who can disagree without fighting.

I also want to be clear (mostly for third parties who are reading this) that my position is that Song bears responsibility for the effects her framing encourages, and for her part in the social/verbal conflict with the Leftons. In no way does this reflect any responsibility for the assault and other crimes Judah has admitted and stands accused of.

That is, I believe Song and I can disagree about the ongoing social split while still agreeing that it is totally incorrect to blame any victim, including Song, for any assaults or sexual violence that they are subjected to. If I'm wrong in this belief please let me know.

[archangelwells.livejournal.com]

I don't know if I know you, so Hi!

I am curious, based on this thread, what your view/opinion of my "third group" is, and where you think that falls on the framing question. Because I still see it as coming from outside both sets of framing, and I can't tell whether you think that, and since you seem to have very good ability to look at framing, I am actively interested in your opinion.

[drwex]

Hi. Welcome and thank you for contributing to the conversation.

I think your question is a good one and I don't have a fully formed answer, but let me take a try at it. I respect your view of the third group but I'm not sure it's a real thing. There are clearly people who fall on one or the other side, and have articulated views such that I think I can model them. Then there are people who - for whatever reason - don't seem to be in either main camp. That's fine - people can be as seems best to them - but it doesn't seem like there's a coherent group with an articulated viewpoint there. It's not quite as banal as "red team, blue team, bystanders" but it's too large and diverse a group for me to put my mental hands on. ETA: the bystanders group may, as you suggest, largely be responding to an overall sense, but I don't think it's something I grasp, yet.

[shadesong.livejournal.com]

We will continue to disagree on this. I posted about Scott & Rachel's actions only after Scott's post, which showed them originating the me vs. them narrative they'd constructed, and especially Scott's deeply hostile comments - I was working on framing a much more even-handed response with Rose Fox's and Mink's assistance, decided to sleep on it, and woke up to Scott's awful comments, which made it clear that attempting an actual conversation was futile.

This timeline is important. I deliberately kept anyone from speaking negatively about or theorizing about Scott and Rachel, here and on Facebook, while they were coming to their decisions. This didn't come from me. It came from them.

Could I have taken the abominable treatment Scott was dishing out without complaint, or been a nicer rape victim to make people more comfortable? Yes, but I don't think I should have to, and I choose not to.

[lavendertook.livejournal.com]

I'm a total outsider to all parties involved here , but your male privilege in positing yourself as the voice of reason here is really, really showing, and it's not helpful.

When I see the survivor here being blamed in whatever voice of anger she used to defend herself, I would never step foot in these parties or want to partake of this community. You are adding to the unsafeness here, not helping. Step back and listen more.

[drwex]

Thank you for taking the time to add your perspective.

[(Anonymous)]

(I am writing this comment anonymously, even though I *do* know many of the parties involved, because I do not think I can participate in this discussion without someone pulling some kind of "if you're not with me you're AGAINST ME" crap, and I'm just nhft.)

I am deeply uncomfortable with this, not because it is wrong in this particular situation, but because I have been on the receiving end of "you need to tolerate my abusive and hurtful behavior because I have such a deeply traumatic past that I can't help myself" ... and my experience is that it is an excuse that can be twisted by pretty much anyone into pressure to forgive pretty much anything, up to and including physical and sexual assault.

Regardless of what I have experienced in the past, and what emotional scars I am carrying because of it, that shouldn't be a blank check to do whatever I want and never acknowledge the consequences of my actions.

[drwex]

Thank you for taking the time to write that. I allow anonymous commenting in hopes that people will be able to use it when needed to increase their personal safety. I hope you will stick around and participate as you feel appropriate.

[lavendertook.livejournal.com]

I totally agree in the context of future behavior. But we're not talking about future behavior. We're talking about someone dealing with the initial crisis right now--immersed in the court case with her abuser and dealing with people in her community who were not taking her situation seriously and were still welcoming her abuser. She should not be expected to act perfectly and should be extended all benefit of the doubt in this situation. And from what I've seen she is extremely articulate in her defense. Imagine what it is like for all the other people in similar situations who are not so articulate. There just is no excuse for all the push back against her and how she has handled this situation.

