?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Scheherazade in Blue Jeans
freelance alchemist
Some seeds for future posts 
9th-Jul-2014 09:29 am
Hearth
Like I said, I've been talking to a lot of people in backchannels, waiting for the hosts' response before discussing more about it openly; I'd hoped for a better response from the hosts, but such is life.

So here are some seeds for future discussion.

"punished forever"
This is a phrase one of my correspondents keeps hearing, in that people do not know how to handle this shit long-term, and some object to the idea that Judah will be "punished forever" for raping me.

Well.

I have my thoughts on that.

But I told my correspondent that the concept these people were looking for is called restorative justice. And that we're not at the point of considering that yet, because before we can enter into a restorative justice framework, the perpetrator must take responsibility for his actions and commit to restoring the damage they did. Judah is not there yet, given his actions on June 21 and in the civil case recently. Any talk of him returning to the community is seriously premature. Is it a NEVER thing? That isn't up to me.

I'll state again, as I have many times, that throughout this civil case, one of my goals has been to get him to go to anger management classes and domestic violence offender treatment. Will that make him a safer person? I honestly don't know. But his refusal to admit that rape and assault and battery are wrong tells me that he's not safe at all at this time.

So what it looks like to me is that maybe we'll be at the point of having this discussion in a few years. I doubt he'll get there sooner, judging by his words and actions over the past month.


old-school alt-sex crowds vs. new-school consent-culture crowds
Someone phrased it like that this morning and I was like YES THAT. There is a generational thing at play here, too. There's an old-school "the cops are our enemy" thing that steps in part from the 60s/70s and in part from the adversarial relationships MA police have historically had with kinky people.

But this is not a cops vs. kinksters thing. This is one person reporting a rape and assault and battery against another, and following all of the necessary steps in the criminal justice system for her own protection.

Women get killed all the time by men they have restraining orders against. This is knowledge I live with.

Plus, let's be honest, this old-school alt-sex crowd in particular - y'all are white. The cops aren't your enemy.

I have a post brewing about new-school consent culture, but I want to talk to some party hosts first.

It's very telling that said consent culture party hosts reached out to me immediately after I posted what Judah had done to reassure me that he would not be invited to their parties.

This doesn't break along generational lines entirely; the scatter graph is scattery! But there is a preponderance. And I see that reflected also in the embrace vs. rejection of Geek Social Fallacy #1: Ostracizers are Evil. There's a really good discussion to be had there.


This post may get added to throughout the day. If you have a question or a topic you'd like to see addressed as part of this exploration, please let me know in comments. But for right now I'm not really organized on this and I legit have stuff to do today.

ETA: Yes, I'm aware that Scott continues to post lies about me. He can do that as much as he wants. His position seems to be "ha, so you admit to doing X!" when I said X was what I did the whole time. (Clarity here; his claim is that I denied texting what I totally agree I texted. Um?)
Comments 
9th-Jul-2014 01:58 pm (UTC)
Jesus Harriet Christ on a flaming motorcycle.

My expletive-full response to "punished forever".

Edited at 2014-07-09 01:59 pm (UTC)
9th-Jul-2014 02:54 pm (UTC) - And also
There's an old-school "the cops are our enemy" thing that steps in part from the 60s/70s and in part from the adversarial relationships MA police have historically had with kinky people.

This is a true but incomplete picture. I know people who have been 'kettled' by police for engaging in peaceful political protest. I think we both know people from Occupy who had police bulldoze their things.

I know a person whose dog was shot by police when they mistakenly served a warrant on the wrong house. One person of color I know has shared with me their experience of having cops point guns at this person's children.

On and on. It's not wrong to say that some of us grew up in an atmosphere of hostility with police, but it's an incomplete picture. A surprising number of white folk have recently gotten to feel the weight of police militarization that persons of color have always had to deal with.

And some of us long-haired freaks can't go through any airport without getting yanked aside for pat-downs and open-your-luggage searches. :(

THAT all said, I feel it's severely aside from the main point(s). Cops may not be my (or someone else's) friend, but that doesn't change the situation, imo.
9th-Jul-2014 03:03 pm (UTC) - Re: And also
My hair always gets searched in airports, but yeah, my point is that we in the greater Boston geek community for the most part don't have a valid reason to fear police intervention. And in a case where I have been violently assaulted and needed police intervention at the time and afterward, I will call upon that intervention when he puts me in danger and I will not apologize for doing so.

