When the person doing the harassment is a person you like.

[leahbobet]

Okay. I'm ambivalent about speaking on this topic for a variety of reasons: I have for years had a personal policy that I don't touch most contentious SFFdom issues in an online format, for a variety of reasons that also don't need going into right now. That's been the right decision, personally, for me. It still is.

But I'm going to give this one a go because there's something, complex and convoluted, that's worth saying here. Please lend me some forbearance for how I get that convolution and complexity on paper. I'm tired, and a little upset, and I'm at work besides.

In brief: novelist and SFF critic glvalentine was followed and sexually harassed at this year's Readercon, and posted about this series of incidents, and reported them to Readercon's convention committee under their zero-tolerance policy. The convention issued a two-year ban instead of the policy-mandated lifetime ban, which is upsetting a large portion of the SFF fan and pro community.

They also identified Rene Walling as the harasser. He's a Quebec-based conrunner, micropress publisher, and bookseller. He's very supportive of Canadian authors, and has been supportive of me and my work in a genuine and enthusiastic way. He's someone I quite like.

This is...well. It doesn't need saying that this is a problem.

We have, I think, largely two modes for people in our heads a lot of the time: People we like are good people who do good things -- important to our own sense of identity, because if we like bad people, well, it says something about us. People who do bad things are bad people, and we do not like them. And I think a lot of the community conflict around cases of boundary violation, whether they be sexual harassment, or to do with sexism, racism, ableism, homophobia, and so forth, stems from the idea that the violation of those kinds of personal boundaries is classed as one of the worst Bad Things, and so we get emotionally a little stuck. It's either consign (and yes, the word I want is consign) someone we like to Bad Personhood, or find some way to lessen the act: minimize, deny, excuse. Say that no, they're remorseful; or it wasn't so bad as all that. Prevent the alternative.

To the recipient of the harassment (and no, I do not want to say victim), that reaction is a lack of support. It's I don't believe you. It's the violation of your boundaries doesn't matter.

Either way, something rips in the community. Either we're turning on someone previously liked and respected, or we're perpetuating a truly awful victim-blaming culture that rots the community on the inside.

I am not excusing this dynamic. I am not saying those choices and consequences are weighted equally, by any means. But I'm saying I understand how it is that people get stuck.

#

Last night I had a long discussion with Dr. My Roommate about this article on how we socially categorize rape and react to rape victims; or, more to the point, on how other people in the conversation where it was linked found it a hard and unnerving read.

I didn't find it unnerving in the slightest; I couldn't understand why other people did. Being an awesome Dr. My Roommate devoted to the pursuit of science, she read it to see, and did find it disturbing, and tried to describe that reaction for me. Her best guess: it unnerved not just because it talked about terrible things happening to people who weren't, in the end, able to effectively prevent them, but because of the last few paragraphs, describing a sexual assault on the author:

Nothing about the act was violent. I wasn’t afraid of him. I wasn’t in pain. It was terrible nonetheless.

I fled into the bathroom and locked the door. He knocked and told me to come out. He asked what was wrong. There was a large, long mirror above the sink, and I had to see myself in it, crying and pacing, until I finally sat down to escape it. I tried to hide the tremors in my voice. I said I was fine but could he please leave? No, he would not. No matter how many times I asked or told him to leave, he would not. I had to come out of the bathroom and I had to be with him, let him hug me and hold my hand. I had to play the part of the consensual lover, the girl who had some type of flighty breakdown but allowed herself to be comforted by the older man.

"It really throws me," she said, "that people who might rape you or hurt you are not necessarily people you can see coming. They might be really pleasant and charming and blend into the social group. They can play by the rules to everyone else's eyes. You can get blindsided."

This didn't bother me. It didn't unnerve or upset me. Because, well, of course people can be perfectly charming and wonderful and valuable in one element of their lives and inflict horrific damage on others in another part. I grew up around someone who was exceedingly affable professionally and the worst kind of horrible to their family. It's not good or okay; to me it's just not news.

"People are complicated," I said, trying to get this out. "And bad things happen. That's part of the world."