[drwex]

I understand that is your view. I remain unconvinced. More to the point, however, the discussion of who did/said what is a distraction.

we're not talking about future behavior

That's a problem for me. The events of the party are examples, but they are the past. We can't change what was said or done. What we can do is learn from them, and try to make wiser decisions about how to behave in the future. I agree that it's important for people - even people like yourself with whom I disagree - to articulate their views about the past actions, but not because we're in some kind of court of judgment. It's because this situation is going to happen again and we must deal with it better next time. It's also because Song, the Leftons, and Judah all remain members of the social circle. We each need to understand and shape our reactions because we will interact with them in the future.

There just is no excuse for all the push back against her and how she has handled this situation.

I understand that this is your view, but I don't think that being the victim of rape, assault, domestic abuse, and more crimes is a free pass. I warned Song two weeks ago that she was promoting a conflict and now we've seen it come to pass. Does that make it her fault? No. But it's something I and others take into consideration. Earlier in this round of discussion I pointed out to her that she could stipulate a point and thereby advance the discussion toward her goals. She chose not to, for what she sees as valid reasons. I understand her reasoning, and we agree to disagree.

(Writing this makes me want to respond to your earlier point. I'll circle back and do that separately.)

[(Anonymous)]

(same anon as above)

I'm not saying "I should have acted differently", but "I should acknowledge that the way I acted was painful for other people, and they're going to react to that pain in ways I can't control".

Whether my actions were justified, or whether I could have done (or should have been expected to do) any better are much, much thornier questions, and are really a question for the individual's conscience and self-knowledge. I don't live in Shira, or Scott, or Judah's brains, and I have no idea who could be expected to do better in this situation.

I suspect, though, that both Shira and Scott would be having a very different, much less hostile conversation if either one of them were able to acknowledge the other person's emotional reality right now.

[(Anonymous)]

I do not think I can participate in this discussion without someone pulling some kind of "if you're not with me you're AGAINST ME" crap, and I'm just nhft.

Me too. There is way too much "I don't agree with some of what you said, so we can't be friends any more" flying around for me to feel safe in any of this discussion.

[(Anonymous)]

I am not feeling safe commenting non-anonymously either. I have watched while the words of people I respect greatly (and in some cases love very much) are misheard as something they didn't intend and would never say, and then that misperception is magnified. People with similar goals of safety, in the community and elsewhere, are coming to see each other as enemies instead of the allies I think they could be (and *are* if only they could get past the shouting and the growing polarized rift).

People I love no longer respect each other and see each other as the enemy, and this is intensifying over time.

While as a community, as a set of overlapping communities, we have not done a perfect job of protecting each other from sexual aggression and other egregious manifestations of the patriarchal world that surrounds us, I always felt safe here.

This is the one place where I *haven't* experienced a sense of feeling afraid of even subtle sexual aggression and the one place where I felt confident I would be believed and supported if that ever happened.

This is the place where I have been healing from the sexual trauma I suffered long before I was ever here. This is the place where I was surrounded by friends who understand.

I no longer feel safe at all, not mainly because I worry about sexual aggression (although the lack of listening on both sides now does increase the risk) but because I am watching a community I love, people I love, divide into hostile camps of where everyone assumes the absolute worst of those they now see as the enemy.

This is not a place I wish to be.

And most importantly this is a place where a lot more hidden sexual aggression can happen now, because when people stop listening to each other and there becomes only one "correct" set of perceptions and interpretations it becomes much harder to notice things and speak things that are difficult and hear what someone is really saying. And I think that many people will now be even more reluctant to voice subtle misgivings, because when everyone is either evil or utterly without fault, the bar for noticing someone is being creepy is higher because of a reluctance to label someone evil.

