Another Account of the Readercon Mess
August 7, 2012 @ 1:47 pm
Following up on my post about the Readercon mess, I received this email from a friend this morning. I thought it would be helpful to post part of it here verbatim (anonymously at the person’s request).
I just want to clarify a few things related to your recent blog post, as some of the facts Genevieve set forth in her own livejournal account of the incident seem to have gotten subsequently garbled along the way. I should also note that I was present for many of the events (or in their immediate aftermath) she describes in her account, though I myself did not personally witness the two incidents of actual physical contact.
Mr. Walling did not simply put his arm around her in what might, under some circumstances, be a friendly gesture (and here of course, they were not friends, but complete strangers). As Genevieve sets forth on livejournal, he came up behind her in a crowded area of a room party and snaked an arm around her shoulders *from behind*. To my mind, the best way to picture the result is to think of Walling’s arm almost in a chokehold position (albeit around her shoulders rather than her neck and without violent force being applied), thus resulting in the rest of his body essentially in a spooning position up against Genevieve’s back. Notably this maneuver was also accompanied by Walling’s comment, “You and I will have a good time.” Also notable is the fact that this action took place hours later on the same day on which he had earlier informed Genevieve that the sound of her voice made him want to say “wrong things”, something he told her in a conversation moments after introducing himself to her and during which he reached out to fondle her elbow and shoulder. In response to this earlier incident, Genevieve had already politely made it clear to Walling she did not welcome either his words or his touches. When she more forcefully told him not to touch her and fled his presence after the second incident, Walling then embarked upon a day and a half of intermittently following and hovering near Genevieve, ostensibly motivated by a desire to apologize.
I believe this accurately reflects the relevant facts.
I hate to throw out analogies, which are inevitably imperfect, but against my own better judgment, this time I will. When some folks in comment threads have been describing the arm around the shoulders, it’s been sounding to me like they’re picturing something from a Happy Days episode in which Richie Cunningham uses a stretch during a yawn as an excuse to put his arm around a date at the drive-in. There you have something that’s arguably inept flirtation. Imagine instead watching an episode at a sock-hop at Al’s Diner during which Richie comes up behind a random girl in a poodle skirt, snakes his arm around her shoulders from behind and says “You and I will have a good time.” The episode would suddenly descend from lighthearted comedy into something dark and disturbing. Which is why you never saw Richie do that. And which is why Walling shouldn’t have done it.
The moral of the story here is: “Happy Days” analogies work, people, so use them whenever possible.
No, but seriously. I never stated that Rene Walling categorically did not harass Genevieve Valentine. What I said was that Valentine’s published account of the incidents was vague and left a lot of room for interpretation. (Literally: “It might be sexual harassment, but I feel like I need more information. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable position to have.”) I read Valentine’s initial account and imagined the Richie-Cunningham-at-the-drive-in version, which I hope you’ll admit is more of a borderline scenario. If an eyewitness account like the one above is already out there somewhere, forgive me. I’m not masochistic enough to spend hours hunting through dozens of comment threads where people scream and whine hysterically at one another. I already spend enough time watching my three-year-old twins do that.
Anyway, it’s not your job to develop psychological profiles of everyone involved based on incomplete information released to the public. Nor is it mine. That was the Readercon board’s job, and presumably they did this with more detailed information and eyewitness accounts which you and I don’t have.
Having been surrounded by lawyers most of my life, I’ve been trained to cast doubt on things, to point out the interpretation that fits the evidence that you don’t want to hear. It’s a dirty job, but somebody’s gotta do it if you want to get at the truth. I generally try to do this with respect towards all, starting with the premise that everybody thinks they have the best intentions.
I’m sensitive to the argument that this kind of scrutiny only discourages sexual harassment victims from coming forward. It’s a concern, to be sure. But I happen to believe that more knowledge, scrutiny and skepticism is never a bad thing, and that trying to shut down or shame the skeptics into silence only makes you look bad.
| Filed Under | Current Events, Science Fiction |
| Tags | Genevieve Valentine, Happy Days, Readercon, Rene Walling, Richie Cunningham, sexual harassment, skepticism |
| Share |
Comments
Man in the first rule is stop digging…..
Wait a minute here yesterday you were whining that we shouldn’t take the committee at its word that everyone can agree that it was inappropriate. Now you’re suddenly falling back on the excuse that the committee did investigate not you. So which is it? Since you have supposedly spent so much time with lawyers you should know that N agreement of the statement of fact is pretty normal. And was obviously what happened with the first release from the committee.
I must be experiencing an empathy drop-out as I am really struggling to a) understand your point and b) understand what it is that you are trying to achieve with this.
