I haven’t actually been to any major atheist/skeptical/freethought conventions, but I’ve been to a few technical conferences, and I’ve always enjoyed the opportunity to travel to new parts of the country and do a little sightseeing on the side. One thing I’ve found, though, is that sometimes when you step outside of the hotel or convention center, the panhandlers are waiting for you on the sidewalk, trying to bum some cash off of you. And then again, sometimes they aren’t. It depends on the venue.
I don’t believe in being harsh to panhandlers. I used to work downtown, and sometimes I would be approached by a homeless guy as I was walking to the nearest MacDonalds for some lunch. And generally, he would complain about not having eaten, and I would take him to MacDonalds and buy him whatever he wanted, because it goes against my principles to send a hungry man away hungry. I didn’t try to get the guy arrested, but by the same token there were days when I stayed away from MacDonalds because I didn’t feel like being panhandled again.
The problem with panhandling is not that I can’t handle isolated incidents now and then. Where panhandling becomes an issue is when it starts to become pervasive and persistent, where you can’t even step onto the sidewalk without being latched onto by someone who won’t take no for an answer. And that goes for sexual panhandling as well. You wouldn’t want to go to a business conference that was well-known as a venue where panhandlers not only thronged the sidewalks, but were actually welcomed inside the convention and given the opportunity to accost you and occasionally pick your pocket every time you turned around. It’s no different if the panhandlers are there looking for sex instead of money.
Like I said, I’m an outside observer here, since I haven’t been to any major skeptical/atheist conventions. But the complaint I think I’m hearing is not coming from women who expect the crowds to part and everyone to bow as they walk past in pristine purity. The complaint I hear is that the panhandling is getting out of hand. It’s not that they can’t or won’t respond appropriately to the rare, isolated incident, it’s that the frequency, severity, and persistence of the incidents is raising the nuisance level above acceptable limits.
Take groping, for instance. In my panhandling analogy, that’s like the panhandler who picks your pocket, helping himself to what he wants—except, of course, that in the case of groping, it’s much more difficult for the victim to establish that an actual crime has taken place. And while it’s certainly true that you wouldn’t want to punish all panhandlers as pickpockets when only one of them was actually guilty, that’s not really the point. The point is, would you want to attend a conference or other social function if you knew that the organizers (and a sizable number of attendees) were largely on the side of the panhandlers and pickpockets?
Women shouldn’t have to put up with that sexually any more than any of us should have to put up with it monetarily. And all it takes is for people to agree that, yes, that’s unacceptable, and we have policies against it, and we actively enforce those policies. We shouldn’t need to call in the police and have anyone arrested (except in rare cases), we just need to take a firm stand.
“largely on the side of the panhandlers and pickpockets?” — citation f’ing required, man. This is a HUGE strawman, and is skirting dangerously close to a thinly veiled ad-hominem. I expect more from the bloggers at FTB than this kind of crap-slinging.
““largely on the side of the panhandlers and pickpockets?” — citation f’ing required, man. This is a HUGE strawman, and is skirting dangerously close to a thinly veiled ad-hominem. “
Ad hom against who? The analogy here is a good one I think…how would you feel about an organization that claimed there had never been panhandling at it’s conferences, was then shown that, yes indeed there had been reports made of panhandling and possibly even some pickpocketing, and that organization didn’t take those things seriously enough implement clear measures to deal with the problem? Whose side would you say they were on?
What if, after being constantly panhandled, and possibly even having your pocket picked, your complaints about these indignities were met by other members of your community with a combination of hyper-skepticism, insults, dismissals, condescending pats on the head, and the occasional threat of armed robbery? How enthusiastic would you be about attending another of that community’s gatherings, or supporting their work?
Would you establish the parameters of what you consider proof before people start digging up quotes and information, please? The whole portable proof goalpost stuff that’s been going showing up all over this debate is annoying.
No: not having a policy against something does not mean that you are for it, or that you support those actions. It just means you don’t have an explicit policy against it. It *may* possibly mean that you don’t consider the problem to be as serious as some other people do, but it could also mean that you don’t consider an explicit policy to be necessary, because YOU ALREADY HAVE THE ABILITY AND RIGHT TO EXPEL ANYONE FOR PRETTY MUCH ANY REASON, including sexual harassment.
