|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2012 : 20:18:07 [Permalink]
|
Geek Goddess took the photo of the back of Harriet Hall's shirt, and asked her about it:She said that she has never been bothered at TAM. It’s a problem, but that doesn’t mean that every single female that attends TAM is going to be groped or harassed. Some were giving the impression that nothing *else* goes on. In the context of that shirt, that "some" must refer to the SkepChicks, which would make the last sentence simply false.
The only rational conclusion is that Dr. Harriet "SkepDoc" Hall publicly strawmanned Rebecca Watson, Surly Amy, et al. She owes them all an apology, at least. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2012 : 20:47:31 [Permalink]
|
And now Sastra has left a long comment about her discussions with Harriet Hall regarding the shirt. I won't quote all of it, but here's something pivotal:She doesn’t object to the Skepchicks, mind you. She’s not against them. She was very careful to make sure the back of her shirt had a small “s” on skepchicks.
I told her I was afraid this fine distinction would be lost. No kidding. Who else calls themselves skepchicks?
The next paragraph:My understanding is that she was defending TAM — and responding directly to something Rebecca Watson apparently wrote a day or so before the conference: “I do not feel safe or welcome at TAM” — the implication being that women in general should not feel safe or welcome at TAM. She thinks that’s nonsense. And it is nonsense (because it's false), and it just adds support to my conclusion, that Dr. Hall wore a straw-man argument for three days at TAM. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2012 : 21:03:28 [Permalink]
|
I had dinner with Sastra as I do every year. She's a friend of mine. She told me she was going to talk to DJ. I would take Sastra's word for how that went.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2012 : 18:18:10 [Permalink]
|
Surly Amy's account ends with this:There was definitely an us against them feeling that I personally experienced at the event, with groups of people who wouldn’t get within 10 feet of my table. Many identifiable online FtB- and Skepchick-detractors and their friends. Oh and there were undercover harassment people, which just seemed so strange and creepy to me. I was told there were 19 people secretly monitoring the event for harassment but no public policy or message on how to report incidents other than some info hidden on the JREF website under FAQs that I never saw. I only found out about this after I was in tears in the speakers’ lounge with a few people and suddenly a super-secret harassment specialist team was brought in to talk with me. After I reported to them that the TAM twitter feed with the anonymous blogging from the event and Harriet’s shirt had upset me to the point of wanting to leave, I had security cameras trained on me and my table where I sat with my mother the entire time. A security/harassment person checked on me regularly. They said I was being monitored and recorded. It was intended, I was told, to help me feel safe but instead it just exacerbated the stress I felt. I changed my flight and left a day early. So JREF decided the best answer to possible harassment was to implement a Secret Police force. Brilliant. That was one of the major worries of the anti-policy crowd, so Grothe and co played right into their totalitarian fears. 
Now, the quick and thorough response was good. Telling the jerk working JREF's Twitter feed to quit his nonsense was good.
Telling Surly Amy that they were surveilling her? Not so good. Checking up on her frequently? Not so good. These acts reinforce the idea that she's powerless, and wouldn't let her recover, or try to put the causes of her distress behind her because they were constant reminders.
Saying that there wasn't much of anything they could do about Dr. Hall's T-shirt? Not so good. Did they even ask her to take it off as a gesture of good will towards another TAM attendee? That hasn't been reported.
By the way, Dr. Hall's attitude (and that of several commenters on Ophelia's blog) is that it was "just" a T-shirt. Or that it was "just" a disagreement. Those sentiments ignore all of the context around that particular shirt, and (as others have noted) almost guarantees that TAM 2013 will be filled with vile, vindictive T-shirts. This isn't sexual harassment, but since harassment is more broadly defined as acts which create a hostile environment - and Dr. Hall's T-shirt certainly did that - these just-a-shirt people seem to want to create an atmosphere in which nasty, personal sloganeering is the norm.
