Accidents are harder than you think: harassment and all of us.

[seanan_mcguire]

So we're talking a lot about harassment in the science fiction and fantasy community right now, and that's a good thing: that's a thing that really needs to happen. Much of the conversation has centered on sexual harassment, but it has also touched on racial harassment, religious harassment, social harassment, and plain ol' bullying. John Scalzi has put forth a convention harassment policy policy (not as redundant as it sounds), and a lot of people have co-signed to indicate that they, too, will refrain from attending conventions without good, public anti-harassment policies. Sounds good, right? I mean, "play nicely with the other children" is the building block of most people's educations, and none of us wakes up in the morning thinking "I'm gonna harass somebody today."

(Well. Maybe some people do. And fuck them.)

But as always happens when this conversation gets started, some people are standing up and shouting "THOUGHT POLICE!" and "Well I don't want to go to a convention where wearing a T-shirt could get me banned for harassment."

Oh, honey lambs, I'm sorry the world is so hard. Let's talk about harassment a little more, shall we? Wikipedia (which is not the most 100% reputable source, but is easy to copy and paste) defines "harassment" as "behavior intended to disturb or upset, and it is characteristically repetitive." It goes on to say that "In the legal sense, it is intentional behavior which is found threatening or disturbing. Sexual harassment refers to persistent and unwanted sexual advances."

Intentional. Intended. Persistent. What does each of these words mean? Let's look at definitions taken from real world experiences.

Intentional. If you run up to me in a public place and scream "I'M GOING TO RAPE YOU, YOU FAT BITCH!", you are harassing me. It only took one sentence to cross that line! Why is that? Well, because a specific threat was made, and even if there was no intent to actually cause physical harm, anyone who makes that statement clearly intended to disturb and upset me. This is harassment, and yeah, it's probably going to lead to my making a report to convention staff, and no, I'm not going to feel bad if someone gets kicked out because of it.

On the other hand, what if I'm just walking through the convention lobby and I hear some guys making dirty jokes in the corner? Is that harassment? No. It's in poor taste, but it's not harassment. I may still say something to convention staff, because most cons include children, and public space is not the place to be crossing certain lines.

Intended. But what happens if, after I tell convention staff "Hey, those guys over there are telling dirty jokes loudly in the lobby, maybe it would be a good idea for them to stop" those same people figure out that I was the one who reported them and spend the rest of the day following me around the hotel, telling dirty jokes loudly to try and get a rise out of me? What if, say, they follow me into my panels and ask questions that are really set-ups for filthy punchlines? Is that harassment?

Yeah. They intended to upset me. They wanted me to feel unsafe and unwelcome, and they did a very good job of it. But what if it was a T-shirt that made me go "ew," and not a bunch of joke-tellers? Well, if the convention doesn't have a "clean language" policy (which some cons with lots of underage attendees do have: they want Grandma to be able to look around the lobby and feel like little Timmy is safe), that's not harassment. Hell, even if there is a "clean language" policy, it's not harassment, it's just a rule violation. Running into the person in the inappropriate-to-me shirt several times over the course of the day is not harassment, it's happenstance.

I have seen costumed individuals harass people with their attire. The most upsetting incident involved someone in a bikini and bodypaint trying to force an individual whose religion forbade him to stare at uncovered women to look at her. Was the man committing religious oppression or harassment? No. He never said, at least in my hearing, that she needed to cover up her sinful, sinful body. He just didn't look at her. Was the woman committing harassment? Yes. But look at her actions: she intended to do what she did. It was intentional. Lots of women wearing as little or less walked by, and none of them were harassing him with their presence. Just the one who was yelling and touching his arms and generally being intentionally problematic.

Persistent. I've seen several people say that anti-harassment policies are the end of convention hook-ups and no geeks will ever get dates again oh noes we're going to die out. And that's where persistent comes to the party.

"Hey, you're nice, wanna have coffee?"
"No."

Not harassment!

"That dress could make a good dog break his leash."
"Crude but points for The West Wing reference."

Probably not harassment!