As for the ad hom: I didn’t say it was ad hom, I said it was coming damn close to it. The fact that you know and I know who is being targeted here proves that the OP was a direct attack against one particular person, and one particular organization, in the guise of a generic discussion of a generic problem. I’d rather people come straight out and say what they mean, and accept the consequences.
DJ’s being used as a whipping post for stating that he wasn’t aware of any case of harrassment at TAM; that might be because no one actually reported any to the organizers. He stated that out of 800+ responses to their surveys, 3 people complained for reasons unrelated to sexual harassment. Maybe if people, instead of chit-chatting about the subjects at the bar after hours, would have actually filed a report with TAM officials, or actually included the incidents in their responses to the surveys, things might be different. But the way DJ’s comments have been completely twisted out of recognition, along with calls for his resignation (or maybe even his head on a pike?) is completely ridiculous.
But in no way did DJ ever say anything that could remotely be construed by any honest person that he supported sexual harassment, or that he didn’t want to do anything to prevent it. The question is: what to do, exactly. That’s a discussion worth having, and honest people can certainly disagree on the specifics.
But distorting the record, making people into monsters without cause is unacceptable. So: Yes, or no: do you still beat your wife, sir?
Dude, read this:
http://skepchick.org/2012/06/guest-post-harassment-happens/
There were written reports and DJ was personally involved.
I do wonder why any of these policies need undertaken by freethought groups. Are harassment and assault not covered in the laws of every municipality, state and even Federal law of the venues in which freethought gatherings take place?
Actually, no. Harassment can cause lots of problems without rising to the level of anything illegal.
“Citation”? For a hypothetical analogy being described to try to get through to those who refuse to even consider that their actions – or inactions – might actually be annoying-to-hurtful-to-harmful to others?
Um… no.
As to “strawman” and “ad hominem”… well, I don’t think those terms mean what you think they mean.
DD: I’d like to thank you for weighing in. There are plenty of people who hang around FtB who greatly appreciate all the supportive voices that have made themselves known.
This is a hypothetical presented as part of an analogy. It isn’t accusing anyone of anything, just trying to explain people reactions by recontextualizing them.
It’s an ANALOGY.
Look it up.
Moron.
@DR
Ok, I think that’s a fair objection. I intended it as a hypothetical and/or worst-case scenario, but in the situational context there’s an implied and prejudicial assumption there that was both careless and thoughtless, and for that I apologize. Thank you for pointing it out.
And to those who came to my defense, thanks to you as well, I appreciate the support. But I must plead guilty: while I have second- or third-hand of points that might be raised in favor of my assumption, I personally have not done the due diligence such assumptions require. It’s neither my place nor my intention to pass judgment for or against any parties involved. That’s a discussion I leave to others. Frankly, I don’t have the time to do the relevant research.
That said, let me try and rephrase the question: if you were considering a conference, and had (possibly groundless) concerns about being panhandled, robbed, mugged, or worse at this conference, (a) what steps would you expect the conference organizers to take to address your concerns and (b) what steps should you expect them to take? In other words, we can all ask for the moon, but realistically what’s an appropriate response, in the case of people whose pursuit of your money goes beyond reasonable limits?
I think that’s a less emotionally-charged question, and I believe the answer would be useful in considering its sexual parallel.
I do notice that no angels have dared tread on this subject (not provably, anyway), so I must be out of my mind to rush in. Anywho, here goes: What if–you know, just as an experiment–we tried going to these conventions without the intention of trolling for sex? Seems to me that a lot of the problem would simply evaporate. Or is that too radical?
Groping should be an expulsion offense. Indeed, it is a crime.
Your last two posts on this topic have been really, really good. Thank you.
I wish all the folks who are shouting past each other would hush up, read them, and think on them a bit before they went back to shouting.
Because those of us who are pissed off at all of the dishonest, derailing, condescending, goalpost-dragging, dismissing, ignorant bigots who double down when challenged and run to their slimepits to scream LIES SLANDER CENSORSHIP BIAS when we get tired of their crap are just as bad as the dishonest, derailing, condescending, goalpost-dragging, dismissing, ignorant bigots who double down when challenged and run to their slimepits to scream LIES SLANDER CENSORSHIP BIAS when we get tired of their crap.
