As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Fandom Communities, Sexual Harassment, And The Missing Stair
AngelHedgie
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
So, in what has become a depressingly common occurrence, we have another fandom community being shaken by charges of sexual harassment. This time, it's the film buff community, and in particular the communities in Austin and Los Angeles, due to a number of scandals coming to light:
Again, this isn't the first time we've seen such things happen in fandom communities, as a perusal of the history of such communities will quickly tell you. The question is - why, and how can we break the cycle?
As for why, this comes back to a concept of how communities normalize and tolerate abuse known as the missing stair. The concept is that many of these abusers are like a missing stair in a house - capable of causing injury, but as long as you know about it, you can "work around" it. Of course, people new to the community don't know, and people in the community forget, and thus wind up being victimized by predators. In addition, in the long run all the "working around" these individuals winds up being more effort than actually dealing with them would have been in the first place - but it always seems "easier" at the start to just play nice and not push out someone who is making a hostile environment for women in the community. This is then compounded by the fact that, as a society, we don't take sexual harassment and assault as seriously as we should, which leads to allegations of such being downplayed and/or dismissed out of hand, out of a sense of "protecting the community" and "not causing drama" - until things come to a head, and everything comes out.
Breaking the cycle is both simple and hard - we need to take sexual harassment and assault seriously. Allegations should be treated with seriousness, and should not be downplayed. Abusers and predators should not be tolerated, but instead shown the door. Individuals who feel that sexual harassment and abuse should be downplayed out of a concern for the community should not be entrusted with positions of stewardship in the community, in favor of people who will take these matters seriously.
- First, there has been the number of stories being revealed about the routine downpedaling of sexual harassment and assault by Alamo Drafthouse Cinema founder and CEO Tim League. This started when it came out that League had quietly given Devin Faraci work on preparing copy for the Fantastic Fest film festival, after he had supposedly broken ties with Faraci over several incidents of sexual assault. Since that, a former employee of the Alamo Drafthouse has documented how League has had a history of downplaying sexual harassment towards her and other employees.
- Second, there was the reports of repeated sexual harrassment and assault by Ain't It Cool News and Fantastic Fest founder Harry Knowles, who has been a fixture in the Austin film scene for decades. Initially in response Knowles claimed the reports were lies, but as more women came forward, he shut down comments on AICN. Several writers have publicly broke ties with AICN, and the Austin film critic community has voted to remove Knowles from their ranks. There is a sense, however, that this was an open secret about Knowles.
- Finally, in Los Angeles, the independent film venue Cinefamily suspended activity after a number of allegations of sexual harassment led to the departure of two of the venue's executives. One of the more notable incidents involved the downplay of sexual harassment of female employees by a noted film critic because of his power and clout in the industry.
Again, this isn't the first time we've seen such things happen in fandom communities, as a perusal of the history of such communities will quickly tell you. The question is - why, and how can we break the cycle?
As for why, this comes back to a concept of how communities normalize and tolerate abuse known as the missing stair. The concept is that many of these abusers are like a missing stair in a house - capable of causing injury, but as long as you know about it, you can "work around" it. Of course, people new to the community don't know, and people in the community forget, and thus wind up being victimized by predators. In addition, in the long run all the "working around" these individuals winds up being more effort than actually dealing with them would have been in the first place - but it always seems "easier" at the start to just play nice and not push out someone who is making a hostile environment for women in the community. This is then compounded by the fact that, as a society, we don't take sexual harassment and assault as seriously as we should, which leads to allegations of such being downplayed and/or dismissed out of hand, out of a sense of "protecting the community" and "not causing drama" - until things come to a head, and everything comes out.
Breaking the cycle is both simple and hard - we need to take sexual harassment and assault seriously. Allegations should be treated with seriousness, and should not be downplayed. Abusers and predators should not be tolerated, but instead shown the door. Individuals who feel that sexual harassment and abuse should be downplayed out of a concern for the community should not be entrusted with positions of stewardship in the community, in favor of people who will take these matters seriously.
XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
+5
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
I think the responses by Alamo Drafthouse were largely appropriate. I had heard about the Faraci stuff when it first came out that he was writing copy for Fantastic Fest, and couldn't understand why people had a problem with that. If someone in a prestigious and public-facing position faces credible allegations of inappropriate behaviour, their employer would do well to deny them the prestige that they had previously enjoyed. If that individual has talents that could be deployed elsewhere on a more anonymous basis and without requiring any engagement with previous or potential future targets of harassment, then I see no reason for the employer not to make use of those talents.
I was not familiar with the Jill Lewis post until now. Having read it, I can understand why she might not be satisfied with all of her experiences, but that doesn't make any of the management decisions wrong, or even unreasonable. Readers will have to forgive me for making this personal, and I want to recognize that I don't know Jill Lewis and she's probably a fine person. Her comments display a level of sensitivity, however, that I do not think employers are or ought to be obligated to accommodate. The worst experiences that she describes having had were some unwanted touching and gross comments, and having a chair thrown in her direction which did not strike her. Those are lousy experiences that she did not deserve and that the employer needed to take steps to address. The employer took steps to address those issues, involving a legally binding commitment that she would not be subject to further unwanted touching or gross comments, and removing the overly aggressive coworker from her workplace. In both cases, it appears that after the employer took those steps, she stopped experiencing the negative things that made those steps necessary. That she still feels anxious says more about her than about the need to protect her.
When people talk about "fandom", what I hear is "obsessives, overly-invested weirdos, and creeps". Communities that are based on liking certain things a lot add another layer of distorted values to a social atmosphere that already accepts and expects that women will allow their integrity to be compromised in the pursuit of other things. It's not a mystery why these things happen; it's because women's comfort and safety is not a priority in these communities, it never has been, and I'm not sure that it ever will be, unless everyone in the community's leadership happens to agree that the community is primarily about safety and inclusion, and then is about love for whatever the thing is that people want to geek out over. How do we break the cycle? I don't know, but it probably involves convincing people that communities of decent people with diverse backgrounds, worldviews and interests are better than communities just based on liking something a lot.
I think it's fine to tolerate abusers and predators to a point. Some people are jerks, and sometimes it sucks when people have to deal with jerks on an individual basis, but no organization (unless it sets itself up as a "no jerks club", which is laudable but not mandatory) should be expected to kick out all of the jerks just so some sensitive people don't have to deal with them. Organizations should be held responsible for keeping members safe from physical harm and sustained abuse, and that's where the obligation ought to end.
No, it's not. People shouldn't have to make a choice between being safe and participating in a community. People shouldn't have to treat sexual harassment and assault as the "price of admission" to something they enjoy. Stop downplaying this as people being "overly sensitive", and realize that this abuse makes people feel uncomfortable and unsafe in these communities, and ultimately drives them away.
Edit: This goes triple when we're talking about employees. Making someone choose between their employment and their personal safety when you have the power to secure both is reprehensible.
I'm going to strongly disagree with that. I didn't sleep super well so I'm having trouble explaining why :P, but it seems super wrong. Abusers and predators are not acceptable, and part of the problem with society is that sure, few people overall are serial rapists or whatever your bar is. The extreme people are bad, definitely. But it's also a problem when everyone in a group is bad just a little bit.
Sure, maybe some man on the street whistling at a passing women isn't something that you think is a big deal. But what happens when that woman has to deal with it two minutes later from the next guy? And then a sexist comment later from someone else? etc. etc.
The fact that "abuse and predation" are "acceptable" as long as you don't go overboard is part of the problem.
(I also think it's disingenuous how you start with "abusers and predators" and then later pivot to the victims being "sensitive people")
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
There is a difference between feeling "uncomfortable and unsafe" and being unsafe. I think that equating the two is a serious mistake.
I think the difference is less categorical than you're suggesting. And there may be jurisdictions that have legal definitions of various terms, but just because there is a legal definition, that doesn't mean we need to accept it as the actual usable meaning of the term.
