[Noisebridge-discuss] anti-anonymity proposals

[jim]

How's it working out in practice? 



On Sat, 2013-11-16 at 16:31 -0800, Hannah Grimm wrote:
> You know what actions I've taken in response to harassment that have
> felt really empowering, Jim?
> 
> 
> Getting an anti-harassment policy passed.
> 
> 
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 3:59 PM, jim <jim at systemateka.com> wrote:
>         
>         
>         My replies interspersed below:
>         
>         On Sat, 2013-11-16 at 13:30 -0800, hep wrote:
>         > I would like to take this opportunity to point out that this
>         entire
>         > discussion is a pretty good example of why in 2013 we need a
>         firm,
>         > clear, anti-harassment policy for noisebridge to take the
>         first step
>         > for being a truly safe environment for everyone.
>         
>         JS: I believe such a policy will have negligible
>         affect.
>         
>         > Here in November 2013, a man is seriously proposing that
>         women*, many
>         > of whom: may be smaller than many males, non-confrontational
>         for one
>         > reason or another, alone except for their attacker, and/or
>         may
>         > possibly have reasons for not wanting to engage physically
>         with a male
>         > who has just sexually assaulted them, hit their attacker and
>         then
>         > silence themselves from any community support, over an issue
>         that will
>         > often be called into question repeatedly as to a) whether it
>         happened
>         > b) whether it was "enough" to warrent a response, and c)
>         whether the
>         > victim merely "misinterpreted" what happened to their own
>         body.
>         
>         JS: I proposed no such thing.
>         
>         
>         > Then that man asks a woman who is upset by the tepid
>         official response
>         > to sexual assault in the community if she should really be
>         so mad, and
>         > if she really has the "higher ground" to stand on.
>         
>         JS: I have previous experience with that person
>         and stand by my suggestion that she may be living
>         too much in anger.
>         >
>         > Then that man goes on to repeatedly back these points.
>         
>         JS: incorrect, as your description of the points
>         is largely erroneous.
>         >
>         > Then that man *claims that the community should support his
>         viewpoints
>         > because he is somehow a less privileged community member*
>         and deserves
>         > equal "community support" as a sexual assault victim.
>         
>         JS: I made no such claims. I suggest that individuals
>         consider that taking action might be empowering for
>         them. I do not suggest that anyone necessarily take
>         action alone, and as someone rightly suggested, taking
>         action, especially alone, might prove dangerous and
>         foolish.
>         >
>         > Just sayin'.
>         JS: and liking it.
>         >
>         > -hep
>         
>         > I say woman only because he framed that as the example.
>         
>         JS: yes, and I now regret choosing such a lurid
>         example. I now wish I'd used a homeless-seeming
>         and non-hacker-seeming person as an example. The
>         dynamics would have been more interesting to
>         explore.
>         
>         
>         _______________________________________________
>         Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>         Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>         https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>         
> 
>