And the reason we’re just as bad is…we’re pissed off because we’re tired of their crap.
When the fuck did spewing crap and getting tired of said crap become equally wrong? For that matter, when the fuck was it ever wrong to get tired of said crap? And why is it also wrong to express being tired of this crap?
Clinging to the fence makes you a worse ally, not a better one =/
Whilst my garden has advanced to the point I could use a decent scarecrow, I don’t think your strawman is sturdy enough for the job. 🙂 And damn you for making me resort to mawkish and insipid smilies to make sure you understand I’m only gently poking fun. I hate smilies. Animated smiles make me want to believe in the supernatural, because clearly only a vast and malignant evil could have spawned them.
There is no barbed wire in my butt crack, I completely support the feminist side of this issue. I am appalled that we even need to have this discussion, much less that there are apparently lots and lots of people who think a simple anti-harassment policy tramples their happy humping rights. I am dismayed and angered by the bitter and vulgar assaults on the women who have spoken out against predatory behavior.
However, in my opinion, at this point, shouting and indignation isn’t getting us anywhere. I’m not condemning anyone’s actions or reactions, but instead searching for a different approach. The internet definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. I have enough sanity issues, thankyewvrymuch. Time, in my opinion, to consider a different way of pitching the issue.
The analogies in this blog are really excellent. Really, they are. And maybe, just maybe, with the problem pitched in less emotionally charged imagery, we could get past some of the shouting and get closer to solutions. I am fully aware of the flimsy nature of that maybe; but, much to my shame, I am afflicted and infested with optimism as well as a hatred of smilies.
😉
*shudder*
So, seriously, take a deep breath. I’m on the same side as you on this issue, and I’m not condemning your anger or your reactions. I’m just very happy…hell, I’m Dancing Matt happy, to see someone put forward a suggestion for a way around some of the shouting, no matter how tenuous its chances of succeeding are.
The human race would die out.
Seriously. I have heard the harassment apologists make that argument.
Bu..but, but, if they don’t shout, they’d have to actually listen! You don’t know what you’re asking for…
The feminazis are *always* unreasonable!
I really hope you’re being ironic in the use of that term.
Not knowing anything about blue but since the post prior to it was clearly sarcastic/ironic (RW’s), I’m inclined to give the benefit of the doubt.
Sarcasm or irony works extremely poorly in short text snippets (even when tagged).
No, I am not being ironic, I am being whimsically sarcastic.
I’ve been looking at the skeptic blogs for a few weeks now. I notice there are one-way skeptics, those who are able to skeptically view the assertions of others, and two-way skeptics, those who also practice skepticism in regard to their own assertions and opinions.
I think the former unawarely follow the religious model
I have been directly told and also read a few times that this repeated panhandling is not an issue that the anti-harassment policies are meant to address. Some proponents of anti-harassment policies have even claimed that this is not an issue at all.
I happen to disagree with the last point. Recently a girl told me that she only goes to gay parties anymore because she is feed up with being hit on and I can absolutely understand her. What is true is that anti-harassment policies can’t in good faith address the issue of multiply panhandling because you can’t hold the last panhandler responsible for the ten panhandlers that came before him.
Ah, but you could hold that panhandler responsible for their ten previous attempts before their attempt against you. Most of the anti-harassment policies I’ve seen would effectively limit those ‘ten attempts’ to ‘one or two’, at least within the context of the locale/event where they’re in force. Fewer ‘repeat offenders’ means (on average, at least) fewer incidents against any one individual.
(Alright, alright: unless the people who normally would NOT harass anyone all decide to harass someone “just once”; then maybe you could probably make things just as bad as before. But somehow I can’t see the people who normally wouldn’t harass anyone agreeing to such a thing.)
Right, if there a policy were a participant is permitted two cold-calls before sanction you could improve the experience of participants that don’t want to be hit on by providing a set of sexy sexual honeypots.