I agree that looking at particulars can be very helpful in discussions like these, and there's room to do that while retaining a more-or-less conceptual view of the issues. If we call someone or something abusive, we generally means that it has been insulting or demeaning, threatening, or an excessive and/or unfair exercise of authority. Predatory behaviour includes things like trying to isolate people, testing and crossing boundaries, and abusive behaviour, and what ties those things into being predatory is the sense that they are being done as part of a targeted campaign to do bad things to vulnerable people. I think it's also safe to say that jerks do things like insult and demean people, threaten people, exercise authority improperly, target the vulnerable, and cross all sorts of boundaries. It's not at all clear to me that we should treat being a jerk and being abusive or predatory as "totally different" things.
A few reasons:
Abusers and predators aren't people that are sometimes inconsiderate. They are people that hurt others consistently and significantly. Confusing the two benefits no one. They are not necessary in any work space and if they can not adjust their behavior they should seek out and be given professional help until they are able to.
Eeeeeeeeeeh. Provided behavior is not abusive, harassment, or predatory, I think it's only "not OK" to be a jerk at work in like, the same way it's "not OK" to never brew coffee but drink half a pot a day: preferably not, but not really actionable.
The line is kinda fuzzy and if it's close to harassment or abuse it should absolutely result in consequences, but I really have a hard time believing that any sort of antisocial behavior requires those same consequences.
E: though specifically I think trying to downplay clear cut abuse as "being a jerk" to make a point about why it's not that bad is not OK at all amd rhetorically underhanded.
I can coach my folks that are snippy to help them see its Fucking up the team cohesion but the lewd guy/girl is gonna get one warning and then a walk out the door.
I don't care if I have the smartest most capable person in the world on the team. If they are making people around them uncomfortable with specific behaviours then they're gone.
I think a simple rule is "would you say or do what you're doing to a stranger or to your boss?"
If the answer is no then YOU'RE DOING THE WRONG THING!
Not every workplace is a "professional environment". Even in professional environments, it is possible to be professional and leave people feeling demeaned, insulted or threatened, it's possible to exercise authority inappropriately, and so on. I am envious of whatever work experience you've had if it has led to you honestly believe that it's as simple as "behave unprofessionally -> receive discipline up to and including termination".
This is a fair point, and to the extent that an organization has good reason to believe that someone might be or is hurting others consistently and significantly, they should be expected to take action for the safety of other members. Where I seem to depart from the conventional wisdom here is that I think it can be reasonable in some situations to take intermediate steps to address these kinds of behaviour patterns, and I think there is a meaningful distinction between hurting people and merely making them feel uncomfortable or feel unsafe (though I also recognize that discomfort and fear, if sustained for long enough, can be a form of hurt).
If we go back to the complaints posted by Jill Lewis that were linked to in the OP, there was consideration shown to her for the two incidents that she reported. In the first case, the offender made a legally binding commitment to refrain from such behaviour (directed towards Jill, at least), and was told that further incidents would result in expulsion. It appears that the behaviour was not repeated. In the second case, the offender was removed from the location where the incident took place and ceased to be in a position to further menace Jill. There was perhaps insufficient consideration for her other experiences, but it appears that she did not report them, so I'm having a hard time faulting the organization for that.
Gee, I wonder why she didn't report her experiences, given the response to the ones she did report. A customer pulling aside an employee to verbally sexually harass them should not be asked to sign a form saying they won't do it again, they should be kicked off the premises and informed that the police will be called if they show up again. An employee throwing a fucking chair at another's head should not be reassigned to another venue, they should be fired as well as have the police called to deal with the attempted assault with a weapon.
We've tried that whole "intermediate steps" thing, and it turns out that a) it doesn't actually work, as all it does is b) wind up protecting abusers and predators while c) telling the dispossessed in the community that no one has their back and that the community is unsafe. It is not the community's job to provide for the moral development of abusers and predators, but to protect and ensure that the members of the community are safe and feel included.
And here's the simple reality - when people feel they have to be on guard in spaces where they should feel that they belong, that does injure them. It's also not healthy for the community, as it pushes people out of it.
