Safety Dance -- I Mean, Rant

[lydy]

So, safety has come 'round again on the guitar. As it should. And I would just like to say that I vastly approve of being safe at science fiction conventions. But, you know, if my safety is being threatened, if someone is waving a knife or a gun or even a fist in my face, I really hope that the convention staff will immediately enlist the help of the nice men in the uniforms with guns and the power of arrest. I sincerely hope that they will not send some poor, kind volunteer with no training and no color of authority to deal with the situation. I don't like or trust cops, but honestly, for imminent violence, that's my choice.

Harassment? Harassment doesn't make me feel unsafe. It does hurt me, and it does make me angry. Spectacularly, incandescently angry. And yes, indeed, I think that as a community that we need to deal with it. But I hate the fact that we are framing this in terms of "safety." What that says to me is that, in fact, the only thing that I, as a female member of this community am entitled to, is my physical well-being. That the entire rest of my fucking existence is unimportant. That no one cares that I be treated with respect, that all of the other complicated ways in which I live my life within this community are of no interest or value to anyone, and the only, the single, the entire sum of my rights within my chosen community are that I not be assaulted. That the only time I am allowed to claim a position of equality is when I am afraid, when I am hurt, when I am damaged. When we describe it in terms of safety, we are demanding to see visible wounds, actual scars. That no one cares that about listening to what I have to say, that no one cares that I am enjoying myself, no one cares if I am respected, or accorded basic courtesy, that my preferences, skills, and knowledge are unimportant. In fact, no one actually cares about me. I am accorded the right of my body, but not my mind, not my position, not my reputation, not my joy, I am accorded a physical space, but that is it.

Honestly, I don't think that is the intent of the people using the term safety. But it is a bad frame, a poor representation of what we are actually trying to talk about. Women deserve to be full members of the community, and harassment is one way in which we are being denied that right.

Comments

[mle292.livejournal.com]

"Insecurity" is a word I didn't use, and a weirdly loaded choice for you. Many people can be angry that there is a threat of escalation, perhaps even feel more than one thing at once.

Nobody is interested in policing people's emotional reactions. The reason that many (not all) conversations about harassment include discussions of safety is because it is a real thing that sometimes harassment escalates.

You're uncomfortable with other people saying that harassment makes them feel unsafe. That's okay, but it's not okay to say that they need to reframe the discussion for you when the topic does include real concerns that include safety. Your concerns are ALSO valid, but not enough so that other people can't discuss what's important to them.

[lydy.livejournal.com]

*blink* *blink*

I think we are badly miscommunicating, here. I am not uncomfortable with people saying that harassment makes them feel unsafe. I am supremely comfortable with that statement. I believe it to be true. I believe it to be important. It needs to be a part of the conversation. I have been made to feel unsafe by harassers (hello, Michael Flowers).

What I object to is the way in which "safety" is being used as the only reason to object to harassment, when the actual issue is much broader than that. I am very concerned that people will start demanding "did she feel unsafe?" as a way of derailing the issue. We are seeing it already, people demanding that Elise describe, in detail, exactly what Jim Frenkel did to her so that they can judge whether or not it rose to the level of harassment. To which I say, fuck that noise. I don't have to feel unsafe to object. I may or may not feel unsafe, it is definitely part of the problem. But the real, baseline issue is that women are not accorded the same courtesy and space as men.

[icecreamempress.livejournal.com]

I get what you're saying here. Safety is at the minimum possible level in, say, Maslow's hierarchy of needs. If all a professional conference which touts itself as the top feminist conference in the field aims to provide is safety, that's pretty sad.

WisCon should absolutely provide safety, and it's appalling that it failed to do so in this case. But my transit system also aspires to provide me with safety. WisCon should provide attendees with more than mere safety---it should provide them with fun and knowledge and the chance to make personal and professional connections, among all the other things attendees could reasonably expect from a conference. Courtesy, respect, space, acknowledgment of achievements---all of these are on the level of human needs for self-actualization.

Most (sadly not all) of the people who choose to attend conferences can find food, shelter, and safety at home. They, we, go to conferences looking for something at the next level. If WisCon can't provide for basic needs like safety, that's not good. If WisCon doesn't look beyond the basics to provide even more, that's not good.

And I think that was part of why Mikki Kendall's complaint was ignored, because it didn't fit into the "safety" narrative, but into a broader picture of how women (and particularly women who are members of racial and ethnic minority groups) aren't accorded the courtesy and respect they deserve as professionals, but instead are ogled and dismissed. I know there were other similar complaints, and that the other "person's name" subcommittee seems to have been stymied by the power of the "safety" narrative (since that person committed shocking public disrespect in words, rather than by infringing on someone's physical space).

[lydy.livejournal.com]

You know, I hadn't thought about MIkki Kendall's problem in this frame, but I suspect you are right. I mean, all she had was a picture of Frenkel staring at her breasts. How could that be an issue? And so on. You may well be right about the other subcommittee being stymied by the safety narrative. I know even less about that issue, but if they are trying to understand it through the lens of safety, they are going to get it wrong.

But you know, what was the deal with Rachel Moss? They dealt with that pretty clearly, I gather. Did they use a safety model? I don't know.

[icecreamempress.livejournal.com]

My cynicism says that Moss is a woman and not an insider, so easier to make an example of than Frenkel.

Also, sharing photos very broadly without permission is often framed as a violation of personal safety, because it certainly can be in some instances---sharing photos of someone who is being stalked can give location information to their stalker; sharing photos of someone at a trans event could result in transphobic violence, loss of job, friends, family to whom they aren't out as trans; and probably a number of other instances I haven't thought of.