A Woman's Worth
Before I start to rant, I would like to make it clear that I was incredibly impressed with how Readercon ultimately handled the well-known harassment incident that happened recently. The final apology from the ConCom, in particular, was excellent and should be held up as an example to all of how to do it right. I have a lot of respect and awe for a group of people that volunteer so much of their time and talent to create a wonderful place for fans and professionals to come to, and who, when under pressure and subject to vocal criticism of the event they have labored so hard to make a success, listened and responded with decorum, humility, and respect.
That said, there are, unfortunately, some continuing conversations about the incident and final decision that are less than heartening.
“If I’d have done something that had offended somebody, I’d have immediately tried to apologize. We see where that can lead.”
For the most part it's difficult to find any appropriate response to some of the more ridiculous arguments other than pointing and laughing. Because, my friends, any grown adult who cannot understand the difference between a proper apology and one that is done for the sake of the apologizer is either being deliberately obtuse or needs to go back to preschool. And as much as I love my preschoolers, I am so very glad I get them only once a week and that they come with parents.
“The logical conclusion of their witch-hunting, in my opinion, is the destruction of all SF/F genre conventions except a few Professional Trade Shows and Pop Culture Entertainment Events and gate shows."
There is a slightly bigger problem going on here though, beyond just people minimizing bad behavior, and that's the continued dismissal and derision of the contributions of people that do not fit the outdated stereotypes of sff writers and fans. (Which, being stereotypes, were never acurrate to begin with. Women, and other marginalized people, have never not been involved - leaders even! - in SFF.)
“If someone is following you around because he really, really wants to apologize to you, if you let him apologize, he won’t keep following you around for that reason.”
boxofdelights took that last quote apart quite well, making the change that I'm sure many other women did in their own heads. After all, I can't possibly be the only woman in the world who has actually lived some variation of “if you let him fuck you, he won’t keep following you around.” The problem with that idea goes beyond just "what the ever-loving fuck?," the question of how much civility really demands, or the fact that no, it isn't certain that he would have gone away at that point. As p_zeitgeist points out in the comments, it's "The idea that women should just automatically give men their time and attention whenever a man demands it of them."
And there lies the heart of the larger problem.
“I’ve been a female in fandom a long time and frankly... if the person reporting the incident had let the male fan actually apologize to her while she was in a crowd of her friends... I don’t think that the “stalking” would have occurred.”
I would like to point out that Genevieve Valentine is not a "female in fandom" - she is a writer. There isn't any indication in these quotes - or in many discussions of Valentine's reactions to her harassment - that people are aware or care that she is a writer who was at Readercon, in part (I assume), in a professional capacity. I point this out not because Walling's actions would have been ok or less worse if she was not a writer, but because of sentiments like these:
“Unfortunately the way debate is being driven is more likely by far to result in there being less volunteers and less conventions.”
Now, if we are generous (and more than a little illogical - do volunteers and congoers never care about harassment?) and assume that there is any bit of truth to this, then we have a bit of a conundrum here, don't we? Because while conventions are for fans, and for meeting fellow fans, they are also exist to let fans meet authors. Since "the person reporting the incident" just happens to be an author whose work I like, I am a bit confused as to how "driv[ing] the debate" differently is supposed to help. As opposed to simply screwing everything up in a whole! new! way!
"What really disturbs me even more is a rather marked generational divide, again, particularly around the sexual harassment. The most horrific abuse I’ve seen, and experienced, has come from thirty-somethings, roughly. Their eagerness to see and punish harassment worries and befuddles me."
For the record, every single person that I have ever met in person that has also spoken online in support of Valentine is a writer whose work is one of the reasons I am a science fiction and fantasy fan. These "abus[ive] thirty-somethings" that are "eag[er] to see...harassment" are not just me, or the fellow fans I chat with online, they include the award-winning writers whose work I read, discuss, and admire. (For the record, they are also, sometimes, twenty somethings. And forty somethings. And teenagers and sixty somethings! etc) My point not being that they are automatically right because they are authors (see: Asimov) it's that this so-called "generational divide" is not just the future of fandom, it's the future of SFF itself. I suggest certain people find a way to come to terms with that. Or at least argue their point without essentially accusing certain writers of lying as much in person as they get paid to do on paper.
