Ekaterina Sedia Breaks Down Readercon’s Problem

Share on Tumblr

Ekaterina Sedia analyzes Readercon’s inadequate response to sexual harassment. 

So the things to take away from all this:

1) We privilege male-driven redemption narrative over women’s need for safety. (NB: His apology was sincere, according to the board. Apology was also the method he used to stalk Valentine. He’s good at apologizing!)

2) We privilege a clever serial harasser who can say he is sorry over someone who, by the board’s definition is “clueless”. Socially awkward=ban him! Sociopaths are okay though!

3) Cons are places where professional writers often go for job-related purposes — book promotion, networking, publicity. We are there to work. Allowing harassment at cons is JUST ONE MORE BARRIER for women writers to deal with. No male writer had to ever sit around and think, “do I chose promo or safety”?

 Seriously, this is why I don’t go to cons.

 

Comments

  1. TansyJ says

    Not to mention socially connected sociopaths.

    It’s like people think they have an innate ability to sense “sincerity” coming from another person, and fail to remember all of the many current examples of people (men, mostly, of course) who were allowed to hurt many different people over and over again because any time they were caught they managed to demonstrate some form of “sincere regret.”

    The committee seems to think if you ask a serial stalker/harasser/rapist/pedophile to stop he’s going to say “No, I won’t. I think I’m doing the right thing and you are silly to ask me not to”

  2. Red says

    On the plus side, seems an OVERWHELMING number of people (everyone who’s commented on it is PI$$ED at the ruling) who are furious at this decision and are vowing not to attend. i think there are even vendors that are pulling out in protest.

  3. firebird says

    TansyJ:
    Not to mention socially connected sociopaths.

    It’s like people think they have an innate ability to sense “sincerity” coming from another person, and fail to remember all of the many current examples of people (men, mostly, of course) who were allowed to hurt many different people over and over again because any time they were caught they managed to demonstrate some form of “sincere regret.”

    The committee seems to think if you ask a serial stalker/harasser/rapist/pedophile to stop he’s going to say “No, I won’t. I think I’m doing the right thing and you are silly to ask me not to”

    I think people do think this. It’s why we privilege confessions and eyewitness accounts over other evidence in the justice system, even though it’s been proven over and over that these things are problematic forms of evidence. It’s why we look for anecdata instead of scientific evidence to prove social phenomena like racism or sexism exist. It’s why we believe in superstition and skepticism and rationality are hard won battles for many individuals; the human mind seems to have evolved with certain biases about what it can perceive, among them, that each of us tends to be a better judge of character than most others, that in the hierarchy of evidence, my firsthand experience is best, the personal testimonial of a friend is second, the word of an authority is third, etc., etc.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.