"Wanna fuck?"
"No."

Maybe harassment, maybe not, depending on what came before it.

"You're hot."
"Thanks, I'm with someone."
"Aw baby don't be like that."
"Please excuse me."
"Your ass is just...mmm."
"I'd really like to go over there."
"I'll come with you baby."

Harassment! Look: no one is saying "don't ask people out" or "never talk to a person you find attractive again." We're saying "no means no." We're saying "if she's trying to get away from you, let her." We're saying "if you follow him through the hotel, you are being inappropriate." We're saying "unless I have asked you to touch me, touching me is not appropriate."

Studies have shown that people are much better at picking up on "no" than they want to admit, because admitting it would mean acknowledging it. So learn to pick up on "no," both verbally and non-verbally. Watch body language. Back off. Listen.

Having a bawdy song filk circle is not harassment: it's in the program book, it's labeled, and anyone who comes to that circle and gets offended by the circle in general is looking to get upset. Singing a dirty song during open filk while staring at the girl who says she's uncomfortable with that sort of thing and going "Ha ha Olga's probably pretty turned on" is harassment. You have singled her out. You are making an intentional choice. You are persisting.

Cat and I do this panel called "In Conversation" that's sort of like "An Evening With Kevin Smith" with more boobs. We always provide a program book description that says, flat out, that we will swear, that we will answer all questions, that no topics are off the table. So no, you don't get to attend our panel and then say we harassed you with our swearing. But if we have that same conversation in the lobby, and won't stop, and get louder when asked to stop, you are right to involve the convention staff. You have a right to feel safe. You have a right to be allowed to participate freely in your community.

I've used "you" throughout this post both to avoid gendering the subject, and to make this point: If you, the reader, think that a convention where you can be asked not to make rape jokes at panelists, not to lay hands on people who have asked you (either aloud or with their actions) to leave them alone, and to treat everyone else as a human being who has a right to the ball, if you think that this convention sounds like political correctness gone awry and something you want no part in, good.

Stay home.

Comments

[lysana.livejournal.com]

YES. THIS. All of it. To the last letter.

[seanan-mcguire.livejournal.com]

<3

[vulpine137.livejournal.com]

I have a question, and I really hope it comes out right.

Say I (cis hetro male) see a person I do not know personally at a 'con who I find attractive, either due to costume choice (cute Cthulhu Cultist?) or
general matches what I consider as my type.

My assumption is, that there's a scale of appreciation that goes from safe, to creepy, to dangerous. What I'm not sure, and I know I can't really be sure given I don't know the person in question, is how to know when to draw the line.

My thought is this.

Mental appreciation: Thinking to myself she is pretty.
Quiet comment to 3rd party: "she's pretty/cute/tentacled".
Direct comment: "Hi, I like your costume, those elder signs are detailed"
Direct comment + camera: "Hi, I like your robes...may I take a picture of you ?"
Direct comment with intent to communicate in more detail: I really don't have an example, I suck at this part.

I know that no means no, and if told so to just excuse myself politely and leave her alone. (though if she's telepathic and says no to the mental appreciation I may move a tad quicker away).

I guess, what I'm asking...what would be considered the safe side of polite ?

(My usual 'con practice is either 1 or 2, with a very rare 3. Mostly due to shyness and not wanting to be 'that guy'.)

[maladaptive.livejournal.com]

IME, "that guy" never asks "may I take a picture of you" and then accepts "no" as an answer. Maybe about 30% will ask and ignore the answer (or not even wait for the answer), and 70% will just either take pictures or walk up to you and have a buddy take pictures of the two of you together. Or he'll jump in your space and do a selfie with you.

[archangelbeth]

And, as I said... (probably on your journal already!) ...if you are a parent of little fen, teach them "ask before hugging, ask before touching, and only hug or touch the costume or pick up the whatsit on the vendor table if the person says that's okay."

And if your kid is on the spectrum? Double-down on making sure they know the rule is "ASK FIRST AND ACCEPT A NO." Explain that sometimes people have sunburns, so hugging them would hurt, or they have a back problem, or something else that's an "invisible disability." Explain that costumes can be delicate and yes, even if YOU know that you aren't going to break the costume, the person in it doesn't know that -- and besides, it might be more fragile than it looks.