Someone else could sceptically analyze the math in a hypothetical 200 man, 200 woman meeting with representative rates of orientation, etc. How many honeypots, and of what persuasions would you need to protect 90% of the participants? (Assume perfect overlap of the 90% protected with a hypothetical 90% that don’t want to be hit on.) What is the rate of PUAism among men and women? Among atheists? I have no idea. Probably no one does. I’d assume something low, 15%?
This didn’t seem as dumb when I started typing as it does now. :-\ Sexual panhandling and sexual proselytizing are both way better ideas. Sorry!
Great analogy!
Ehh… is that correct? My understanding from the whole screaming match is not that the originators of this discussion felt that harassment was very frequent, severe or presistent, but that the response from certain convention / meeting organisers to complaints about harassment were very inadequate, bordering on condescending (as in “no, your wrong” or “it didn’t happen” or “we never received that complaint that we quite evidently did receive”). Also, with regard to “acceptable limits”… is there any way in which sexual harassment can be acceptable? Allowing for genuine misunderstandings, the only acceptable level is zero, isn’t it?
Otherwise great post.
“Zero Tolerance” policies can lead to pretty nasty side effects, since they don’t allow good judgement to catch the weird exception cases. I’d saw the tolerance should be pretty low, but with an issue like this warnings are a valuable option, especially if the victim of harassment feels safe with the offender staying. Especially the “unwanted” requirement of an “unwanted advance” can be a bit blurry for a solid rules that works fairly in every case.
(Just to be clear, I’m really not on the side of the harassers here, I just don’t like to be hasty designing systems of rules. I’m a math/software guy, we like complex rules sometimes)
“Zero tolerance” doesn’t mean “one infraction and you’re out”. It means “this behaviour will not be tolerated.” Plenty of space for warnings prior to eviction, the point is that warnings/evictions WILL be issued. A ‘zero tolerance’ policy doesn’t mean that the most severe punishment will necessarily be meted out every time. It does serve to prevent people in charge from ignoring complaints or gaslighting complainants.
I checked wikipedia just to make sure I wasn’t too off-base (I know, I know, not a great source), and while you’re right that zero tolerance doesn’t mean “one infraction and you’re out”, I think it would still lead to problems in a convention/social setting (not to mention every other place they are used). A zero tolerance policy takes judgement out of the equation. Action X leads to punishment Y, every single time.
If a person publicly propositioning someone for sex was prohibited, and a conference attendee propositioned their spouse publicly as a joke and their wasn’t an exception written into the rules for that they would have to be punished. It’s a contrived situation, but if the person enforcing the rules has the authority to “let it slide”, then the amount of tolerance described is low but greater than “zero”.
I know American high schools occasionally make national news by having to punish someone who didn’t do anything wrong because they accidentally made their drug or fighting rules too strict. I don’t see a good excuse for that in a subculture with a higher than average number of people who like nit picky logic who would happily help design the right (non-zero) amount of tolerance 😉
That status quo is that when it comes to harassment, “the person enforcing the rules has the authority to “let it slide””. I don’t think it’s working out very well.
I’m not talking about zero tolerance as a formal institutional policy. Deacon Duncan suggests that some women have beocme very concerned that sexual harrassment at these meetings has increased above acceptable levels. I’m simply saying that sexual harassment is never acceptable. Period. Maybe some women will disagree with me, but that’s my opinion.
Ahhh, sorry for over-reacting then. Zero tolerance policies get me a bit upset. It’s sort of like I have a zero tolerance policy for them, which as I discussed earlier is a bad plan that leads to misunderstandings 😉 I agree that there shouldn’t be any amount of harassment that is “ok”, even if some cases have to be let go or handled out of official channels for practical reasons.
You know, I’m not sure what to do if we’ve gotten to the point where you don’t actually have to accuse any person or organization of anything in order to be accused of ad hominem.
You say you want a citation, but a citation of WHAT? If Deacon Duncan had said, “Grr grr, Organization X and/or Person X sides with the panhandlers!” then it would make sense for you to ask for a citation, to want to know where when Organization X/Person X said whatever it is they said. But if someone says something akin to “People wouldn’t want to go to a conference where the aggressive panhandlers were being supported by the establishment,” the only thing that anyone could actually dispute (and thus could ask for proof) is if said person felt that people WOULD want to go to conferences with such a policy, and that doesn’t seem to be the argument you are making.
