WisCon: why I'm not going back next year, or for the foreseeable future

[kate_nepveu]

The self-billed "world's leading feminist science fiction convention" has decided that the appropriate response to multiple reports of harassment by Jim Frenkel is to prevent him from attending WisCon in 2015; possibly permit him to attend in 2016, 2017, or 2018, if he "chooses to present substantive, grounded evidence of behavioral and attitude improvement," but not let him attend those years if he doesn't; possibly permit him to return in 2019 even if he doesn't; and, if he's allowed to come back, ban him for the first year from "appearing on programming or volunteering in public spaces."

Why this is terrible, part one, in less than 140 characters:

It's not the job of a convention to rehabilitate a serial harasser. It's their job to offer the greatest possible safety to attendees.

— Genevieve Valentine, as part of a series of Tweets that I have Storifyed

(The longer version is What Conventions Are and Aren't, by rosefox—back in 2012, after a prior well-publicized fandom convulsion about harassment at cons, note. [Disclaimer: I am now volunteering on the Safety Committee that was created as a result. This post is not made in that capacity.])

Why this is terrible, part two:

It strikes me as abundantly clear that, unlike the case with Readercon in 2012, there's no changing it and no hopes of improvement in the future.

First, the statement makes a point of saying "These are official WisCon actions, and will not be affected by future philosophical or policy discussions."

Second, the committee that reached this determination is:

Debbie Notkin, chair [WisCon's newly-appointed Member Advocate]
Ariel Franklin-Hudson [current Head of Safety]
Jacquelyn Gill [chair of the Harassment Policy Committee, at least as of the just-concluded WisCon]
Jim Hudson
Jackie Lee

. . . yeah.

Edit: apparently what I meant here was unclear. I meant that given the positions the first three people hold, I hold out no hopes for better things to come: they are the ones in charge of safety for the entire con and they are the ones who are supposed to know better.

Between this and MoonFail in 2011 (various links in this old post), I'm not waiting for strike three. But hey, now I won't have to figure out the best way to get to Madison over Memorial Day weekend! /tiny silver linings

Comments

[kate_nepveu]

(Icon that I was tempted to use and did not as insufficiently serious.)

[yhlee]

I'm sorry but not surprised that it's come to this, and especially sorry on behalf of those who have been hurt by WisCon's failure to act responsibly.

Anyway, yes: in accord with you on this.

[kate_nepveu]

I hadn't said anything before because I was hoping they might yet turn things around. Not so much.

[yhlee]

I was...cynically suspecting they wouldn't, but yeah, hope springs eternal and is crushed by actual action. :/

[nestra]

Aside from everything else, how does one "present substantive, grounded evidence of behavioral and attitude improvement"? I mean, I guess they're envisioning...sensitivity training or some shit, but all I can imagine is him showing up in a year and saying "Hey, no one's complained about me harassing them lately."

[kate_nepveu]

Yeah. Someone had a great comment about that here; it's a level I wasn't going to get into, but it's absolutely a valid question.

[jhameia]

I'm not familiar with the significance of those names on the committee?

I'm super disappointed, and might try to get on the Safety committee next year to see what I can do.

[kate_nepveu]

My point was just that this decision was taken by the people who hold the positions that put them in charge of overall con safety, and therefore are supposed to know better.

[mme_hardy]

Yeah. I am appalled.

[lnhammer]

Am I the only one who sees a similarity in fannish behavior between this and Breendoggle? The unwillingness to ostracize a tribal insider thing ...

---L.

[kate_nepveu]

No, I've seen it mentioned elsewhere. But I haven't read much about the motivations of the people who refused to shun Walter Breen after he was convicted of child molestation, so I don't know if the same pathologies are at work or different ones.

[sovay]

Am I the only one who sees a similarity in fannish behavior between this and Breendoggle? The unwillingness to ostracize a tribal insider thing ...