If your kid is old enough, you can add that sometimes people have been touched without their consent enough that they just don't want to be touched, or have people in their personal space. (Right. Explain personal space.)

Explain that if people are picking up stuff on the vendors' tables, it makes the vendors a little concerned -- a vendor can't tell an honest person from someone who doesn't have much money but who feels entitled to a bit of jewelry anyway. Some things are too fragile to be picked up. Respect the vendor, and help the vendor have a great convention too!

If your kid is really little and tends to do hug attacks? Yeah, that's cute and all, but it's also dangerous if they trip someone. (Who may be the person they're hug-attacking, or may be someone who was walking along and had a small hug-attacking missile intersect their knees.) It's especially dangerous if it's someone who might be wearing spiky armor, carrying hot beverages, or just have stompy boots on; not only could that person be hurt, but the kid they land on could also be injured, perhaps seriously. This is not the kid's fault, nor the tripped person's fault; it is the adult caregiver's responsibility to keep track of their kid!

And there's this great invention, called leading strings in the UK. It is invaluable.
• It lets you keep track of your kid when you take your eyes off them for a moment (do you want your kid running off in a crowded con, vanishing from sight among the legs?)
• It provides you a way of yanking them to safety without wrenching their little shoulders
• And it provides a connection that doesn't give your back and shoulders and hip conniption fits (like carrying a kid around all day can do).

How do I know all this? I have a hug-attack kid on the spectrum, who has been going to a local con since before she was born. (Literally. *pregnant beth meanders around the con*) And it's my job to equip her with the rules she needs to keep from harming other people, keep from getting herself accidentally hurt, and make sure that she doesn't grow up with habits that are cute in a 4-year-old, but kind of annoying in a 14-year-old, and downright creepy in a 20-year-old.

[anna-en-route.livejournal.com]

You can buy really awesome leading strings that double as a strapped in backpack shaped like a monkey (with the tail as the lead).

Kids with monkey backpacks who can't run into traffic=adorable & safe!

Tweeted

[ed-rex.livejournal.com]

Very well-said. Tweeted, on the presumption that public postings here are meant to be public elsewhere.

[seanan-mcguire.livejournal.com]

They are, but thank you for letting me know!

[zoethe.livejournal.com]

I think one of the hardest lessons to teach is how much tone and approach can make a difference. There is a way of saying "I love your costume, that's amazing!" that sounds friendly and invites further conversation, and a way of saying it that sounds lecherous, threatening, and makes a person want to run in the opposite direction.

And that is hard. Because I see people grousing that they are saying "the exact same thing" as other people and not understanding why it's inappropriate coming out of their mouths.

[black-rider.livejournal.com]

In my limited personal experience, those people who are grousing seem for the most part to be perfectly capable of being polite, non-lecherous, and non-threatening, around, say an authority figure. It's just that admitting that their approach 1. isn't working, and 2. is freaking people out, would require they take some personal responsibility, and admit that maybe they're not perfect, instead of whining about how people don't like them.

There's always that possibility that they're *not* aware of what they're doing, so I try to give the benefit of the doubt and gently guide them to less awkward things, but if they persist, they get one good stern "that is not acceptable" and then I just walk away if it happens again.

[archangelwells.livejournal.com]

HAIL THE PRIESTESS OF THE WELL-WRITTEN HOW NOT TO HARASS POSTS!

[seanan-mcguire.livejournal.com]

*is hailed*

[spectralbovine.livejournal.com]

"That dress could make a good dog break his leash."
"Crude but points for The West Wing reference."


"Your ass is just...mmm."
This is veering past harassment and into cannibalism.

[azurelunatic]

This sounds appropriate in Hannibal fandom, and nowhere else.