[drwex]

I'm a total outsider to all parties involved here , but your male privilege in positing yourself as the voice of reason here is really, really showing, and it's not helpful.

Initially I gave this a pass, but I wanted to say thank you for staying engaged and contributing your views. You're welcome in my LJ whether you agree with me or not, whether you like me or not.

Since you don't know the people involved, I'd like to say that I didn't posit myself as a voice of reason. If you care to walk backward through the earlier discussion you can see that my responses came out of my own emotional reactions, not least of which was that the evening Judah showed up at the party I had just been to the memorial service for a friend of mine. So I was myself on quite a thin emotional edge. That other people have called me a voice of reason does indeed make me happy, and I'm proud that I've been able to think through my emotional tidal wave without denying that it exists.

Second, I think you might check the first comment here as well as others where Song has responded to gather her views of what I'm doing. She and I continue to have significant disagreements, but we are doing so in a respectful and cooperative manner. Most importantly, she and I share a unifying goal of creating safer communities. So long as the discussion leads us toward that I plan to continue.

Finally, I'm aware of my privileges. I cannot make myself un-white, un-cis-male, un-able, and so on. I am well aware that I have racist, sexist, ageist, able-ist and other thoughts and feelings and those things get into my words and actions. I don't think I can purge myself of my *isms any more than I can magic-wand away my privilege. If I'm acting blindly then I expect and hope to be called on it. However, I don't think that's the case here.

[katkt.livejournal.com]

lavendertook's comment helped me to realize something I missed the first time through.

When you talk to shadesong about how she "should realize how that narrative affects people", is that not you proscribing how she should express her anger about her rape and abuse?
Maybe she does get a free pass. Yes, sometimes the victim's reactions will make the surrounding social situation harder to resolve, but that's just the way things are, and the surrounding social group needs to cope with that and make every effort to support the outlet she has made for herself. Our society silences too many women in too many ways to do anything else. Maybe she's doing some sub-optimal things, and maybe in the long term she'll learn from them, but that's for her to grapple with later.

I was only briefly involved in the community, and I drifted away quite a few years ago, but I'm sorry for all the pain and stress I've been seeing recently. Overall, I think your (drwex's) influence on the discussion has been very positive, and I am hopeful that you will all find a positive way through and be stronger for the experience.

[drwex]

Your comment highlights a problem with extended discussions such as these. If I repeat a bunch of things each time I comment that's great for new people, and boring for everyone who's been reading along. For example:

When you talk to shadesong about how she "should realize how that narrative affects people", is that not you proscribing how she should express her anger about her rape and abuse?

In a word, no. I was talking about her narrative of the events around the BoS party. I'd have to back up and explain everything from the start to fill in that picture completely.

Maybe she does get a free pass. Yes, sometimes the victim's reactions will make the surrounding social situation harder to resolve, but that's just the way things are, and the surrounding social group needs to cope with that and make every effort to support the outlet she has made for herself.

That's one view, and you're certainly not alone in expressing it. Then there's another view that says, "You come to my house, drink my booze, eat my food, and then lecture me on how badly behaved I am." Which of us is rude in that situation? Which of us should cope with what?

No one (to my knowledge) has denied Song's speech in her fora (LJ and othewise) or in public spaces such as conventions. The question revolves around an incident at a private residence and one of the points I am pretty sure Song and I agree on is that we want the rules of these private spaces known in advance so we can make informed decisions about whether to be there.

Overall, I think your (drwex 's) influence on the discussion has been very positive, and I am hopeful that you will all find a positive way through and be stronger for the experience.

Thank you. I appreciate your taking the time to stop by and share your views.

[shadesong.livejournal.com]

Thank you.

[alienne.livejournal.com]

+1 to this from another outsider. This whole framing you're doing of "all conflict could be avoided if everyone would just be more reasonable (like me!)" is pretty goddamn appalling to me. (As is the behavior of the party hosts, and several of their other defenders.)