My View: What I see as the Heart of the Matter

[taura_g]

The last line on drwex most excellent summation of his views is what I wonder any social community can come to some basic agreement of...

If we cannot find a way to work with each other - despite our different frameworks - to deal with an abuser and social gatherings then we have a pretty deep problem.In my LiveJournal alone (and I certainly don't have

Comments

[elusiveat]

I think it's really important to distinguish between public-space abusers and private-space abusers. If someone is acting inappropriately in public space, it is absolutely appropriate for a host to ask them to leave, stop inviting them, and if necessary use the force of law to eject them. The host gets to define what is inappropriate, but common decency dictates that they should in *some way* respond to distress on the part of their other guests. Hosts have a responsibility to look to the safety of their guests, and if one guest is putting other guests in danger, measures *must* be taken. There is also a responsibility of immediate witnesses to intervene as necessary.

Private-space abusers feel a lot more complicated to manage in public space. At minimum, I feel there's a responsibility of a community to make sure that immediate potential victims are aware of relevant histories so that they can take measures to maintain their own safety, including avoiding entrusting their safety to the abuser in private space. It's also totally reasonable for individuals to approach community members and say that they will not attend events attended by *specific* known abusers and to say that they will not attend events to which those abusers are invited. This is appropriate ostracism in that those who feel the abusers should be ostracized can participate in ostracism while not forbidding others from forming friendships with abusers. Saying that you never want to attend an event to which *any* known abuser is invited seems less reasonable to me, especially since different people are going to have different thresholds for what constitutes known abuse (both what is abuse, and what level of evidence is required for it to be known), but ultimately that comes down to individual judgment. In a large community, universal mutual trust is impossible, and as you say one person's abuser will inevitably be other people's friend.

Things get messy when a potential victim has been warned of possible abuse and nevertheless decides to trust a known private-space abuser in private space. This starts to turn into more of a "closest friends" matter, where people who know the potential victim well might take them asside, but unless there is obvious and immediate physical danger I think there's a point where people need to be permitted to make their own mistakes. NB: this should not be taken in any way as excusing the known abuser if said person proceeds to violate the trust that's been given them, whether it was deserved or not. Ultimately, abuse is an action, not an identity, and even somebody with a known history of abusing should be held responsible for *every* instance of abuse. Similarly, no victim should be blamed for a lapse in judgment. Everyone makes mistakes.

Regardless of public of private space, any individual who feels immediately physically threatened should not be forbidden from taking whatever measures they need to take in order to feel safe. This would include leaving the space, seeking a chaperone/escort, physical self-defense, and/or calling the police. One such example is if someone departing space for their own safety fears being followed by the abuser.

[elusiveat]

I want to say something about the error misplaced trust, but I'm not quite sure how to word it. The idea I'm grasping toward is that the *ability* to trust is both precious and fragile. So in some ways it feels like misplaced trust says something positive about a victim or would-be victim.