Look, I get that we might have different opinions and like different things. I even get that we can like the same things for different reasons! I get that, possibly, our circles of fandom are so far apart that we really should be at different cons. That we probably are going to be at different cons! The part I am not getting is where you seem to think your contribution to creating a con where the writers I admire feel unsafe (or where you don't care if they feel unsafe) is something I am supposed to have any sort of respect for. Logic. Not. There. DOES NOT COMPUTE.
Because if anyone is genuinely "worrie[d] and beffuddle[d]" that a writer would want a convention she attends (partly in a professional capacity!) to follow their own policy when it comes to dealing with a man who placed his hands on her without warning and after being told he is not welcome? Then we have a more fundamental problem than just liking different authors and disagreeing on what constitutes harassment.
"I realized after writing that: the Readercon thing is the guy who made a woman nervous by following her around trying to apologize.”
"Observing that there was opportunity to stop the behavior is not the same as blaming the victim...it is possible that the victim was also socially inept.”
"The victim could have defused it by simply saying “I heard your apology, now go away” or somesuch.”
"Oh, and a few events that these oh-so-Good Persons organize until they discover that they are no longer Good Persons because someone with an axe to grind will sic the flash mob onto them as well. And they’ll discover that organizing conventions isn’t nearly as easy as they assumed it was when they derided the abilities of the people who invest so much of their time and effort into doing so.”
This concern for the harasser's reputation...combined with the utter lack of caring of who "the victim" is, why she was there, and what this might do to her career...followed up with lots and lots and lots of second guessing of every single thing she did or did not do...it perplexes me.
Wait, I'm sorry, did I say that it perplexes me? Let me rephrase that. I causes me to BURST INTO A FIERY SUPERNOVA OF COMPLETE AND UTTER RAGE. Because you know what people should be talking about? Valentine's story in After. That's what people should be talking about. But no. Instead we are talking about if a woman - who happens to be a talented writer, but who the fuck cares really? she's just some random woman in the end - did enough to diffuse "the situation" of being harassed. (It's your fault for having the look they wanted!) And as a bonus! Passive aggressive bullshit predicting a convention apocalypse via witch-hunt.
I do not have enough WTFs for this nonsense.
I repeat: Valentine is a writer. This does not mean that she, in particular, has a right to feel safe and not be harassed and assaulted at cons, because (drum roll please!) everyone has that right! However, if we are going to start obsessing over reputations and whether or not work is being properly valued and acknowledged I am going to insist that the contributions and concerns of writers are treated as relevant to that discussion.
Valentine has a reputation. Valentine makes contributions to the community. So do a great many of the "thirty-somethings" who called Readercon out for their initial handing of the incident. The only people, C-H-R-I-S. H-E-N-S-L-E-Y and company, who are "trying to ferment an ‘us vs them’ attitude" are the people who assert that "a lot of the anger is from a _small_ group of...cowards." Rather than acknowledging that "the anger" is coming from a significant number of valuable, hardworking, and often courageous writers and fans.
I am so fed up with harassment and bullshit excuses and minimizing. That women have to somehow prove that we are worthy of being taken seriously as people.
But you know what else I am fed up with? The fact that fandom frequently acts like it doesn't give a shit about the contributions, art, careers, insights, and participation of some of it's most talented members. Simply because these artists happen to be women who don't feel it's their job to defer to the feelings and desires of men. Like news reporters who think that asking the fucking US Secretary of State about her fucking clothing choice of the day is sensible and appropriate, there is an underlying sentiment to many of these discussions regarding harassment in general - and the Readercon incident in particular - that is insidiously and shockingly sexist. They rely on the unspoken idea that a woman's skills and intelligence are only worth talking about so long as her having them doesn't give her notions of grandeur. Like thinking her time and her body are her own. Or presuming to have opinions about people who treat her like community property - and how such people are dealt with by others.
As much as fandom should be safe for everyone, the fact that it is not even safe for the people that it claims to be fanatic about, just because they happen to be "walking around with [their] boobs" ("hanging out" or not) - that, my friends, is a very special level of sexism and creepiness that needs to DIE IN A FIRE NOW. I shouldn't have to point out that the Supernatural flavor and depths of fan behavior is not really a template the rest of the us should aspire to.
We should not be creating sexist, idiotic, insulting, and even unsafe barriers between women and their participation in SFF events. The writers whose work we claim to respect and take inspiration from should not have to tell anyone involved in the running of any convention that they are expected to keep their hands to themselves. This is not how one values and encourages talent or art or intellectual thought.
It is, instead, how one suppresses women's writing.