I do think that a lot of Scott and Rachel's knee-jerk reaction = "police is our enemy". I honestly hope it is, because the alternative is worse.
9th-Jul-2014 03:23 pm (UTC) - Re: And also
Your hair gets searched? Wow, I didn't even realize that was a thing.
9th-Jul-2014 03:59 pm (UTC) - Re: And also
Happened to me just a few weeks ago as I was leaving Chicago.
9th-Jul-2014 04:02 pm (UTC) - Re: And also
*curly-haired high five*
(Deleted comment)
9th-Jul-2014 10:11 pm (UTC) - Re: And also
I have certainly never been pulled aside in that manner.
9th-Jul-2014 04:00 pm (UTC) - Re: And also
I respectfully disagree on both points. I do think that people within the community have valid reasons, and I do not think that S&R's response has anything to do with viewing the police as enemy.

ETA: I have since read a statement from sunspiral that indicates I was wrong. My apologies.

I do think that personal enmity toward police is a distraction.

If you have not seen my "framing" comment in the rules post I'd call your attention to it as my latest evolution of how I am trying to grasp the various viewpoints on the situation. If you have a response to it, feel free. I continue to struggle with articulating things.

Edited at 2014-07-09 04:07 pm (UTC)
9th-Jul-2014 04:10 pm (UTC) - Re: And also
I hear you. We can disagree on this.

I do think that personal enmity toward police is a distraction.

I absolutely agree on this, and thus was disappointed in Scott's post.

I did see your comment. I think part of the problem is that people are attempting to react solely from a "good guest" paradigm. But since Judah is a criminal, any such discussion regarding his actions is inextricably entangled with the "crime" framework. Simply put, one cannot evaluate his actions without the "crime" framework factoring in.

However, the "crime" framework does not inherently require/demand the presence of accomplices. I believe that Judah has acted alone. I may be wrong; we've established that my faith in people's better nature has bitten me in the ass more than once. But at no point have I indicated a belief that the hosts were accomplices.

I believe, in your terminology, that the hosts mad a "mistake" by allowing a known rapist, but Judah committed a "crime" by choosing to attend. The frameworks are not mutually exclusive, nor does the "crime" framework overwrite everyone else's actions.

Does that make sense?
9th-Jul-2014 04:25 pm (UTC) - Re: And also
since Judah is a criminal, any such discussion regarding his actions is inextricably entangled with the "crime" framework.

So, here's a thing. I'm a criminal. I've never had a RO against me, and my crimes were not violent in nature. No conviction in a court of law was ever entered in judgment against me. But I fall into a certain class and I'm not the only person in the social circle.

If you were to apply the criminal frame to me I would be hurt and upset. Must "any discussion of [my] actions [be] inextricably entangled with the crime framework"? I would hope not.

As I tried to articulate in our discussion over my first post about this, you are operating with a base set of assumptions that other people are not operating with. When you use words like "must" you rule out the ability to engage with the discussion of why it is appropriate to continue to apply that framework.

However, the "crime" framework does not inherently require/demand the presence of accomplices

That's true, but it's not what I intended to say. I'm trying to point to a locus of disagreement, which I think is the crux of the problem. Let's stick with the crime framework for the moment: what was the crime in Judah's going to the BoS party that night?

Presumably the crime was his violation of the restraining order? If that's so, why is it unreasonable to ask who aided him in committing that crime? I think the obvious answer to that question would be "the party hosts" and therefore it's completely within the bounds of logic to see the sentences "Judah committed a crime by attending this party" and "the party hosts abetted that crime" as connected.

If you can see how people connect those sentences then we can progress. If I can't get you to see how (some) people connect them then I'm not sure what else to say.

Also, I continue with the caveat that this is your LJ, the crime was committed against you, and therefore you should set whatever boundaries of time and discourse are appropriate. If I'm past those boundaries I will immediately cease.
9th-Jul-2014 04:30 pm (UTC) - Re: And also
If you were to apply the criminal frame to me I would be hurt and upset. Must "any discussion of [my] actions [be] inextricably entangled with the crime framework"? I would hope not.

