|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2012 : 16:26:31 [Permalink]
|
More from UAJamie:I would like to clarify that they have been taking my report of the original harassment incident very seriously. It was quite minor (a man I didn’t know tried to hug me without warning and I had to actively back up and put my hand out to stop it from happening). However, the security consultants made it clear that any unwanted touching is considered assault and they considered me a victim and would investigate the incident fully. Now, honestly “assault” seems like a strong word for what happened, but it’s clear that they are taking it seriously. They have been going over security footage and have inquired about witnesses. They made it clear they’re going to try to identify the man involved.
If anything, they are going a bit overboard. Their treatment of me has been disrespectful, but saying that, they are clearly taking reports, even minor ones, very seriously and following up and investigating. They also have made it clear that I did nothing wrong and was right in reporting it. They never made me feel like I was being blamed for the harassment.
It’s the stressful way they dealt with me that I’m still pretty upset with, not the handling of the case. Overboard is right. These people sound like ex-law-enforcement security consultants, not the counselor/therapist/psychologist kinds of people you'd really want to have interacting with the victims of harassment. |
- 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 : 18:32:14 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
These people sound like ex-law-enforcement security consultants, not the counselor/therapist/psychologist kinds of people you'd really want to have interacting with the victims of harassment. |
Actually, I think you want both. Both areas need to be done expertly. There was no balance it seems. I'm bummed.
But really Dave. I have to ask. There are so many really dumb comments on that thread, at least they seem dumb to me, how is it you don't feel like your brain is melting reading half of that stuff? Some of the comments are thoughtful. Way too many of them seem like a bunch of vultures trying to pick the last piece of meat off the bone.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
 Posted - 07/18/2012 : 19:53:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Actually, I think you want both. Both areas need to be done expertly. |
Note that my focus was on the interaction with the victim. You want the touchy-feely types to interact with the victim, and the law-enforcement types just listening to that interaction and then doing whatever they're going to do, and maybe asking the counselor-types to get more information if need be. In other words, you put another buffer between the victim and the act.| There was no balance it seems. I'm bummed. |
It's not about balance, it's about being respectful to the victims of harassment, being sensitive to their plight and understanding what will or will not make them feel more comfortable (instead of more stressed, as happened twice, at least).| But really Dave. I have to ask. There are so many really dumb comments on that thread, at least they seem dumb to me, how is it you don't feel like your brain is melting reading half of that stuff? Some of the comments are thoughtful. Way too many of them seem like a bunch of vultures trying to pick the last piece of meat off the bone. |
I guess it's a learned skill to not actually read half the comments. If someone uses the word "hysterical" or a lot of exclamation points or all-caps words, or (particular to this discussion) says "it's just a T-shirt," I've learned that I can skip the rest of what they have to say. If they happen to say something thoughtful and interesting, one of the other commenters will bring it up as thoughtful and/or interesting, so I don't miss out.
And then there are times when I just give up, and skip ahead to the next comment from the blogger xirself, since xe is usually not interested in the petty squabbling amongst the commetariat, either. For example, comments from Ophelia led me to UAJamie's report of her mistreatment by the anti-harassment duo at TAM 2012. |
- 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 - 07/20/2012 : 11:50:38 [Permalink]
|
By the way. We did receive a questionare. We were linked to it by way of an email from the JREF. It had way more questions on it than did the paper sheet we were given at TAM last year, including our thoughts on security and what improvements could be made. I think this is actually a better way to do it, because at TAM, a lot of people turned nothing in. Too busy to sit down and fill out a form like that. And this way they could cover much more ground. I made my suggestions about security pretty much along the lines of what a lot of people were hoping for.
I figure that even doing the questionare that way is going to get flack from some people. But maybe not... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2012 : 13:16:14 [Permalink]
|
The problem with surveys is that (from what I've read) you need to ask a lot of the right kind of questions to get good data about harassment, because people are reluctant to talk about it even when they are victims.
I understand that last year's survey didn't even ask about harassment directly, but DJ Grothe and others expected the question "did you feel welcome at TAM?" to be used by respondents to volunteer their harassment stories. Is that correct? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
alienist
Skeptic Friend
USA
210 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2012 : 13:28:08 [Permalink]
|
Reading about these controversies here and at Free thought blogs, I am always struck by how people react or overreact to certain statements. People tend to make all sort of assumptions based on their own subjective experiences (not that I am immune). When Rebecca Watson said she wasn't going to TAM, the best response would be to ask why she feels that way, does she think all woman shouldn't go (obviously not since skepchick got grants for women to go). I think because Watson is more visible, she ends up being more of a target.