#

So, this morning I'm in a position to eat those words, or stand behind them, although standing behind a statement like people are infinitely complicated is not really a thing that comes with instructions and an allen key for easy assembly.

I'm not going to take the position that I will stop attending Readercon if this decision isn't reversed. Realistically, that would be an ultimatum for me, and not a statement of boundary. Readercon is still my favourite con, with my favourite conversations, full of many of my favourite people. I'm going to keep attending. That's a given.

I am not going to take the position, even inside my own head, that I hate Rene. I don't. Maybe that reflects poorly, or weirdly, on my moral structure. I have not for a second disbelieved that the actions happened as reported; people don't make this shit up. I am disappointed and thrown and chagrined and hurt by his actions, but there's a lot of mileage between like and hate. People are capable of being simultaneously a positive force in certain people's lives and an exceedingly negative force in others', because people are complicated. Our reactions to them should maybe not be expected to be binary either. This is not about teams.

I find that like vschanoes said about her own experience with convention sexual harassment, what I ultimately want is for this not to have happened. I want the orderly emotional house of two weeks ago.

And I'm not going to get that, because Rene harassed Genevieve, and that's just kind of how it is. While I sympathize with the desire to make decisions on the basis of what was, and how much we liked it, and how maybe that world could exist again, I don't feel like I can. We live in this world, not the what-if one. We have to set our personal boundaries, and our community standards, based on here.

#

So all that being said? The position I'm taking is this:

Rene is someone who has done good things in my corner of the world and been good to me. In this case, he has done a very bad thing -- an emerging string of them. The fact that I am not willing to label him A Bad Person at this time does not negate the fact that the things he did are not acceptable in our community, by convention policy and social agreement, or negate the fact that other members of the community deserve to have the violation of their boundaries taken seriously.

So as much as it upsets me to lose the conversation of someone I have in the past enjoyed, and as much as I wish this wasn't so?

I think Readercon needs to extend that lifetime ban. And I hope sincerely that they do.

Thanks.

Comments

[coffeeem.livejournal.com]

I think that's an appropriate set of complicated responses in the face of complicated issues.

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

Thank you. I'm not wholly satisfied with it myself, but. Might get there.

[autopope.livejournal.com]

+1.

[seabream.livejournal.com]

+1

Also, adding my thanks for the link to the article from The New Inquiry. Complexity does not equal accuracy, but an excess of simplicity reduces it, and we see it too often. And when we do get given complexity, it is often articulated poorly, so people continue to not see it. Thank you for adding some to the discourse, both yours and what others have written.

[hawkwing-lb.livejournal.com]

Sometimes people do perfectly horrible things. That doesn't change the fact that they do good things at other times, but I don't think the good things should be allowed to count against the harmful things. I don't think you can offset "beats her children" with "does amazing charity work" (to take one example).

(Which is not what you're saying, but I think we as social animals can get confused about that fact.)

Which is, sigh. I was looking forward to maybe being able to afford to go to Readercon next year. And this is an appalling response by the board.

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

Yeah. Agree completely: It's not a debit/credit sheet. Things are what they are.

It is still a very good convention.

[cogitationitis.livejournal.com]

I, too, account Rene as a good friend. I, too, am conflicted. And I, too, believe the board has made a bad decision.

When it seemed to be only one person--an isolated incident--I could, somehow, believe there were some cultural and social miscues. But then I read Kate's statement.

If it helps, the entire committee is urging the Board to reconsider. rosefox & I have both publicly announced our feelings in our blogs. His fannish reputation is ruined forever.

And yet, I hope Rene and I stay friends.

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

I personally don't need corroborating accounts to lend credibility or gravity to Genevieve's statement. Speaking about harassment, especially in tight-knit communities, can come with such a serious blowback that I'm really hard-pressed to believe it's worthwhile to anyone to just make it up, or say a social miscue, etc., is harassment. It's the kind of thing that maybe we'd like to believe happens more so we can navigate that Bad Person/Person We Like divide? But I have the feeling it actually doesn't. When people speak about harassment, I believe them.

It does help a lot to know about the committee's position, versus the board's. And it's appreciated.