Deacon Duncan can prove that anyone did what he said they did if he didn’t say that anyone did anything. He kind of has to actually accuse an individual or organization before he can prove his non-existent accusation.
Anyway, Deacon Duncan, thanks for the post. It was really nice, and it sums up a lot of what I’m feeling. So yay for you!
Yep, definitely one of the oddest cases of an ad hominem fallacy fallacy I’ve seen.
I wonder if the sexual harassment that’s been going on has anything to do with the lower than average social skills that one might see at an atheist/skeptic conference. “We” are known for our intelligence, not our social graces.
Nerds gone wild. Lots of not-heavily-socialized males near intelligent females; males are nookin’ for nub, and with a crap understanding of what’s appropriate, nasty behaviour ensues.
Yeah. This myth again.
No, sexual harassers do not lack social skills. They exploit social rules that exist to smooth over hurt feelings in the case of rejection in order to hide behind plausible deniability.
Genuinely socially awkward are generally too shy to do the things harassers do. I’ve been dealing with sexual advances and harassment for… [mentally calculates] …over 20 years now. And I’m 34. Even when I was young and callow, I had little difficulty distinguishing the creepers from the awkward guys. Don’t let the harassers hide behind shy introverts. They’re really not the same.
Wow, this is a really great analogy. In my opinion it hits the issues right on the head.
I also think there are two separate issues that are getting conflated in some people’s minds, which are deftly handled by the pickpocketing/panhandling separation in the analogy.
There is (1) sexual harassment, which includes unwanted touching, repeated actions after being asked not to, insults based on gender or sexuality, etc. and then there is (2) hitting on or flirting, which, particularly when there is a gender imbalance, can mean one gender receives a lot more of that type of attention than normal.
(1) and (2) are not the same thing (depending, of course, on context), and I think this post does a good job of addressing that fact. No, not all panhandlers are pickpockets, but it’s possible that some people just don’t want to go to an event where there’s going to be a lot of “sexual panhandling” even if there is little or even no “sexual pickpocketing.” It doesn’t mean the panhandling is wrong or criminal or anything, it just means some people don’t feel up to walking that gauntlet on their weekend off, just like DD sometimes doesn’t feel up to going to the McDonalds.
The question for the event organizers then is, is it worth trying to discourage panhandling in ADDITION to pickpocketing in order to attract those who don’t want to deal with it, or would they rather allow the panhandling and instead concentrate on trying to increase the numbers of those who enjoy the panhandling? That’s a question for the event organizers to decide, but if they decide not to discourage the panhandling, then they must accept that the people who don’t want to deal with it simply won’t come.
The panhandler analogy is a very weak analogy, for many reasons, but perhaps the most important ones are that for many panhandlers, depending upon where you live, that is their only means of survival. To abridge a person’s only means of survival simply because you find it inconvenient or distasteful is a deep assault on their human rights.
Agreed.
Better:
pharyngula DOT wikia DOT com/wiki/Sexual_proselytizing
If the analogy were meant to inspire sympathy for the perpetrators by their victims, then your argument would be relevant; i.e. if the argument to be made were “But I HAVE to flirt/hit on/harass others to LIVE!!!” I don’t think that’s DD’s point, though; is that how you read it?
Where does this analogy fail to get across the idea that persistent, even low-level ‘unwanted attention’ would be annoying and unwelcome, would make people feel like they wanted to avoid the place where it’s happening?
But he was not talking about abridging anyone’s right to survival. He was talking about the fact that if someone is soliciting something from you, whether it be money or sex, there is a certain emotional cost in having to deal with it, whether you are giving them what they want or rejecting them. And sometimes, when faced with going somewhere they know they will experience solicitation, they will avoid it because they aren’t prepared to deal with it at that time.
There are lots of businesses that will not allow people to panhandle or otherwise solicit money from people on their private property because it can discourage paying customers. They are well within their rights to do so and the solicitors are free to continue their activities elsewhere.
ibbica said:
“Where does this analogy fail to get across the idea that persistent, even low-level ‘unwanted attention’ would be annoying and unwelcome, would make people feel like they wanted to avoid the place where it’s happening?”
violet said:
“He was talking about the fact that if someone is soliciting something from you, whether it be money or sex, there is a certain emotional cost in having to deal with it, whether you are giving them what they want or rejecting them.”