When the recent information about Marion Zimmer Bradley started coming to light, I heard Breendoggle cited more than once as sort of the parent and original of all fandom safety schisms since—Pacificon II made the right decision, but the rupture in fandom caused by the taking of sides persisted for decades after the fact, reinforcing community reluctance to take action against known harassers/abusers for fear of further disruption; there was no Pacificon III. It makes such a neat aetiology, I'd like some substantiation of the Breendoggle's actual legacy—I'd never heard any of this history before Moira Greyland spoke out—but it has the advantage of sounding depressingly familiar. "Fandom is a safe space for everyone! Come one, come all, come weird! Let your freak flag fly! Your kink is okay! Your kink is really dangerous! SYSTEM ERROR REBOOT REPLACE HEAD."

[phi]

I've seen lots of historical documents, and I assume you've seen them too, but I haven't seen anything that directly connects the Breendoggle with the fact that there was not another "Pacificon." I will note that there was a Baycon in Oakland just four years later, so rumors of the death of all Bay Area fandom might be a touch exaggerated. And who benefits from rumors that banning a serial predator will "kill" fandom from an "all-fandom--we're not being hyperbolic at all--war"? Yeah.

[sovay]

I will note that there was a Baycon in Oakland just four years later, so rumors of the death of all Bay Area fandom might be a touch exaggerated.

Good to know, actually. I've seen the historical documents pertaining to Pacificon II and Breendoggle, but the long-term effects were part of the substantiation (or not) I wanted.

And who benefits from rumors that banning a serial predator will "kill" fandom from an "all-fandom--we're not being hyperbolic at all--war"? Yeah.

That would be the depressingly familiar part!

[lnhammer]

depressingly familiar

That.

[thistleingrey]

I was slightly confused about how a deleted account had posted the Wiscon notice at DW, and then I figured out which action had occurred first. Not acquainted, but I hope laceblade is okay.

[kate_nepveu]

Yes, certainly. I can -- and do -- profoundly disagree with the decision that they were part of reaching while still not wishing active harm to them.

[rachelmanija]

It looks like their LJ account still exists - it's mystickeeper, right? They posted on the Wiscon LJ mirror.

[kate_nepveu]

Yes, apparently.

[thistleingrey]

Yes--that makes the DW deletion odder, to me.

[laceblade]

Hi, thanks.
I temporarily deleted to prevent myself from obsessively refreshing my DW & also from making unhelpful posts to my DW last evening. The deletion was intended to be temporary (here I am) to try & self-enforce time away from the internet.

[kate_nepveu]

Glad to hear it, thanks.

[thistleingrey]

Glad to hear it. Though I don't agree with the committee's statement, everyone needs to take good care in this kind of situation.

[phi]

After MoonFail I said I wasn't going back and my friends convinced me to change my mind. I wish I had stuck to my guns then. Welp, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me, and they won't get a chance to fool me a third time. :(

[kate_nepveu]

I hear you.

[sovay]

First, the statement makes a point of saying "These are official WisCon actions, and will not be affected by future philosophical or policy discussions."

Yes; that worries me as well. And it does not even have the excuse of Readercon's original, disastrous zero-tolerance policy. This was a system that allowed for a flexible setting of limits and they built in even more, then froze the thread.

I wish Readercon's experiences had had more of an impact.

[kate_nepveu]

I understand the need for finality. I do. I'm a lawyer, we have all these principles about it. But a) cons != legal forums (fora?) and b) appeal for Frenkel and not Jankowski or Matthesen?! and c) it really reads like a "fuck all y'all."

PS: I just sent email to the committee, and if you didn't get it you should give me an address and I will forward it to you.

[sovay]

PS: I just sent email to the committee, and if you didn't get it you should give me an address and I will forward it to you.

Just e-mailed you. Thanks!

[silveraspen]

I've had WisCon on my list of "cons I want to go to someday" for a while.

Sadly, it seems there may be better options elsewhere.