Not if you weren't actively committing a crime. Violating a restraining order is a crime.

Presumably the crime was his violation of the restraining order? If that's so, why is it unreasonable to ask who aided him in committing that crime? I think the obvious answer to that question would be "the party hosts" and therefore it's completely within the bounds of logic to see the sentences "Judah committed a crime by attending this party" and "the party hosts abetted that crime" as connected.

If you can see how people connect those sentences then we can progress. If I can't get you to see how (some) people connect them then I'm not sure what else to say.


It's not unreasonable to ask. However, I feel that the implication is that I'm accusing them of aiding him, which I haven't done. My point is that viewing his action as a crime does not mean that, by default, he was aided in that crime. The possibility exists, but the possibility that he acted alone also exists.
9th-Jul-2014 04:43 pm (UTC) - Re: And also
OK, awesome. And thank you for continuing to clarify.

Violating a restraining order is a crime.

Got it. I think we will at some point get into the issue of severity and appropriateness of response. But I'd like to leave that aside for just a moment.

It's not unreasonable to ask. However, I feel that the implication is that I'm accusing them of aiding him, which I haven't done.

Let me try to echo something back, using the words I have: you feel that the impression people have of your stated intention is not only mistaken but is itself a form of attack on you. That is, it's a false accusation against you. Did I get that right?

My point is that viewing his action as a crime does not mean that, by default, he was aided in that crime.

Right, and I'm trying very hard to understand your viewpoint without debating it. When we first started this discussion in my LJ comment thread you were operating from a point where you said you could not understand the point of view of some people and did not see how someone could rationally hold to their interpretation.

Do you still feel that way? Is it possible to see how people have come to their interpretation rationally, while still holding to your view that they are wrong?
9th-Jul-2014 04:45 pm (UTC) - Re: And also
I'm going to hit the pause button on this conversation, not because it's inappropriate, but because I'm pretty exhausted right now and want to address this when I'm a bit sharper and more well-rested. Cool?
9th-Jul-2014 04:49 pm (UTC) - Re: And also
Cool?

Always. You are never obliged to respond to me, particularly when it's your issue in your LJ.

I am in the situation of having people I like, love, and respect evincing very different points of view on a crucial issue and my way of dealing with that is to intellectualize the hell out of it. My way is not for everyone.

Ping me when and if you want, here or elsewhere.
9th-Jul-2014 04:51 pm (UTC) - Re: And also
I do that too, even (especially) when I'm involved; I get it. I just feel like if we continue right now we might be going on at cross purposes for a while before hitting the combination of words that'll help us connect. This may also be better as an in-person thing.
9th-Jul-2014 09:55 pm (UTC) - Re: And also
I would be very curious about what is discussed at such an in-person thing. Durn woolfish busybodiness...
9th-Jul-2014 04:33 pm (UTC) - Re: And also
I believe, in your terminology, that the hosts mad a "mistake" by allowing a known rapist, but Judah committed a "crime" by choosing to attend.

Oof. I think I'm being muddled again and I'm sorry. I'll try to speak more clearly.

I'm trying not to say what people did, but rather to describe a way in which two (groups of) people can look at the same events and come up with wholly different interpretations of the events. The idea of framing is that it describes an internally consistent set of beliefs that are used to filter and interpret events.

What I was trying to say is that there are (at least) two frameworks under which someone can interpret Judah's appearance at the party.
9th-Jul-2014 04:11 pm (UTC) - Re: And also
(Replied before your edit; have noted it.)
9th-Jul-2014 05:27 pm (UTC)
I am very interested in thoughts about restorative justice, having seen these events happen before, and will likely see them happen again. Having a framework where I can say to someone defending an assailant or rapist that there is a way to justify that, but it requires the offender to actually do something themselves to make it right is very important in my brain for some reason.

Maybe because I feel like I have a lot of people I should be saying that to.


Always interested in consent culture stuff, btw.
9th-Jul-2014 06:51 pm (UTC)
As someone who makes her living defending people accused of rape and other nasty things, let me say this: You don't get back into your social community until you own your shit. You don't get back into your social community until you take demonstrable action towards changing your behavior, and the behaviors that contribute to it. Do all that? You're on probation. You're on a short leash. Mess up once, and you're out, because we like our friends and aren't going to put them at risk for the sake of your ego.