Reading Sastra's further comments in that thread, I get the impression that DJ Grothe was looking for a way to do the right thing (not tolerate harassment) without having to "give in" to the people he'd just recently blamed for women's attendance dropping. This face-saving measure led to disaster - at least as far as Surly Amy was concerned (she is awesomely strong in stating that she will continue to raise money to send women to future TAMs, I don't think I would have such courage). If something doesn't publicly change, I predict TAM attendance numbers will go into the toilet, and the quality of the attendees will go down with it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2012 : 20:13:28 [Permalink]
|
There wasn't a secret police force. I'm sure the reference to 19 people were people like me and regular staff. We weren't a secret police force. On the other hand, it would have been a good idea to let people know who to go to in a more clearly stated way. But then, as I said before, I would have known.
I think it was good that they kept her table under surveillance. But maybe you're right, Dave. Maybe they shouldn't have told her. While it might have had the opposite effect on Amy than was intended, perhaps some people would have felt comforted by the idea that no one was going to get away with any shit without being filmed doing it. It's sort of a dilemma. She had a table there. Most people wouldn't have been in her somewhat unique position of being in one place most of the time. So apparently it was a judgment call, and it was the wrong call for Amy. Maybe they should have asked her what she wanted?
Dave:
...and (as others have noted) almost guarantees that TAM 2013 will be filled with vile, vindictive T-shirts. |
Wanna bet? Most of the people there that I talked to, and that includes some of the players in this drama, would like nothing better than for this whole thing to blow over. Just about everyone that I talked to is sick to death of the whole thing. That t-shirt wasn't particularly well received. I'm willing to wager that even those who are defending the t-shirt will not feel emboldened to do the same thing. The world doesn't actually revolve around the FtBlogs or peoples reaction to the blogs, or DJ or Rebecca or any of this stuff. They subscribe to SI or Skeptic or belong to some local skeptics group. There are a lot of academics who come every year and don't give a rats ass about any of this stuff. They are there for the science and the skepticism and not for the little drama's that aren't a part of their world.
As for TAM numbers going in the toilet, no to that too. You don't seem to realize that MOST of the people who attend TAM know nothing about this stuff, or only vaguely heard about it or first heard about it durring this TAM by way of conversations about it. I'm not kidding. People are into their own things and their own groups. Many more than you seem to think there are. And then there are a bunch more who know about it but just don't care about the politics going on. They are there to be skeptics at a skeptics convention, and to hear a lot of great speakers speaking on their favorite subject.
If anything brings down the numbers significantly, it will be the number of cons that are now popping up. Even folks who can afford TAM might not be able to make it to every event, or have the time to go to all that's out there. And with more choices, it's the competition that MIGHT bring down the numbers. The CFI Con looks pretty good to me. I'd go if I could afford it. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 07/17/2012 : 22:06:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
There wasn't a secret police force. I'm sure the reference to 19 people were people like me and regular staff. We weren't a secret police force. |
Surly Amy "was told there were 19 people secretly monitoring the event for harassment." Were you actually told to monitor for harassment, or were you just told what to do in case someone reported it? Grothe hired an "outside consultant" to take care of the harassment stuff.| Maybe they should have asked her what she wanted? |
Asking the victim what they want in the way of actions on their behalf is always the way to go, even if some stuff they might not think of (or want) should be done, since it empowers them after having power stripped away. Did your training not include this?| If anything brings down the numbers significantly, it will be the number of cons that are now popping up. |
It will, of course, be a combination of things. But my count is now up to 15 people who will not be supporting JREF or going to TAM unless something changes. And if their friends talk about TAM, those people are going to say, "no, don't go to TAM. It's too expensive and the staff doesn't adequately deal with the assholes who show up, and there are all these other cons around, so save your money and your dignity."
And apparently, one of those assholes had control of the JREF's Twitter account for a while last weekend. If they can't ferret out the dumbasses before handing over the microphone, what else are they going to miss?
And yes, I know most people just wish it would all go away, but that's part of the problem: they're just praying for change, which we all know does nothing. The worse problem are those people who are actually praying for a return to the old status quo, where women were expected to tolerate harassment, keep their chins up and look pretty.