I can tell from your use of italics that you believe these things very strongly, and I respect your devotion to whatever values underpin those beliefs. We obviously differ as to what an employer/organization's obligations ought to be with respect to these sorts of issues, and I definitely expect less from those responsible for management and leadership. As far as I'm concerned, the responsibility is to put a stop to the bad experiences or situations that they have been made aware of. It appears as though the steps taken were effective at putting a stop to the matters that were complained of, so I'm satisfied. I am interested to know more about what other obligations you think fall on an organization (or their leadership). I would guess that you think they should also play a role in providing validation to the victim, inflicting punishment on individuals who exhibit behaviour that is morally reprehensible, and reporting minor (i.e. causing no physical injury) altercations to law enforcement, but I could be way off-base. Am I?
I don't see how this is a counter to my statement at all. You are correct, some businesses foster toxic, unprofessional environments. This is a thing that is true. I don't see what this has to do with what I said.
I do disagree with the notion that demeaning, insulting and threatening people is professional. It may happen in a place of business but it is still unprofessional behavior that should be dealt with. Some places of business may allow this to happen, but I would consider those places to have a toxic culture, not a professional one.
I'm sorry that your experience in the workforce has been toxic. I hope that in the future you gain the ability to fight back against it or gain the economic mobility to find a new job.
Throwing a chair at someone's head is not, in any way, shape, or form a "minor alteration", but attempted assault with a weapon with the intent to cause grievous injury. And you calling it a minor altercation is emblematic of the issue running through the heart of your argument - consistently downplaying the actions of abusers and predators.
This is almost exactly what I was trying to say in my earlier post, thank you for being more eloquent than me. The later is completely unacceptable, while the first is being a jerk in my schema. If you just don't click with someone, sure, shuffle people around to avoid the conflict. If they're physically touching someone or making lewd comments, can the fool. That behavior isn't ok in a professional context, and again, to me is illegal as it falls afoul of assault and harassment law, while not refilling the coffee pot or being snippy (as being examples brought up earlier) don't require throwing the full weight of the law, HR and the internet at the person.
Your assessment of the effectiveness of the "intermediate steps" approach is flawed because your sample only draws from situations where things were not handled properly. The thing about intermediate steps is that they're supposed to be somewhere in the middle, as the term would suggest. They don't work so well as a response to a longstanding pattern of behaviour that had largely been ignored or condoned.
In order for the intermediate steps approach to be effective, it does require decisive and relatively immediate action, clear boundaries, and a willingness to escalate responses and enforce boundaries. These are often in short supply, and I'm not about to deny that that is a legitimate problem. But I do think that the problem lies in implementation, rather than the approach itself, where I think that the approach you're suggesting has all of the same problems, and just loses all sense of proportionality when considering bad behaviour. When the only acceptable options are firing/expelling/black-balling or nothing, I think you'll find that the default response will be nothing more often than not.
I think we're just talking past each other a bit here. When you said, "When you work in a professional environment, you are expected to act professionally. If you don't, then you are subject to disciplinary action and termination." I understood that to be a statement about the way the world is, but it seems that you intended it as an expression of an ideal. As a statement of fact, it's clearly not true, and there are tons of examples of people in professional environments behaving unprofessionally without receiving discipline. As a statement of an ideal, it's hard to argue against, and I wouldn't want to try.
When I said, "it is possible to be professional and leave people feeling demeaned, insulted or threatened", I did not mean that "demeaning, insulting and threatening people is professional". What I meant is that while it would be inappropriate to say "you idiot!" to someone in a professional setting, you can say things to a person in a professional setting that may leave them feeling like an idiot. If someone was actually an idiot, for example, and their screw ups caused a variety of problems, then going through what they should have done, what they did, and what the consequences were might be very difficult for the offender to hear, but I think we can agree that there is a way to do that professionally.
I've actually had remarkable luck in my own work history and have no real personal stories of workplace toxicity, but in my current line of work I deal with a lot of people who are in bad environments.
Stop with the bad faith argumentation. We are not talking about "bad behavior", a rather nebulous category of actions of varying levels of severity. We are discussing sexual harassment and assault, which is a much more specific category of conduct that causes significant harm to the victims, significant harm to the community as a whole, and can very easily foment a toxic environment - which is why people feel that this specific category of conduct should not be treated with "intermediate steps", but should be taken seriously and handled by removing the individual. If you want to argue that is too severe for handling sexual harassment and assault, then make that argument honestly - no more calling it just "bad behavior".