DJ Grothe made a lot of assumptions about why women are not going to TAM. Unfortunately, he made things worse by becoming defensive about any criticism. The best response would have been "what can we do to get more women to come" and "what can we do to make everyone feel safe."
My impression of TAM is that is overall safe for women to go. There are of course have been a few episodes when women have been harassed or made to feel uncomfortable. However, just because it is happening to only a few people doesn't mean it should happen at all. Everybody needs to take a breath and step back and try to be more logical.
I did think Harriet Hall's t-shirt was rather juvenile. She didn't need a t-shirt to say she feels safe. She just had to show up.
There is more I could say, but I really need to get back to work |
The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well! - Joe Ancis |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2012 : 14:33:43 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
I understand that last year's survey didn't even ask about harassment directly, but DJ Grothe and others expected the question "did you feel welcome at TAM?" to be used by respondents to volunteer their harassment stories. Is that correct? |
I don't know. And to tell you the truth, I didn't fill out my copy of the survey. And I don't still have it. (Had I received an email link to a survey, I probably would have filled it out. That's why I like this way of doing it.) But there is a question on the survey this year that is pretty specific on the subject of harassment.
| Did you experience any interaction with other attendees or speakers at TAM 2012 that made you feel uncomfortable, unwelcome, or unsafe? If so, please describe. Did you report the incident to TAM staff, JREF staff, or hotel security? |
There is a box underneath to answer in. There doesn't seem to be a word limit. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2012 : 22:30:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by alienist
I did think Harriet Hall's t-shirt was rather juvenile. She didn't need a t-shirt to say she feels safe. She just had to show up. |
Indeed. But she wore the shirt for three days straight. Two of those days being well after Hall found out how Amy felt about the shirt. That knowledge made me change my opinion from "juvenile" to "nasty and spiteful."
And maybe it's just a coincidence, but the three days Hall wore the shirt were the same three days that Surly Amy was at TAM. On Sunday, when Surly Amy left in the morning, Hall wore a sweater. The target of the attack was gone, why waste the ammo? |
- 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
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2012 : 22:35:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally quoted by Kil
Did you experience any interaction with other attendees or speakers at TAM 2012 that made you feel uncomfortable, unwelcome, or unsafe? If so, please describe. Did you report the incident to TAM staff, JREF staff, or hotel security? |
I wonder what sociologists and trauma experts would think of that question. I wonder what actual harassment victims would think of that question.
"Please describe?" Screw that. Why should I have to relive the experience (even in my own head) to satisfy DJ Grothe's data-mining project? |
- 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 - 07/20/2012 : 22:50:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally quoted by Kil
Did you experience any interaction with other attendees or speakers at TAM 2012 that made you feel uncomfortable, unwelcome, or unsafe? If so, please describe. Did you report the incident to TAM staff, JREF staff, or hotel security? |
I wonder what sociologists and trauma experts would think of that question. I wonder what actual harassment victims would think of that question.
"Please describe?" Screw that. Why should I have to relive the experience (even in my own head) to satisfy DJ Grothe's data-mining project?
|
Yup. That's what I figured. No way out. If the question hadn't been there I think you would have been critical of that too. After being accused of ignoring some of the forms last time, it seems odd to me that you would think it best that he not even ask the question.
Plus, no one is forced to answer that or any other question. "Please describe" is a request, not a forced interrogation, fer christ sake. |
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 - 07/20/2012 : 23:18:44 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
That knowledge made me change my opinion from "juvenile" to "nasty and spiteful." |
Or maybe stubborn? Why not consider all possibilities?
Dave:
And maybe it's just a coincidence... |
I'd bet the bank on it. Hall was insensitive, but she had no reason go single out Surly Amy. In fact it's more likely that the opposite is true. She was embarrassed that Amy left because of her. But even that senario isn't likely. Unless she was specifically told that Amy left before dressing, which I doubt, it was probably a coincidence.
