Random response to Readercon posts at Scalzi's site, etc.
I was commenting herebut it was tl;dr. But it's my thoughts, and it's my LJ, so I thought I'd put it here. It's public, and I'm reserving the right to hide or delete if people who don't know me well enough to assume I'm not a total idiot start making assumptions or calling in the dog-piles.
Please bear with me, folks. I'm trying very hard not to show my ass in public, and my thought processes are currently torn between getting it down here and "OMG, what the hell did that cat eat??"
This is sort of a general response to several posts and their comments/commenters, including some of the conversation referred to in JS's posted links. Mostly, it's thoughts that are running through my head on the intersection of this post and the response to Joe Peacock on who gets to be a geek, and (in a Venn diagram-my way) a couple of things written above that drew flak. I'm also going to use 'people' on purpose, because I think men and women both can be guilty of harrassing behavior. Having said that, I also want to be perfectly clear that I believe there is plenty of evidence that sexual harassment is primarily something experienced by women, because for sexual harassment to occur, there must be an imbalance in power and privilege. Generally speaking in our society, men hold the greater amount of power and privilege. I'm also going to state right now that I do not see it as harassment if a person makes an advance towards another, is told to back off, and actually backs off, preferably while apologizing. It may be unwanted, and it might be (as in the case of the wtf?? footrub offer) really damned creepy, but a single incident isn't harassment. But if a person makes that same "mistake" or unwanted advance over and over? that's harassment. Why? because if those advances are consistently seen to be unwelcome, the person is not getting the message.
THESE ARE MY WORKING DEFINITIONS FOR THIS POST. YMMV. :-)
Maybe I'm being too simplistic here, but... first, isn't it just smarter to assume that, if someone asks you to back off, that they want you to back off? Yes, there are people who "play hard to get," but that's their issue. Assume that "no" means "no."
But... what if there is no "no"? what if you were both clearly into your conversation? the energy was really high? All of the signs of attraction were expressed, dammit!! I don't know about anybody else, but I have spent a good part of my almost fifty years on this planet apparently giving and receiving crossed signals. I meet someone who OMG LIKES THE STUFF THAT I LIKE AND IS REALLY INTERESTING AND FUNNY!!! and there is a connection!! yay!! And yes, I am really interested in that person. I am really interested in lots of people. I find people interesting, and I find connecting to people intellectually to be a major turn-on. And honestly, that sort of connection doesn't happen for me that often. But... my reacting to another person with that sort of enthusiasm really doesn't mean I want to have sex with them. I mean, it might. But usually, it means, "I really think you are cool, and I am having such a good time with you!"
Still, I can see how this could be misinterpreted. Hell, I was at a party about a year ago, and had that sort of mutual click with someone. Anyone hearing our conversation would have thought we were horribly boring. But from what people said over the next few weeks, the assumption by many of the other guests was that it was the beginning of a romance. And (naturally) when I am interested in someone, that person is often totally oblivious (or uninterested). If a man I seem to click with doesn't pick up on a suggestion that we might want to get together again, or doesn't bother to seek me out (or at least acknowledge my presence in an overtly friendly fashion), I assume that any interest is not sexual. Period. If someone misinterprets my interest in them for, "she wants me!" and makes an advance that is clearly romantic/sexual/creepy, I don't have a problem telling them, "Yes, this has been really fun, and I've enjoyed it. It's so rare to meet someone who I can have this sort of conversation with. But the signals I was giving out were, "this is a very interesting and special person," not, "I am interested in having sex with you."
This has not always had happy results. The least unpleasant result was being called some really unpleasant names. There have been much worse.
Did I deserve anything like that? Hell, no. Did I encourage a person to think I wanted something I didn't? Hell, no. Did I behave in a way that might be genuinely misread? possibly.
But once I tell someone I am not interested, or that they are invading my space, or that they really need to move their hand (especially if I have said something like, "If you "accidentally" touch my breast again, I will break your f*#king fingers and call the police..."), there should be no further misinterpretation possible.
Sorry for the tl;dr. I just wanted to explain how/why I thought that people could genuinely misread signals, and that I think there is a difference between "maybe a woman inadvertently gave the wrong impression" and " she was asking for it." I really do think the former can happen. I really do think that the power dynamics of our society exacerbate that: women are often conditioned to be polite no matter what, to not defend themselves, to think that we somehow brought unwanted attention upon ourselves; many women feel physically threatened and would never be as blunt as I've learnt to be in most cases. But if the person has the right kind of power, setting them straight is really, really scary. There's nothing like the adrenaline rush of feeling physically repelled, physically threatened, and imagining your career and reputation potentially being destroyed -- while trying to be polite and not cause a ruckus -- to send a person to the nearest bathroom to shake and vomit for the next hour or so. Again, YMMV.
This all means that I think it's incumbent on all of us, but especially the person who has the power in a given situation (and that's usually going to be the man), to back the hell off if there is any non-positive response to an advance, verbal or physical. And obviously, if you've never even had a proper one-on-one conversation with a person, any sexual advance or comment is ... best case scenario... inappropriate, ill-judged and creepy.
