[Noisebridge-discuss] anti-anonymity proposals

[Liz Henry]

I have lost the thread of how we got onto this from the original
topic.... Which was identity and pseudonymity, and whether we put
people's names/nyms on a piece of paper in a binder or ask them to put
it on a wiki, and whether we continue going to some lengths to keep
very private who is a "member" just in case of some massive legal
crackdown that sucks us all into a horrible vortex of state
oppression.

For me, Jim's comments are pretty ridiculous and upsetting, in the
context of people being sexually assaulted at Noisebridge, AND it
having a history of there being people convicted of rape, harassment,
and stalking, who mostly have targeted women, and who hang out in our
space.  Have you forgotten people like Shawn and Adam?  Jim, that's
why people are telling you that you're showing your ass here. It's
like you're not connected to the actual history of stuff happening in
the space, which is weird, because I'm pretty sure you've been aware
of it on some level.

Jim, your continued apologist defenses also piss me off because you
seem to be saying that women in particular, if sexually assaulted,
should not participate in public discourse about it.  You trivialize
sexual assault as "copping a feel"... not something that's current or
accepted in our culture, country, laws, or time period, at all. That's
pretty fucked up. Public speech and collective action are valid
options for women to take in response to sexual harassment and
assault. I hope that you don't think that "free speech" is only for
particular people and occasions. It's particularly weird because you
think *you* can discuss things and call people out and that's totally
ok but... I don't even know what you're saying because you keep
slithering out from the argument you were first making, which,
bizarrely, I have to reiterate, was that you get to dictate how women
should respond to assault, and that they should respond to it with
escalating violence. It's also just weirdly like you just missed the
entire last 100 years of anti-rape activism. You can't possibly have
missed it. It's fucking San Francisco. What the hell, man.


Cheers,

- lizzard

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



-- 
Liz Henry
lizhenry at gmail.com

"Electric ladies will you sleep or will you preach?" -- Janelle Monae

"Without models, it's hard to work; without a context, difficult to
evaluate; without peers, nearly impossible to speak." -- Joanna Russ