In other words, I'm not yet convinced that most of the people who applauded Pamela Gay's talk are willing to follow her advice and take an active role in banning or shunning the trolls. She certainly wasn't advocating silent disgust in response to idiotic behavior, but was calling for people to really work towards ostracizing the misogynists. Her advice was not compatible with hoping "for this whole thing to blow over." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2012 : 23:06:47 [Permalink]
|
Go read Bob's comments. He was there when the Surly Amy thing went down.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2012/07/in-your-face/#comment-223386
Read all of what he has to say. I'll grant you that the solution wasn't perfect. But then, I have already done that.
We were told to be aware of what was going on around us. But that's not being "secret police." There was nothing secret about us. We were clearly there to help people. My huge button said "TAMbassador (ask me anything.)" We, and the volunteers, I was one of those too, were easy to spot. We weren't given orders to blend and talk into the secret radios hidden in our cuffs at the first sign of danger. And yes. There was an expert and an assistant there. Bob does a better job than I will ever be able to do at explaining how that was supposed to work. Scroll down and read all of his comments.
Here's the badge of the secret police force:
And some of us also had volunteer on the backs of our t-shirts. I chose not to wear the t-shirt.
And I guess I should have chosen my words more carefully. When I said "blow over" I didn't mean go back to being misogynists. No no. I meant that some of us are tired of this FtB vs. the JREF debate. Both sides of it! For some of us, because we are friends with people on both sides of the debate, it's personal and it's painful. I've already explained that too. When we stood for Pamela Gay's talk, we stood for a reason. At least I did. I will never be able to speak for everyone. Please don't nit-pick my words like that. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 07/17/2012 : 23:26:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Jason Thibeault had many of the same thoughts I did. Definitely read the first 15 or so comments.
|
| But, until now, nobody has shown any indication that harassment was being taken seriously. |
Fuck him. I was there. I can agree with some of the critcism but that comment is pure unadulterated bullshit.
Here's a good one:
| It was pretty strange. There were people wearing big yellow buttons reading “TAMbassador: Ask me anything!” I assumed they were there for questions like “Where are the restrooms,” “How do I get a ticket for the Carlin show,” or even stuff like “Where’s a good place to go for vegetarian food?” But another attendee told me on Saturday afternoon that he had talked to one of the people wearing these buttons who said that they had been trained in harassment issues and reporting them. But this was never explained to us, either in the booklet or in a public announcement. Honestly, if something had happened to me, it never would have occurred to me to go talk to the people with the buttons. |
That's just stupid. It would have never occurred to that person to ask one of the people who were working with the JREF what to do? Really?
Now I get the basic criticism. And I think there's a valid point about not having an easy to find statement. But again, really? Well if you're not going to ask the staff, who then? |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2012 : 09:07:33 [Permalink]
|
Yeah, I read all of his comments already, and incorporated some of his data points into my posts, above. I gave kudos to JREF for the quick and thorough response, for example. That doesn't mitigate the wrongness of the policy to begin with.We were told to be aware of what was going on around us. But that's not being "secret police." There was nothing secret about us. We were clearly there to help people. My huge button said "TAMbassador (ask me anything.)" We, and the volunteers, I was one of those too, were easy to spot. We weren't given orders to blend and talk into the secret radios hidden in our cuffs at the first sign of danger. And yes. There was an expert and an assistant there. Bob does a better job than I will ever be able to do at explaining how that was supposed to work. Scroll down and read all of his comments.
Here's the badge of the secret police force: |
Do you think it's at all possible that there were 19 people of whom you weren't aware who were, indeed, given the task of actively looking for harassment?| And I guess I should have chosen my words more carefully. When I said "blow over" I didn't mean go back to being misogynists. No no. I meant that some of us are tired of this FtB vs. the JREF debate. Both sides of it! For some of us, because we are friends with people on both sides of the debate, it's personal and it's painful. I've already explained that too. When we stood for Pamela Gay's talk, we stood for a reason. At least I did. I will never be able to speak for everyone. Please don't nit-pick my words like that. |
I wasn't nit-picking, I was taking your words at face value. I apologize.