[effervescent.livejournal.com]

You consistently post things that are well thought out, awesome and make me flail because I just want to comment 'yes, this'. <3

[seanan-mcguire.livejournal.com]

Aw, thanks. :)

[chryssalys]

Hi, Seanan, don't know if you recall, but you met me and my Great Dane puppy Pagan at Confluence last year (you may remember Pagan, at least!). This is an excellently written review of what is and is not harassment, IMO. I have been at multiple cons, including one where my wife was cornered in a hallway late at night by a former boyfriend who was convinced that she must be missing being with a man now that she was with me (the con staff's response to my complaint the following day was "Well, no harm done", so I welcome John Scalzi's policy whole-heartedly and hope it spreads broadly).

That said, there is a bit of me that wants to point out that people dressed in costume *want* that costume to be appreciated. It is, of course, possible and necessary to do so in a non-creepy way. As an anecdote, some years ago I was at a con - cannot remember which one now, but it might have been a Conclave - at which there was a *beautiful* young man dressed in such a way as to display himself most gorgeously. I don't find men attractive - but this one literally made my head turn as he walked by. He stopped, looked at me and asked if I had a comment. I shook my head and said, "No. Just admiring." He grinned ear to ear, came over and hugged me, and bounced off happily.

Was that crossing the line? I dunno. Certainly not intentionally, but my attention affected him to the point that he stopped and asked about it. Which I would feel worse about if it hadn't been obvious that my answer made him happy.

Do I think harassment policies are needed? Absolutely. Am I a bit concerned about the implementation and enforcement of those policies? Yep.

Still, it's a (big) step in the right direction.

[black-rider.livejournal.com]

There's admiring, and then there's creepy. I suspect even fairly, well, let's call it lustful admiring, can be acceptable when done in a non-threatening way. There's staring because something is gorgeous and you are genuinely enjoying looking at it, and then there's leering, or staring because you want someone to notice you're staring, so you can be inappropriate.

At the last con I was at, a rather tall gal with wonderful breasts came up to chat with me, and as I am a short gal myself, her breasts were about eye-level. She also happened to have a really great tattoo of the goddess, tucked right into her cleavage. I sorta attempted to have a normal conversation with her, and then eventually said, "I am really sorry, I cannot stop staring, it's a great tattoo, and..." She laughed, said it was fine, that she was used to it, and we continued chatting. I felt like a bit of a jerk for staring, but she wasn't intimidated or freaked out, and I think that was key.

[geojlc.livejournal.com]

Thank you Seannan! This is well written and much needed!

[seanan-mcguire.livejournal.com]

Very welcome. :)

[avram]

Y’know about circles of intimacy, and social space? How we kind of expect strangers to keep their distance, and friends to come in closer, and allow intimates to come up real close? And this carries over to physical contact — the hug you get from a friend would be weird coming from a stranger, and the affectionate grope you get from a lover would be (probably) unwelcome from a friend, and right the fuck out of the question from a stranger.

I’ve been thinking that one form of harassment is to bump up against someone’s inner circle, and refuse to back out again. (I’m not necessarily referring to physical distance here — there are intimacy circles associated with conversation, as well.) Another is to jump over a bunch of layers of circle all at once. The story Jerry Pournelle told about Randall Garrett, how he would go up to strange women at cons and say “I’m Randall Garret, would you like to fuck?” — that’s jumping-over-many-layers type of harassment.

[naomikritzer]

This is an interesting point. Cons make this complicated in some ways, because we're there to connect with fellow fans. And if you spot someone who's obviously part of your somewhat-obscure fandom (due to a costume, or a t-shirt, or because you were in a large-group conversation and they laughed at your totally obscure nerdy joke...) that can create a false sense of intimacy.

Sometimes, you can connect with that person and it's AWESOME and you make a new friend. But when you approach that other person you need to take it slow and absolutely accept no for an answer. Having that connection sometimes lets you move very quickly from "stranger" to "friend," though, and that's part of what I go to cons for.

(None of which even remotely excuses Randall Garret, mind you.)

[liddle-oldman.livejournal.com]

A) Yes.

B) I am constantly amazed that anyone would do any of this. (I know they do -- I just can't believe that they do it.)

