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

[(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.)

[lavendertook.livejournal.com]

The free pass business is a derailment. I do not see the basic minimum respect and care she is due as asking for a free pass, and that is all I see her asking for from her community when she even has a fricking restraining order backing her up.

And it's not just about Song. It is about every other subject of harassment feeling safe and cared for in your community who may not be as articulate as Song or have as clear cut a case because other women who have been creeped on by this same abuser have come forward and make this case pretty clear, that not banning him from parties is a mistake. And when we see her being treated this way, we know we haven't a chance, and will not set foot in such an unsafe place. It's really pretty clear cut here, and these situations often aren't so clear cut.

[the-xtina.livejournal.com]

+1000

[(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 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.

This times a million.

I would even go further to say that *both* of them are being seriously triggered right now for different reasons, and neither of them is fully acknowledging this (if at all). I think this is happening with other people too.

[(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 am sorry you no longer feel safe, and I appreciate your use of anonymity here.

Your point about the enforcement of a single view perhaps enabling more hidden sexual aggression by silencing odd or unusual voices is a new insight to me. I'll think on that some more.

[(Anonymous)]

(Same anonymous commenter as immediately before)

I am hoping many people will think about it, and hopefully generate some solutions, although at this point emotions run so high this is going to be hard to do.

I wanted to add it isn't just a silencing of odd or unusual voices, but that I strongly suspect that some (many?) people may now fear to voice out loud their misgivings about someone in a way they might have been willing to give voice to previously, because they believe that now voicing even the most minor of misgivings will mean someone is ostracized. The bar for recognizing when someone has a pattern of creepy behavior may now actually be higher, not lower.

And thank you so much for creating this space where people *can* comment anonymously, and thank you to you and so many who have posted comments here for trying to listen here as hard as they can.

[drwex]

You're welcome. One of the reasons I left Google+ was their extermination of all anonymity and most forms of pseudonymity. The way we choose to identify ourselves (or not) online has value.

I wanted to add it isn't just a silencing of odd or unusual voices, but that I strongly suspect that some (many?) people may now fear to voice out loud their misgivings about someone in a way they might have been willing to give voice to previously, because they believe that now voicing even the most minor of misgivings will mean someone is ostracized. The bar for recognizing when someone has a pattern of creepy behavior may now actually be higher, not lower.

I see. Do you mean that the speaker would find herself ostracized? That seems to have happened in other communities where people spoke out against popular figures. E.G. in the SF/F community. I do not know if it has happened within our social circle.

Or do you mean we would erroneously shun someone who is simply socially awkward for fear they are a stalker or sexual creep? This is a topic I'm thinking about posting further on, so feel free to help me with that.

Finally, have you read the comments by lavendertook? I think that's an interesting example for me, as they clearly have a very different model of attending party events than I do. I am happy that this person is contributing to discussion here and bringing a different point of view, but I'm quite sure I would end up in conflict with them were they to attend one of my parties. I would like them not to attend my parties while they promote what I see as a very entitled view. Is that the kind of ostracism that concerns you?

[(Anonymous)]

What I actually meant was neither that the speaker would find themselves ostracized for pointing out creepy behavior or that we would erroneously shun someone who was simply socially awkward (although I do fear both of those things may now be slightly more likely to happen in a climate of social divisiveness, and certainly both of these things, especially the former, have happened) but that someone who felt that another person was being creepy would *fear* that this would result in the immediate ostracizing of the other person and hence be reluctant to speak up.

In other words, if person A is doing something that person B finds to be creepy and which causes person B to feel uncomfortable, person B may be more reluctant to say something now out of a fear that person A will immediately be ostracized for behavior that person B does not feel merits immediate ostracizing but *does* feel merits being noted as potentially indicative of a problem and finds really uncomfortable. This dynamic already exists. It is part of how sexual predators can move throughout a community undetected for a while. I fear it will be magnified now. I very much hope I am wrong.

[drwex]

Hurm. Second-order effects and self-censorship. Both are very real things, but I don't have a good handle on them to give you a sensible response. Let me think on it more.

[londo.livejournal.com]

Having done community moderation/management/enforcement for years, as a hobbyist and as a professional:

Moderate consequences are a virtue. Minor levels of negative feedback are much more likely to actually modify someone's behavior towards the norm than are major ones. Major levels of negative feedback, more often than not, put someone into a place where they reject your community and its norms, and so are often-but-not-always just a stepping stone to ostracism or expulsion.

Ostracism and expulsion *absolutely* have their place, but minor negative feedback is a must-have tool.