Thing is, I don't derive any satisfaction, even the "this is appropriate" kind, from the ruining of someone's reputation. Reputation's ephemeral and its value doesn't always match the value of concrete things in the concrete world. What I would like is for people to act better.

[orrin.livejournal.com]

It sounds to me (for what it's worth) like you're doing fine navigating a very complex situation. I'm a big believer in complexity and ambiguity, in the fact that situations are never black-and-white, the world is never made up of Good Guys vs. Bad Guys.

I'm one of the people saying I won't be going back to Readercon unless some kind of change is made that makes me reconsider. And I won't be. But I certainly don't feel like everyone else in the world needs to react the same way I do.

Speaking of, thanks for the link to the New Inquiry piece. I'm not sure what word of description I'm looking for to apply to it, but I appreciated reading it very much.

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

Thanks -- that's appreciated. And I do hope it resolves well. I'd miss your conversation too.

As for the New Inquiry piece: Yeah, it's really good. And lots of food for thought in there about how we look at everyone else.

[deakat]

Thank you for making this exception to your policy; your thoughts and feeling about this are very similar to my own, but I could not be half so articulate.

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

Thanks; you are kind to my sleepy meanderings.

I am trying to figure out how I will navigate my Canadian con social situations forthwith, now. That's going to get interesting fast.

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

No, I know it's not an accident, and like hawkwing_lb said upstream, doing good stuff and doing bad stuff are not a debit/credit sheet. The doing of bad things is always there. I agree completely to that point.

The thing I mean by the rest, and about binary reactions -- which I am probably not expressing very well because I am on two nights of short sleep at the moment -- is that...no one behaviour or aspect is the whole of a person, and that's important for us to remember in practical, not apologist, terms.

I think we have this automatic switch sometimes that says people who do a given behaviour (right now, sexual harassment!) are less than three-dimensional: that that aspect of them overwhelms the rest. And that's...not useful, because (as you know, Bob) not all sexual harassers are the stereotypical ranting leering dude. Many are very kind and charming in other situations. Many have exceedingly good social skills. Many are thought of highly by people who they have, well, just never harassed.

And I'm thinking that those are the situations where people go "No, him? It can't be," and don't report, or give more lenient interpretations of the rules, or just generally let things go on: because they've got an idea of what Bad People are like in their heads, and clearly only Bad People do X, and so this person couldn't possibly have because they don't meet the criteria. I think the same thing happened with the flap over Nightshade Books a few years back.

Basically I'm saying that there's a fallacy of thought at work, and...well, I can see how the Readercon board might have come to the conclusion they did without agreeing with that conclusion in the least. Sexual Harasser is not what everyone in a sexual harasser's life sees, etc. etc., and so all this current misery is probably not because anyone's being particularly malicious or nefarious. It's just because people are complicated and don't present consistently, ever, or align their behaviours with my queenly idea of how a person who does X will behave in the rest of their time.

I guess...I'm looking, internally and in the group, for a middle ground? Something that says that just because we like or have liked a person, it doesn't mean they're somehow incapable of toxic behaviour of any sort, and just because we are enforcing sanction or consequences to that toxic behaviour, it doesn't mean we suddenly hate that person and are doing it out of hatey hate. That those two things do not equate. I think I personally prefer a focus on the behaviour more than on the person, because then other people don't say, "That guy sucked but I'm totally cool," they say, "We don't do that thing here." Then it's about community standards, and those are for everyone.

--

Whatever; I don't know if this is useful data, or obnoxious Explaining (tm) -- if it's the latter I apologize in advance. I might be mostly chasing my own tail on a line of thought, here, and I'm not sure how much more productive it's going to get.

The discomfort's acknowledged, understood, and respected, and yeah; I'm a little uncomfortable myself, honestly. Bad mess. I want a nap and some time with my own reactions to see what interesting patterns they make, and why.

No title

[livejournal.livejournal.com]

User lenora_rose referenced to your post from No title (http://lenora-rose.livejournal.com/180744.html) saying: [...] not to acknowledge.) Read this. No. Now. When the person doing the harassment is a person you like. [...]

[(Anonymous)]

A stranger who was linked here through various places, just wanting to expression appreciation for your writing/sharing this post.