Valentine talks about being harassed and makes a complaint. Not only does Walling not take issue with this complaint but multiple people come forward and say that they witnessed both this recent event and a number of other events where Walling overstepped boundaries in a way that made people feel very uncomfortable indeed. Readercon had a policy of zero-tolerance on these types of matters but failed to act upon it so people get angry and the Readercon concom step in, force the board’s resignation, reinstate the lifetime ban and generally apologise and make amends that makes everyone feel a lot better.
Then you step forward, having not seen the event in question, and begin grousing about the entire thing in a way that suggests that you feel invested in Walling not receiving the treatment he received.
My failure of empathy resides in the fact that I cannot understand why you feel invested in the notion that Walling has somehow been wronged. You weren’t there and you claim not to know the guy and yet you complain and attempt to re-open old wounds.
I read these posts and I’m trying not to conclude that you’re an entitled SF guy who feels wronged by a bunch of women who got another entitled SF guy kicked from a convention. Are you worried that your actions might one day be misunderstood? Are you annoyed at the shift in balances of power and the suggestion that men can’t grope at women in public spaces with impunity anymore? Seriously… what is your angle here?
No angle or agenda, not from me anyway. Just bad timing, probably a lack of complete information, and a knack for pissing people off. Anyway, I’m done discussing this. Feel free to continue discussing here or on the other thread.
I agree with Jonathan; my perception of what you’ve been saying is that your natural inclination seems to be to want to give the (admitted) harasser the benefit of the doubt, even after verification of the events by others (which was available very early in the conversation), rather than the target of the harassment. Speculation about an agenda, recognized or not, doesn’t seem entirely out of line, here.
Hugging someone around the shoulders may be harassment, but it’s not sexual harassment. The shoulders are not a sexual organ.
Was there frottage? Inquiring minds need more information.
I think there is more to this. It is hard to believe that the guy picked out a completely random woman, and then grabbed her from behind saying “you and I will have a good time”. That would make him a complete, utter whacko.
It’s easier to believe that the two had some earlier interaction, which somehow gave him the idea that a shoulder hug like this is not only okay to do, but will actually work!
Let’s assume the guy is halfway rational. What is he thinking? Mulltiple choice pop quiz:
A: “I have an idea! I’m going to pull a stupid stunt which will drag my name through the mud and get me permanently banned from Readercon!”
B: “That woman really seemed to like me, and I think I sensed some signals from her. I will make a move and make the best of it.”
Unless people are insane, they do things due to some rational process (which may be flawed, of course, due to poor information, poor interpretation of people and situations or inappropriate risk taking).
There has to be a good reason for taking an action like this, because there are tremendous pressures in place against doing it, even if a woman really did give you all the signals: social anxiety, uncertainty about the signals. Making contact like that is a big deal!
This guy is a big name also. He is associated with that conference, and known. He’s not some random guy off the street who wants to anonymously grope some women and then disappear.
He can’t put his arms around someone’s shoulders and not be sure that someone didn’t see it and recognize him. He must have perceived that possibility and for whatever reason, he thought it was acceptable to be seen doing that.
Basically, I’m looking at this from a big picture view. Here we have a convention for dweebs with no social skills. One of the top dweebs, as dweebs do (having no social skills) makes a huge social misstep. So what is his punishment? He becomes a persona non grata at said dweeb convention.
I feel sorry for this guy, because he probably just needs to improve his social skills and learn now to “read” women, and people in general.
This situation should have been kept private, and not dragged all over the blogosphere, with real names.
As far as the women go, how can you attend such a thing and not expect to run into hopeless nerd-cases? If this Genevieve was a normal woman, she wouldn’t go do such a thing in the first place. I think she is also socially challenged, and doesn’t know how to deal with a man’s advances (albeit clumsy/creepy as they might be). She’s not able to distinguish a normal man from a middle aged nerd case who is trying to emulate one.
Of *course* the board wanted to just ban the guy for two years. Because when they drafted this stupid “one size fits all” rule, they didn’t expect that they would have to invoke it against their own rank in a situation like this. Of course this lifetime ban thing is intended for the opportunistic, anonymous creeps that come in off the street to go grab themselves a little tit, ass or crotch. You know, all business do that! Some idiot throws a big fuss in your restaurant or store, so what do you do? Ask them to, “never set foot here again”. (But what if it’s, say, one of the members of the board of directors of the restaurant chain?)
This whole story is just a big life-sized illustration of the social ineptitude of geeks. The whole lot of them. The board who runs this stupid con thing. The “sexual offender” and the “victim”.
You are freaking ridiculous!!! Get your noses out of sci fi, anime and cosplay, and get f__king lives for yourselves.