But let's not call this FtB vs. JREF, because the worst "attacks" by DJ Grothe and Harriet Hall have been against major JREF supporters: the SkepChicks. Sure, Grothe appeared disinterested in the problem faced by Ophelia Benson (an invited speaker), and other FtBers have been critical of the JREF's actions and inactions, but from this outsider's point-of-view, it looks like the JREF reserves most of its ire for the SkepChicks, despite all that they've done for the JREF (nearly 2% of the attendees to this year's TAM were there because of Surly Amy - can Harriet Hall say the same?).
Also, most of the criticism coming from FtBers (even Ophelia) has been of the "what were you thinking?" variety. It's almost always been confusion about why Grothe said this-or-that, followed by suggestions as to how to fix the PR problems he and the JREF now find themselves facing because of those statements. The FtBers aren't simply sniping, or arguing for the sake of arguing, or being intentionally insulting. They are trying to make things better because they give a shit about the success of the JREF and its role in movement skepticism. They're not interested in perpetuating a "fight" any more than you are.
Also:| But, until now, nobody has shown any indication that harassment was being taken seriously. |
Fuck him. I was there. I can agree with some of the critcism but that comment is pure unadulterated bullshit. |
Not from an outsider's point-of-view, it's not. For one thing, I'm sure that Jason meant this year, and Kil, you were apparently informed of TAM's policy this year a mere five days before Jason was, but he's been one of the people asking DJ Grothe "will TAM have a policy?" for the last two months.That's just stupid. It would have never occurred to that person to ask one of the people who were working with the JREF what to do? Really?
Now I get the basic criticism. And I think there's a valid point about not having an easy to find statement. But again, really? Well if you're not going to ask the staff, who then? |
If my wife ever got assaulted in Tokyo, I sure hope she would have gone to the police first, and the ambassador second (if at all). "TAMbassador" does not imply "trained to respond in case of harassment." Neither does "volunteer." "Staff" would, but only if it were known that TAM staff had received harassment training, which few people knew. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2012 : 09:42:04 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
Do you think it's at all possible that there were 19 people of whom you weren't aware who were, indeed, given the task of actively looking for harassment? |
No. We were pretty much filled in on everything. There would have been no point in withholding that info from any of us. And the security person and his assistant were there with us at the meeting.
Dave:
If my wife ever got assaulted in Tokyo, I sure hope she would have gone to the police first, and the ambassador second (if at all). "TAMbassador" does not imply "trained to respond in case of harassment." Neither does "volunteer." "Staff" would, but only if it were known that TAM staff had received harassment training, which few people knew. |
True. But we were the most likely people to be able to guide them to whoever it was they needed to contact. That's just simple logic. Go to staff if you don't know who to go to. Go to someone who knows who "official" staff is. That's why I think the comment is stupid. Not because he should have known that we knew the harassment policy, (which I agree is something that should have been announced in some way) but because we would be the most likely people to, at the very least, send him in the right direction. Our pins said "ask us anything." Not "ask us anything but that."
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2012 : 10:10:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
No. We were pretty much filled in on everything. There would have been no point in withholding that info from any of us. And the security person and his assistant were there with us at the meeting. |
Were there 19 of you, total?| True. But we were the most likely people to be able to guide them to whoever it was they needed to contact. That's just simple logic. Go to staff if you don't know who to go to. Go to someone who knows who "official" staff is. That's why I think the comment is stupid. Not because he should have known that we knew the harassment policy, (which I agree is something that should have been announced in some way) but because we would be the most likely people to, at the very least, send him in the right direction. Our pins said "ask us anything." Not "ask us anything but that." |
I think if faced with a bunch of ambassadors, I would have headed straight to the hotel front desk with any complaints, if I knew nothing else about what's been going on. But that's a shitload of speculation, right there. And that's why I'm just not willing to call that person's comment stupid. You and I have a lot of background info that xe didn't have. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2012 : 11:35:33 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
Were there 19 of you, total? |
I don't know. That number might be referring to volunteers and TAMbasssador's. Some staff were doing AV work. Not sure what they knew. And there is hired help for selling books and running cash registers and even ticket taking, which we assist in. Those things used to all be done by volunteers, but not anymore. I don't think the hired help were in on the policy because I can't see how it would be in their job description. But then again, I dunno. So yeah. The 19 might have been us and may have included DJ and a few others.