[seanan-mcguire.livejournal.com]

Me, too, frankly.

[wfw-sj.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the Kev Smith reference. (WORLDS COLLIDE.)

[seanan-mcguire.livejournal.com]

Ever welcome.

[griffen.livejournal.com]

I've mentioned that you rock, right? Recently, right?

In case I haven't done it recently enough: You rock. Just sayin'.

[seanan-mcguire.livejournal.com]

Thank you.

<3

[eclecticgypsy.livejournal.com]

I recently wrote down a few thoughts about what takes a comment from appreciative to creepy, and for me, at least, the main divide is in where the value is placed in relation to me and/or the course of conversation.

Example 1:

"Holy shit, you look super hot."
"Thanks."
"Seriously, baby, you got it goin' on..."
"Mhm, thanks." *moving away*
"Hey wait, wait, y'wanna... Take a walk with me?"

Creepy as hell to me, for three reasons.
A. They opened with an assessment of my physical appearance, and then kept on going without even remotely acknowledging that I have a brain or other parts than those useful for their fantasy material.
B. They kept going along the same vein despite my lack of interest in pursuing that conversation.
C. When I attempted to leave, they pursued.

Example 2:

"I loooove your singing."
"Thanks, I like that song. It's by this woman I follow on-"
"You've got a lot of passion to your voice, makes you sound all sex kitten."
"Uh..."
"Wanna come up to my room? Private party..."

Creepy.
A. Even if a trait is not my breasts or ass, focusing on it to the exclusion of me as a person with my own mind and thoughts is rude.
B. Ignoring my attempt to engage in a conversation in favor of focusing on how to get into bed with me, creepy.
C. Going in for the pick up within three sentences? I am clearly just wank material to you. Go away.

Example 3:

"Man, this party is packed. Do you know the party holders?"
"Nah, I'm a friend of a friend, just came by to see what was going on."
"Mmhm. By the way, you look really fantastic. Did you make that all yourself?"
"Most of it, the bodice and the stockings are bought, but thank you."
"Sure thing. Hey, would you like to grab a coffee downstairs? It's a little packed for me."
"No thanks, I'm waiting for my friend."
"Okay! Maybe I'll see you around, but if not, have a great con!"

Not creepy.
A. They engaged with me without focusing solely on the state of my tits/etc.
B. They did not attempt to leverage their attraction as though I owed them something for giving them a stiff (insert part here).
C. When I declined, they gave up, leaving me the opening to approach them later if I felt like it.

Seriously, the number one factor for me (and me alone, YMMV) is whether or not they are making any effort to treat me as more than a set of tits with legs attached. Before we even get to the part where they try to initiate some sort of one-on-one whatever, I have already formed an opinion based on if they believe there is a person present, or a cardboard cutout of wank material. By the time they get to asking me, if they've done nothing but gush about my ta-tas, I'm already going to say no. If they persist, I will say no much louder, until they go away.

TL;DR: How you approach someone and if you engage THEM vs. engaging with THEIR BODY/trait you want to get to know can make all the difference, particularly since dehumanizing someone is the first step toward then ignoring their refusal.

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

Those confirm my calibration, thanks.

[tekalynn.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

[seanan-mcguire.livejournal.com]

Very welcome.

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

Good title, good article.

While it may seem clueless or even creepy, lots of men are a bit afraid of some things people sometimes say in favor of anti-harassment policies, and it looks to me like you've found a good line to put in the reassurance along (since many of them are not actual creepers and are members of the community, getting the community moving more effectively in the right direction on this issue would be facilitated if we manage to communicate the reassurance successfully).

I haven't heard anybody seriously argue for a policy that would see someone booted from a convention for an error that seems possible to commit in good faith. I do sometimes hear people say things, in the heat of the moment and thinking about a specific detail they're deep in a discussion of, that can be interpreted to argue for such a policy, though. That's harmless, and I'm learning not to be scared by it, and not interpret it as actually arguing for the result of pushing the position to the extreme possible limit.

