One comment I've seen: the newsworthy part of your story isn't that you were molested by a creeper. That's totally "normal" in our community.
The newsworthy part isn't that a target spoke out. It DOES happen sometimes that a woman who's been molested will out her attacker. Not all the time, because it exposes the woman to further attacks. But it does happen.
The newsworthy part isn't that the creeper's been shunned since it came out that he's a creeper. Plenty of people are willing to shun a single individual to prove that THEY'RE not bad people -- remember how they shunned that guy? but nonetheless allow things to happen systemically.
No, the newsworthy part is that the organization took the situation seriously as a matter of policy, and the shunning happened as a consequence of an institutional policy -- that the target was able to speak out because she KNEW that the organization would take the situation seriously as a matter of policy. That she -- you -- had a way of simply handing the problem off to people who's job it was to handle it.
THAT'S the part that's newsworthy, and THAT'S the part that people should be focusing on and emulating. Kicking Dustin out of other cons is fine and good and appropriate -- but the fact that it protects people from one creeper is the SECONDARY benefit. The PRIMARY benefit is that, first, other creepers will know that "you creep on people, and you get kicked out", and second, that people who ARE creeped upon will know that, "you report this, and you will be supported rather than attacked."
The newsworthy part isn't that a target spoke out. It DOES happen sometimes that a woman who's been molested will out her attacker. Not all the time, because it exposes the woman to further attacks. But it does happen.
The newsworthy part isn't that the creeper's been shunned since it came out that he's a creeper. Plenty of people are willing to shun a single individual to prove that THEY'RE not bad people -- remember how they shunned that guy? but nonetheless allow things to happen systemically.
No, the newsworthy part is that the organization took the situation seriously as a matter of policy, and the shunning happened as a consequence of an institutional policy -- that the target was able to speak out because she KNEW that the organization would take the situation seriously as a matter of policy. That she -- you -- had a way of simply handing the problem off to people who's job it was to handle it.
THAT'S the part that's newsworthy, and THAT'S the part that people should be focusing on and emulating. Kicking Dustin out of other cons is fine and good and appropriate -- but the fact that it protects people from one creeper is the SECONDARY benefit. The PRIMARY benefit is that, first, other creepers will know that "you creep on people, and you get kicked out", and second, that people who ARE creeped upon will know that, "you report this, and you will be supported rather than attacked."
Reply
Reply
*fails because what you said is perfect*
*remains silent*
Reply
Leave a comment