You calling it "attempted assault with a weapon with the intent to cause grievous injury" is emblematic of the issue running through the heart of your arguments - consistently overstating how bad something was because you see it as an action of an abuser or predator.
In my line of work I get to meet with people who both do inappropriate things and have inappropriate things done to them. Sometimes, those incidents or behaviours are part of a larger pattern, sometimes they are isolated incidents. I am aware of situations where people have had phones thrown at them, or been blocked from leaving a room, or been followed in hallways, or any number of things that are clearly not okay and would be legitimately disturbing to experience, and I've seen how quick intervention, reiteration of standards of acceptable behaviour, and careful monitoring can be effective at preventing further incidents of a similar or escalating nature.
I find your accusation of bad faith specious and obviously inconsistent with the content of my posts. I have made repeated, detailed references to a couple of specific incidents, so accusing me of "calling it just 'bad behavior'." is itself bad faith argumentation. I think that an employer responding to an incident involving thrown furniture and no reported injury by reassigning the offending employee is less than I would like or personally recommend, but not unreasonable. It also would appear to meet the basic standard ("removing the individual") you've outlined. I think that telling a creep to knock it off or be banned after being advised that their creepy behaviour (unwanted touching [edit: of the arm and ear, to be specific], violating personal space, sexual comments) crossed a line is also acceptable. I would feel differently if in either case the intermediate steps proved to be ineffective, but they were effective and the specific problems that were the subject of the complaints did not recur after the employer took action, and I think that vindicates those particular responses.
Using your shit workplace as a baseline for what's acceptable has zero foundation. You can say the same about mine though I'd be curious to see what an actual evaluation of code of conduct standards in workplaces reveals. I suspect that attempts to physically harm your coworkers falls into the just cause termination territory, like theft.
At mine, it would not only be grounds for termination, but on-site security would most likely attempt to detain the individual for surrender to the police; barring that, the company would provide all due support to have the individual arrested and successfully prosecuted.
The other part is that not only is it bad from a morale standpoint, but from a legal one it's asinine - what do you think happens if they successfully assault someone and the victim finds out?
Lawsuit. Lawsuit is what happens.
Were you aware of this behavior and what actions were taken to protect x in the workplace?
Well... We told them to not do that and then moved them to another part of the office.
Judgement for the plaintiff.
I'd be curious if any of the resident Law forumers could speak to how often a case like that actually gets prosecuted in the criminal justice system. I'd guess that the answer is not very often, unless there are other aggravating background conditions or it's one among a larger bundle of charges. But I am also not A Law, so it'd be interesting to hear from someone with more relevant knowledge.
(fwiw, I would be extremely upset if I was exposed to that sort of violence in the workplace)
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Why would you think it wouldn't be prosecuted? Criminal law doesn't stop applying in workplaces. Assault or attempted assault is still a crime if your fellow employee is engaging in it. Plus I'd imagine in the work place there are more likely to be witnesses to corroborate what happened.
This is like such a perfect example of what this thread is about it feels like fucking performance art.
"How does this stuff even happen?"
/thread
"Oh, that's how."
I'm not sure if this counts as being 'prosecuted' or not, but most often these types of cases are settled out of court.
My main point is that we shouldn't expect organizations to always be fully motivated to get rid of people when they have reason to. My other point is that fan communities are fertile breeding grounds for nastiness, because everyone is going to be focused on liking something together as opposed to other important things like equity and inclusivity.
If I may, I'd like to pivot to a different perspective on the issue. I'm afraid I've done a bad job representing myself here so far, and I won't make things better by carrying on.
What do people think ordinary community members can and should do to promote good values like inclusivity, sensitivity, equity, etc. within their communities? It seems to me that the leadership is responsive to what the community will permit. What can community members do to weed out bad actors and send a message that good behaviour is expected?
I found this blog post on the Alamo issues and thought it was interesting: http://tinlizardproductions.com/2017/09/27/memos-ground-zero/
Then why did you argue otherwise in the first place?
That's the civil side. A settlement in a criminal case is a plea deal.