If her shirt was aimed at any Skepchick, it was RW, who didn't show up. Not Surly Amy, who did. Think about 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
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2012 : 23:48:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Yup. That's what I figured. No way out. If the question hadn't been there I think you would have been critical of that too. |
You don't think that they could have done something else to gain my approval, Kil? Nice false dichotomy you have there.
The question shouldn't even need to be on an exit survey. Instead, the JREF should have ensured that everyone would have known beforehand that they could have reported anything, no matter how minor, and it would have been taken at a proportional level of seriousness and appropriate action taken. That way, they could have done what's right and just and collected data on harassment at TAM at the same time.
The method they chose ensured instead that victims will be more reluctant to report incidents at TAM 2013, and that any other victims at TAM 2012 who read about Surly Amy or UAJamie before receiving the survey email are sure as hell not going to answer the survey question you quoted for fear of being nastily interrogated and told they are lying.
If the JREF has no way out, it's because it's a trap of their own making, and not because I'm being uncharitable. Like many other critics, I want to see the JREF succeed in its mission, and to do that, they need to succeed at fundraisers like TAM. Do you think I complain about how DJ Grothe seems to be ensuring that the JREF will raise less funding because of his statements and actions because that's what I want to see happen?!
You know that I care about this issue, because I wouldn't spend so much time and effort on this thread otherwise. You should also know that I care about the JREF's success because I've been pointing out how they could have done things better. I'm not just shitting all over them, I am disappointed in how they decided to manage the pre-convention publicity, the con's speakers and events (I haven't even mentioned the horrid song at Satiristas), their response to harassment and the post-con buzz.
The idea that you think that what I'm interested in catching JREF in some sort of no-win scenario is similarly disappointing. |
- 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
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2012 : 00:02:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
I'd bet the bank on it. Hall was insensitive, but she had no reason go single out Surly Amy. In fact it's more likely that the opposite is true. She was embarrassed that Amy left because of her. But even that senario isn't likely. Unless she was specifically told that Amy left before dressing, which I doubt, it was probably a coincidence.
If her shirt was aimed at any Skepchick, it was RW, who didn't show up. Not Surly Amy, who did. Think about it. |
I have. Sastra's accounts (which you said you trusted) of her discussions with Hall don't provide any support to your speculations. Surly Amy was the one who complained to Hall face-to-face, and so Hall had plenty of reason to single out Surly Amy. Hall is a "suck it up and deal" kind of feminist, which makes Surly Amy's complaints a sign of weakness. Nobody generically calls themselves "skepchicks." Etc.
Once the all context is taken into account, the answer to the question of why she wore the shirt for three days and not four isn't difficult: one shouldn't waste ammo on a target that isn't there any longer. |
- 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
26021 Posts |
Posted - 07/21/2012 : 00:08:20 [Permalink]
|
I forgot this:Originally posted by Kil
Or maybe stubborn? Why not consider all possibilities? |
How is it stubborn to wear a shirt in an atmosphere that generally approves of its message? Hall got much positive feedback both in person and on the Web, starting almost as soon as she appeared in the shirt.
If I went to an atheist convention wearing a shirt that said "Religion Sux," would you think it stubborn of me to keep wearing the shirt after a protesting theist complained to me about 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 - 07/21/2012 : 00:54:58 [Permalink]
|
Look. I don't know why she finally took the shirt off. But I don't think your speculations are any better than mine, Dave. And hey. That's all they are. Speculations. I'm still going with coincidence. You can go with what you choose to go with. Unless Hall explanes why she took the shirt off for the Sunday session, neither of our speculations can be thought of as facts. Not on this forum.
Dave:
The idea that you think that what I'm interested in catching JREF in some sort of no-win scenario is similarly disappointing. |
Sorry. It feels that way to me sometimes. I look at some of comments on the FtBlogs and I really think that some of those people do want the JREF to fail. I shouldn't lump you in with those people. (And no. I don't mean the bloggers.)
Still, the question was a request, not an order. And since the forms are anonymous, there is no one who is going to be interrogated based on how they fill out the forms. (I guess I should have mentioned that the form is submitted anonymously.) I don't see it as an unreasonable question. There is no arm twisting envolved. No one has to answer. Even if there are better ways to collect data, I see nothing wrong with asking the question. And as I said, there's another area on the form for making suggestions, which I did.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Rebecca Watson Not Appearing at TAM
