[Noisebridge-discuss] anti-anonymity proposals

Hannah Grimm dharlette at gmail.com
Sun Nov 17 21:56:09 UTC 2013

Jim, you're still defending the statement "it's dis-empowering to perceive
one's self as a victim and turn to a community for support."  You even
defend this statement with a notation saying "# 7. I mean this", so it's
clear at this point that there is no misunderstanding going on.  Let me
explain why people are mad: you do not get to tell women what is or is not
empowering.  If women say that having an anti-harassment policy and a
community that comes to their defense when they report harassment is
empowering, then you need to listen to what these women are saying.
 Ignoring the statements and experiences of women and telling them that you
know what they feel better than they do is the very definition of
mansplaining sexist bullshit.

It is disempowering to be harassed.  It is disempowering when you report
harassment only to find that they do not believe you.  It is disempowering
to try to remove an abuser from the community only to find that your
efforts are blocked by an individual who refuses to kick someone out
without absolute proof (oh, and the testimonies of multiple women
apparently don't count).

That's disempowering.

Here are things that are empowering: having an anti-harassment policy,
being taken seriously, bystanders intervening to tell people that their
actions are NOT OKAY when they grab your ass, banning people who have a
history of battering or stalking women, hearing everyone tell people on NB
discuss who say sexist bullshit that they are wrong and need to shut up.

That's empowering!

This is my lived experience, as a woman, for things which are and are not
empowering.  Now here are your options: you can listen to my experiences
and recognize that I know my own feelings better than you do, OR you can
continue to defend this statement and thereby claim that you know what
women feel better than they do.

Your choice.

On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 12:29 PM, jim <jim at systemateka.com> wrote:

> What snarky comment about people being excited...?
> The sincere reply I made below her paragraph?
> I did not intend snarky; I agree.
> On Sun, 2013-11-17 at 11:48 -0800, spinach williams wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 10:43 AM, jim <jim at systemateka.com> wrote:
> >         On Sun, 2013-11-17 at 03:44 -0800, spinach williams wrote:
> >         > that's an oversimplification if ever there was one
> >
> >         > JS: but off the mark?
> >
> > yes.
> >
> >         > naturally, people would be quite excited to finally be
> >         treated like
> >         > human beings within a community of their peers. it's kinda
> >         nice,
> >         > pretty excellent to be met with the basic level of decency
> >         men hold
> >         > for those they consider people. definitely something to get
> >         excited
> >         > about.
> >
> >         JS: certainly! I agree, always have.
> >  then why the snarky comment about people getting excited over it?
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20131117/75f7b3ea/attachment.html>

More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list