[baggyeyes]

It is complicated, isn't it? The way people are is just not black and white with clear, sharp lines showing good and evil. (Or ok, and not ok)

I won't condemn you or anybody else for your friendships; I understand you are in a uncomfortable position. I do understand growing up where abusive relationships are happening. I don't want to be specific, because it isn't my story to tell, but there was good and bad in the person.

Thank you for your words.

more on the Readercon mishegoss

[livejournal.livejournal.com]

User kradical referenced to your post from more on the Readercon mishegoss (http://kradical.livejournal.com/2578735.html) saying: [...] heads-up, here's a very thoughtful and intelligent and reasoned post from a friend of the harasser [...]

[omnia-mutantur.livejournal.com]

I have a lot of thoughts about this and not enough sleep to say them the way I want to just yet, but I want to thank you for this response. I think the behavior versus person model could be useful, and I especially appreciate that you're not saying you will never return to Readercon, because I'm hoping there are better solutions to this than that.

[derryl murphy (from livejournal.com)]

Leah, reading your post and some of the comments has cleared up some of my confusion on this matter. I didn't realize it was Rene, and I will try to not let that color my thoughts as I work through this. I have some thoughts and questions, based on a conversation on this very thing my wife and I had yesterday. Nobody needs answer them if they don't care to, but I thought I'd air them:

- if the policy says "life" then it should be life. I don't see how special treatment can come up if the board has accepted the facts
- that said, I wonder that such a policy exists. I know that concoms are not the legal system, but can there not be degrees of punishment for degrees of infraction?
- or perhaps not. I'm not a woman, I have not been the target of harassment, and I also know that if this goes from that to assault, it is no longer the purview of the concom, but rather the law
- what do other institutions do? This actually has my wife curious, and she is going to look into what her university says. Her suspicion is there is not a life-equivalent punishment there, and likely not at work places most anywhere
- at least not for first offense
- all that said, fandom is its own... special case, I suspect
- I witnessed something similar at WFC last year. A guy was drunk and a complete asshole. I seem to recall he's booted forever. I have no time for this guy, he's not someone I know (unlike Rene), and of course I do not know everything that he might have done, but I still wonder about the lifetime banishment scenario

I'm pleased that this is a large part of the focus now. Too many years where shit happened and it was just brushed off and the recipients just had to grit their teeth and put up with it, or else walk away silently and never go back. But I guess I need an explanation about how and why the nuclear option is invoked.

[jennygadget.livejournal.com]

The policy says life and is quoted in one of Valentine's posts.

Regarding other options, most people so far seem to agree that

1) zero tolerance doesn't work in general, there should be more flexibility

2) going against stated policies is worse than having a zero tolerance policy - in no small part because it makes even any future reformed policy suspect and not to be counted on

3) therefore, if the board wants to change their policy they need to change it going forward and enforce the policy as it was written at the time that Walling committed the acts

There has also been mention of it possibly making sense to create a petition system for banned persons to ask to be reinstated - as part of any future changes to the policy - and many people (myself included) saying that it would be acceptable to apply this to people that have been banned before the petition process was put in place.

I would also say though, that this needs to be universally applied and that the process needs to be clear and as transparent as possible. I also know I'm not the only one to make O.o face at Walling being automatically reinstated after only two years - in a case like this, especially one where the policy at the time of his acts was zero tolerance, it really needs to be Walling's responsibility to petition to be let back in and the burden of proof should be on him to demonstrate changed behavior. The Board is taking on more than they can or should have to handle by making it their responsibility to extend the ban if they find evidence of no change in behavior. And also two years is not very long.

Regarding the guy from WFC - keep in mind that often times the first report is almost never the first incident and that the first report often makes other people feel safer coming forward. It's possible that WFC guy's banning might have been a result of multiple reports, not just what you witnessed.

[con-girl.livejournal.com]

Thank you for saying all this. I've been writing and tearing up posts for days because I just don't know what to say. I don't want to say that people I love can't do bad things, I don't want to say that I don't believe the victim. And I don't want to appear to be saying those things either. This comes much closer to what I want to say than anything I managed on my own.