Yes, I see where you are going with that. Those are both valid points.
ibbica said:
“…. I don’t think that’s DD’s point, though; is that how you read it?”
No, I did not read it as you posed it in that comment. You know, I am not certain, but it may be that I was reacting to the analogy as though I had taken it that way, and as though that had been the OP’s original point.
I’ve got to ponder that a bit, as it seems I may have been wrong and misinterpreted the analogy. Perhaps I just reacted to what I interpreted as an unfair, in my opinioin, slag on panhandlers.
If I decide I was correct in the first place, I’ll post again and try to explain my points.
Thanks for the points.
I would like to point out that the fact that the complaint is being made is proof enough that there is an issue. To assume that a person is lying when they have show no past inclination to do so is not only disingenuous but also insulting. Quite frankly I find it amazing that people are like “WE NEED MORE EVIDENCE.” From what I can tell is there is plenty of evidence to support women’s claims, both that harassment occurs and conferences are lax in their protective measures. What do you want a signed photo take with some guy’s hand on some girls ass?
The first step in any conflict resolution is recognizing the reality of the claims on both sides. By denying that there is a problem you are basically covering your ears and going “LAALALALALA CANT HEAR YOU!!!”
Sex and money are bad analogies to connect. But to assume that just because someone speaks to you that they want sex…honey, you ain’t all dat!
Arguments, headlines, letters to the editor, proposed legislation, police standards, ticketing, perceptions of street safety, and social activism swirled around the new form of panhandling called squeegeeing and about “squeegee kids.” Nobody told the public they were on their own and should harden the eff up. Nobody denounced the concern because children were starving in Africa or Muslim women were worse off. They took it as a public problem that had implications and significance and worked on hammering out a way to deal with it.
If only sexual panhandling were taken so seriously!
Panhandling or squeegeeing takes one hell of a truckload of nerve, gall, audacity, impudence, rudeness, Chutzpah, what-have-you. Certainly more than enough to get a real job or start a real business or to seize life by the horns. They don’t do those things because panhandling provides them an easier path. It puts them up against normal, less aggressive people instead of the heavy weights of the world, those who truly lack empathy.
IRL I am a very quiet, soft-spoken, respectable person, but I give no quarter to anyone who approaches me on the street. Why are you talking to me? Why are you approaching me? Am I wearing an Armani suit? Did I drive up in a Porsche? Because if I had a career that afforded me Armani and Porsche I probably feel less empathy than you do.
Panhandlers, bigots, and plutocrats thrive because people repeatedly feel empathy for them and grant them a benefit of a doubt even when it is obviously not reciprocated.
A rapist or groper feels the exact same way as a panhandler or tycoon feels if his mark does not pay tribute to him. He would kill you if he could get away with it.
Hi Deacon Duncan,
“Sexual panhandling” as an analogy doesn’t sit right with me. This issue is not about what men are asking for it’s about what they are expecting from women.
Panhandling is the act of asking for value from another without having anything to offer in return (besides gratitude). Therefore the term “sexual panhandling” implies that the party making a proposition is expecting an un-equal exchange of values. Which makes it a poor analogy because it’s simply not true in all cases of proposition and sexualized interaction. It doesn’t matter whether the individual believes they are asking for, giving or sharing value. Sexual propositions at professional meetings is still wrong.
An analogy I’d offer is that of a person with a portable video game system walking around asking if other would like play. It’s irrelevant whether this individual wants to give, take or share value. Because such behavior would be disruptive for many people and that shows lack of consideration. Now imagine that individual only walked up to people wearing thick rimmed glasses – making the assumption that because they have such eye wear they are also willing to set aside their professional cause in favor of playing games.
Sexual propositions at public events such as conferences are worse. These propositions marginalize the intent of the gathering in favor of one’s intent to be sexual. By approaching other persons and propositioning them one is making the assumption that they are also willing to be unprofessional. If the approach is made of only a select group (such as women) then one is essentially communicating that all individuals in that group are willing to set aside their professional intent in favor of sexual entertainment.
That’s my take on it. Cheers.