Oh. And yes. There were probably 19 of us doing volunteer work and TAMbassador work, if you count us as one group. I and some others did double duty. I was never off as a TAMbasssador though. That job went wherever we were. By the way. Helping newbies find their way around and generally helping them turned out to be a lot of fun. And you know... That's what we mainly did. But we had the procedure, just in case.
As an aside, this TAM went off almost without incident. I'm sure there were more women there than those original projections. I can show you photos of the main hall that proves it. A very good time seemed to be had by almost everyone. It was more than one woman who told me that she never felt so welcome and comfortable at a con. And that included women who didn't know that any debate was going on behind the scenes. I'm only one person, so my sampling isn't very large. But as far as I could see, this TAM was a success on many levels, security issues not withstanding. Oh! And I talked with one woman who said that she came to this TAM with some trepidation, but after having been there for a couple of days, she came with a false impression of the dangers she might face at TAM. She was pleasantly surprised that it wasn't a sausage fest filled with creepy guys. Everyone she had met had been respectful to her and treated her as an equal. Obviously that doesn't remove the issues being discussed. And no one said TAM was particularly dangerous to woman. But I suppose a few women have gotten that impression, I guess, based on the blogging going on. And that's unfortunate.
My hope is that this all gets sorted out by next year. Because the truth of it is, TAM is awesome. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2012 : 11:56:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
And no one said TAM was particularly dangerous to woman. But I suppose a few women have gotten that impression, I guess, based on the blogging going on. And that's unfortunate. |
It's ironic that "irresponsible messaging" can happen simply by saying, "you feminist bloggers need to stop criticizing the JREF because people might get the impression that TAM is dangerous," and after a game of Internet Telephone someone hears only the "TAM is dangerous" part. More open discussion can help alleviate problems like that, but DJ Grothe clearly didn't want that.| My hope is that this all gets sorted out by next year. |
Me, too. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2012 : 16:16:11 [Permalink]
|
By the way, I just learned that Surly Amy wasn't just raising money to send women to TAM, she was also a TAM sponsor. If the JREF wants to keep sponsor money rolling in, they'll need to take better care to make sure the sponsors stay happy.
And then there's this report from UAJamie:I also had to deal with the secret anti-harassment consultants at TAM this year. On Sunday I was telling a group of people about an incident of harassment I’d dealt with two days previously and one of the 19 trained individuals overheard and soon after a man and woman showed up and brought me into a storage closet to question me.
It was nice that they have been treating the incident of harassment seriously, even though it was relatively mild. They made it clear that all incidents are taken very seriously, no matter how small it may seem, and have been investigating it accordingly. This is exactly as it should be!
However, their methods of interrogating me have been far worse than the original harassment incident. Put it this way: original harassment led to no crying. Being questioned about the incident by the anti-harassment people has led to three separate incidents of crying. It’s quite stressful and they seem to get lots of the things I say wrong. When I point it out in future conversations, I’m accused of “misrepresenting” what I told them previously. And when I say “accused” I mean they’ve actually yelled at me over the phone and told me “How dare you misrepresent me and my partner.”* And this from the people who are suppose to be helping me. They even told me “There were two of us there and one of you. We know what happened so don’t claim otherwise.”*
Additionally, after the original interrogation, they told me many times not to tell anyone about them or the conversation we had. I was very upset and crying at the time and wanted to tell my friends and get support, but was afraid they might see it on the cameras they said they had pointed at me, so instead I waited until I was in a non-TAM area of the hotel. The secrecy seemed to just make everything worse.
I’m glad they are taking my case seriously but the treatment by the anti-harassment folks has been so much worse than the original incident of harassment that I’ve really been regretting ever talking to them at all.
...
*Note: All quotes are paraphrased. I wrote everything down within about 15min following the conversation I had with them yesterday, but the quote are still from memory 15min following the event and may not be exact. My bolding. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Rebecca Watson Not Appearing at TAM