Two Posts addressed to the better angels of our nature

[livejournal.livejournal.com]

User browngirl referenced to your post from Two Posts addressed to the better angels of our nature (http://browngirl.livejournal.com/1791478.html) saying: [...] so I thought I'd signal-boost both. When the person doing the harassment is a person you like. [...]

[fjm.livejournal.com]

I have written something very similar in my latest post (scroll to the end of it).

[derryl murphy (from livejournal.com)]

I think we need to tread carefully: equating this with Sandusky is hyperbole and a slippery slope, to say nothing of setting you (or perhaps even Leah) up for potential legal issues.

[an owomoyela (from livejournal.com)]

Thanks for this.

[pwyrzykowski.livejournal.com]

I didn't find the rape article difficult for the reason that your roommate did - like you, I take it for granted that people are multi-faceted and those we like can still do shitty things. What I do worry about is that the author's narrative can be hijacked by rape apologists - I felt a twinge of unease reposting it because I think there are people out there who will read into it that rape as a concept has been blown out of proportion, and that since the author was able to move on from it, any woman who is devastated by sexual assault must either be a weakling or "faking it". Indeed, of the two positive comments I got on my post, one comes from someone who I think is deeply misogynist (although there was nothing offensive in the comment itself). Having said that, I also think people will twist others words for their own ends no matter what precautions are taken, at at some point more damage is done by insisting on an oversimplistic narrative that both sides know does not reflect reality.

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

Y'know, that came up for me too? And then I came to the same conclusion: Twisting ourselves in knots to avoid giving rapists excuses for raping is still harm, and still letting the person who's knowingly doing wrong dictate our actions. They're just going to find another excuse, anyway.

[cucumberseed.livejournal.com]

I can't go back, at least, not for a while if they do not comply with their own policies, but that's just me. It's what I have to do. I understand your reasoning behind continuing to go, and I don't fault you for it. If I cannot come to Readercon, I hope I can still hang out with you sometime when you are in the area.

I am sorry that this is happening.

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

While I'm sorry that it's so, that's entirely and 100% fair and understandable. Like you said: We do what we have to do. And if/when I'm around there, I'll definitely drop you a line.

And thank you. So'm I.

Complicated

[viverra2.livejournal.com]

Thank you for this article.
It is difficult, finding out that someone you like -- A Good Person -- is also A Bad Person.

I find that whenever a couple get divorced, there is always a little dance that occurs among their friends. Each side wants to be validated by their friends, to cast the other as the one at fault. Personally, I've found that it is as useless to try to assign blame for a breakup as it is to try to figure out who gets the credit for them getting married to begin with. So I try not to take sides.

I'm not saying "oh, both sides are to blame, so I won't take sides" or anything like that. What I'm saying is that my relationship with each person of the couple is completely separate from their relationship to each other. Example. OK, suppose I find out that John and Mary are getting divorced because he's been having affairs right and left. He's a scumbag in the relationship department. But he's a good co-worker, competent and fun to work with (he's charming; that's how he had so many affairs). I'd work with him on a project team, and probably enjoy his company -- but I won't introduce him to my sister as a possible date, and I may well warn a new girl that while he is charming, she should watch herself with him.

In other words, in some contexts he's Bad, but in other contexts, Good. We all are. I have never yet met a saint, nor a demon. This is not to excuse bad behavior; when someone crosses the line, he (or she) should have to face the consequences and hopefully will learn to act better in the future. But I am not necessarily the designated castigator, nor need that control all my interactions with that person.

It would be a pity if this person (whom I do not know) were to be entirely cut off by his former friends. A change in behavior requires context, and frankly, he is more apt to learn to behave better if he has people whose good opinion he wants to hold onto telling him "watch it!". But the ban should have been enforced. That is a predictable and expected consequence of his actions, and letting him weasel out of it sends the wrong message.

Some may feel that a lifetime ban is too harsh, but those are the rules nonetheless. It may be that once a new policy is adopted, at some future time he might be able to petition for the lifting of the lifetime ban. But right now, at this time, with that rule in place, he should have been sentenced that lifetime ban.