[black-rider.livejournal.com]

I think what you're hearing when you hear people talking about this sort of stuff is a response to their experiences in the past, with context that is implied. So, yeah, sometimes you are hearing what you think you're hearing, but the intent is very different, they are not actually wanting to ban everyone who accidentally bumps into another person as they walk past.

(Real situation. I've had the "accidental" stranger boner bump happen SO MANY TIMES in crowded situations -- and it is perfectly obvious when it is accidental and when it's the "accidental" long slow slide across my hip and ass, bonus points for when they squeeze up behind me, grab my arm and throw in the accidental tit-grab as well.

Generally the actual accidental boner-bumps are brief and are followed by profuse embarrassed apologies. Those are readily forgiven and laughed off because dude it's crowded and boners happen. The other kind? Not so much.)

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

There are a couple of people in UK fandom who persistently take the line that any woman dressed in a low cut top/short skirt/corset/form fitting outfit -- anything but loose baggy old clothes, pretty much -- is harassing men. 'Men,' one of these individuals once said, 'are *genetically programmed* to look at breasts!' My friend major_clanger, who may be the Crown Prince of Sane, responded, 'Even if that's true, you're not programmed to go on staring.'
This has led to the attitude from some that any attempt at an harassment policy must be resisted because it will be used by these characters as a novel way of harassing women. Fortunately most people don't think this -- and most con committees can tell the difference between this kind of 'complaint' and genuine ones. SO far, moreover, no such complaint has been made at any con that I know of. (There was one incident where a male complainant complained about another man erroneously in order to get at a 3rd man, who was on the con com, but it was resolved without major trauma.)
I believe in codes of conduct. They work.

[tylik.livejournal.com]

"This sounds like a personal problem, I would suggest covering your eyes, returning to your room, or going home."

[clarentine]

Total, total thumbs up. >:-)

[seanan-mcguire.livejournal.com]

Ta. :)

[jenjen4280.livejournal.com]

Great post - especially the examples.

[seanan-mcguire.livejournal.com]

Thanks.

[jenniferkoliver.livejournal.com]

This is a terrific post. Thank you!

[seanan-mcguire.livejournal.com]

Quite welcome.

[sylviamcivers.livejournal.com]

Lovely post.

Banned for t-shirts - I once saw a t-shirt that said, 'I'd r@pe your mama"
I was offended and didn't say anything - the guy was bigger than me.

If I saw that at a con, I'd avoid the entire ROOM that guy was in.
Report for offensiveness? I dunno. Because it wasn't aimed at anyone, it's just general nastiness.

[tylik.livejournal.com]

Identifying oneself as an aspiring rapist strikes me as a reasonable thing to report.

[vettecat.livejournal.com]

Well said, as always.

[seanan-mcguire.livejournal.com]

Thank you.

[tapati.livejournal.com]

I think it's interesting how even talking about harassment reporting and policies has some people very scared. I was tweeting about reporting harassment and a troll had a fit at the idea that you could report harassment if you witnessed it. I guess they depend on the victim being in shock and not doing so. He made several comments in response about how employers would never hire someone who had done so. In one of his tweets he used a hashtag that I checked out and I realized he's one of those guys who calls himself a "pick up artist." I of course blocked him but I remember thinking if we're scaring them that much we're all doing something right in continuing to talk about it and giving tips and resources.

I think examples of what harassment is and isn't are very useful for young people. Thanks!

[seanan-mcguire.livejournal.com]

Pickup artists can bite me.

[groblek.livejournal.com]

Well said. Also reading this, I'm remembering a personal example - asking the guy in the kilt what he's wearing underneath? Almost certainly not appropriate (or funny, for that matter). Probably not harassment unless you're being otherwise obnoxious/suggestive, but at least in bad taste. I don't tend to get this one at fannish events (possibly due to familiarity with kilts), but it always amazes me how many people in the general public seem to think that an appropriate question - often with their kids in tow.

[wendyzski.livejournal.com]

"So what are you wearing under the kilt?" = rude, but not harassment
Taking a look or a feel for yourself, without asking permission = harassment.