Please bear with me, folks. I'm trying very hard not to show my ass in public, and my thought processes are currently torn between getting it down here and "OMG, what the hell did that cat eat??"
This is sort of a general response to several posts and their comments/commenters, including some of the conversation referred to in JS's posted links. Mostly, it's thoughts that are running through my head on the intersection of this post and the response to Joe Peacock on who gets to be a geek, and (in a Venn diagram-my way) a couple of things written above that drew flak. I'm also going to use 'people' on purpose, because I think men and women both can be guilty of harrassing behavior. Having said that, I also want to be perfectly clear that I believe there is plenty of evidence that sexual harassment is primarily something experienced by women, because for sexual harassment to occur, there must be an imbalance in power and privilege. Generally speaking in our society, men hold the greater amount of power and privilege. I'm also going to state right now that I do not see it as harassment if a person makes an advance towards another, is told to back off, and actually backs off, preferably while apologizing. It may be unwanted, and it might be (as in the case of the wtf?? footrub offer) really damned creepy, but a single incident isn't harassment. But if a person makes that same "mistake" or unwanted advance over and over? that's harassment. Why? because if those advances are consistently seen to be unwelcome, the person is not getting the message.
THESE ARE MY WORKING DEFINITIONS FOR THIS POST. YMMV. :-)
Maybe I'm being too simplistic here, but... first, isn't it just smarter to assume that, if someone asks you to back off, that they want you to back off? Yes, there are people who "play hard to get," but that's their issue. Assume that "no" means "no."
But... what if there is no "no"? what if you were both clearly into your conversation? the energy was really high? All of the signs of attraction were expressed, dammit!! I don't know about anybody else, but I have spent a good part of my almost fifty years on this planet apparently giving and receiving crossed signals. I meet someone who OMG LIKES THE STUFF THAT I LIKE AND IS REALLY INTERESTING AND FUNNY!!! and there is a connection!! yay!! And yes, I am really interested in that person. I am really interested in lots of people. I find people interesting, and I find connecting to people intellectually to be a major turn-on. And honestly, that sort of connection doesn't happen for me that often. But... my reacting to another person with that sort of enthusiasm really doesn't mean I want to have sex with them. I mean, it might. But usually, it means, "I really think you are cool, and I am having such a good time with you!"
Still, I can see how this could be misinterpreted. Hell, I was at a party about a year ago, and had that sort of mutual click with someone. Anyone hearing our conversation would have thought we were horribly boring. But from what people said over the next few weeks, the assumption by many of the other guests was that it was the beginning of a romance. And (naturally) when I am interested in someone, that person is often totally oblivious (or uninterested). If a man I seem to click with doesn't pick up on a suggestion that we might want to get together again, or doesn't bother to seek me out (or at least acknowledge my presence in an overtly friendly fashion), I assume that any interest is not sexual. Period. If someone misinterprets my interest in them for, "she wants me!" and makes an advance that is clearly romantic/sexual/creepy, I don't have a problem telling them, "Yes, this has been really fun, and I've enjoyed it. It's so rare to meet someone who I can have this sort of conversation with. But the signals I was giving out were, "this is a very interesting and special person," not, "I am interested in having sex with you."
This has not always had happy results. The least unpleasant result was being called some really unpleasant names. There have been much worse.
Did I deserve anything like that? Hell, no. Did I encourage a person to think I wanted something I didn't? Hell, no. Did I behave in a way that might be genuinely misread? possibly.
But once I tell someone I am not interested, or that they are invading my space, or that they really need to move their hand (especially if I have said something like, "If you "accidentally" touch my breast again, I will break your f*#king fingers and call the police..."), there should be no further misinterpretation possible.
Sorry for the tl;dr. I just wanted to explain how/why I thought that people could genuinely misread signals, and that I think there is a difference between "maybe a woman inadvertently gave the wrong impression" and " she was asking for it." I really do think the former can happen. I really do think that the power dynamics of our society exacerbate that: women are often conditioned to be polite no matter what, to not defend themselves, to think that we somehow brought unwanted attention upon ourselves; many women feel physically threatened and would never be as blunt as I've learnt to be in most cases. But if the person has the right kind of power, setting them straight is really, really scary. There's nothing like the adrenaline rush of feeling physically repelled, physically threatened, and imagining your career and reputation potentially being destroyed -- while trying to be polite and not cause a ruckus -- to send a person to the nearest bathroom to shake and vomit for the next hour or so. Again, YMMV.
This all means that I think it's incumbent on all of us, but especially the person who has the power in a given situation (and that's usually going to be the man), to back the hell off if there is any non-positive response to an advance, verbal or physical. And obviously, if you've never even had a proper one-on-one conversation with a person, any sexual advance or comment is ... best case scenario... inappropriate, ill-judged and creepy.