I have seen genuine change and transformation. But it took a whole lot of active effort on the part of the offender, not just a short "cooling off" period.


I do take umbrage with your statement "...y'all are white. The cops aren't your enemy." With white folks, it's about class. Poor white folks get the shit kicked out of them, get their houses shot up, have police stomp around in their home just because they feel like it. They get searched. Their cars get searched. They are mocked as white trash. That's my client base here in East Tennessee. I know them.
9th-Jul-2014 06:55 pm (UTC)
I do take umbrage with your statement "...y'all are white. The cops aren't your enemy." With white folks, it's about class.

Point taken. Upper-middle-class white with advanced degrees, I ought to've said.
9th-Jul-2014 07:15 pm (UTC)
Re: the whole "punished forever" concept: in my mind, it's not about punishing anyone. I can only speak for myself obviously, but if I was interested in seeing my rapist punished, I would take a very different tack than not allowing him to be certain places. It's about safety; safety of the known victims, safety of potential targets. Safety of myself. Also respect, the idea that the hosts have enough respect for me and their other guests to not allow the possibility of anyone coming to harm. So yeah, punishment might possibly be on the list somewhere, but it's way down at the bottom after more important things like safety and emotional comfort.
9th-Jul-2014 08:21 pm (UTC)
*wordless support*

Though apparently I do have a few words...

Actions. Have. Consequences. A consequence of rape/sexual assault/other things should be that the person doing those things should not get a chance to do them again, that the rest of the world should be protected from that person. Forever, with rare exceptions (as moonfire77 has seen below). Rape someone? assault someone? stalk someone? harass someone? Permanent exclusion from the social circles / places of employment / church / wherever the ... ghods, I hate the word "victim" for this, but wherever the person those things was done to would be. (So yeah, assault someone where you both work? You've lost that job, because you can no longer be within however-many-yards of that workplace. Don't like that? Tough. Need the work to support yourself/your family? Again, tough shit. Your actions, your consequences.)

(Hm. Not so wordless after all. *wry*)
(Deleted comment)
9th-Jul-2014 10:24 pm (UTC)
And if you talk about it, you're letting it rule your life; if you don't, you should've reported, et cetera. :/
10th-Jul-2014 04:50 pm (UTC)
God, I'm so sorry this situation is both ongoing and somehow increasingly infuriating. <3

Here's the thing about not trusting cops: you have to have an alternative in mind, or else you're just siding with actual criminals. Not the people who are wrongly targeted by the police, but the actual criminals. So, in communities where you're often wrongly targeted by the police and they aren't a helpful presence, you have to rely on the community policing itself by imposing actual consequences on actual criminals. You know, stuff like not inviting them to parties when it's know that they're a goddamn rapist.

Aaaaaaaagh <3 <3 <3
10th-Jul-2014 08:13 pm (UTC)
Yepyepyep. All of this.

Can I just live at Wiscon? *wry smile*
18th-Jul-2014 12:12 am (UTC) - Other thoughts.
Sorry to intrude: I'm just someone you met briefly once, through mutual friends. I've had (and posted) some thoughts and perspectives on this unfortunate situation, which I haven't seen in any of the comments so far.

This is not a request for attention from someone who has way to much on her plate right now to be reading posts from strangers. It is merely an invitation, in case you find the time and spoons, to evaluate whether these thoughts could help your situation, and if so, to make use of them as much or as little as you wish. (I won't be offended in the slightest if you never read it or reply to this comment. Your time, your energy: Your decision.)

Also, you're a good person. Be well.
23rd-Jul-2014 08:51 pm (UTC) - Re: Other thoughts.
Sorry for the delay in response - I've been out of state and away from my computer! Also, your post is too damn good. I need time to frame the best possible response to it and to Rigel's comment, which... there's a lot to talk about there, there really is.

Thank you for your post. It's really, really helpful and thought-provoking to see the situation from the outside. I'll have a lot more to say later!
This page was loaded Jul 18th 2018, 9:55 pm GMT.