Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jeremy E Grenemyer" data-source="post: 6877058" data-attributes="member: 12388">I want to make sure I understand you here: if a woman can't produce evidence of harassment or abuse while at a gaming venue, she should not be believed?Snipping text is a way of reducing the footprint of a quote, so that readers don't have to scroll through a fat portion of text that's already been posted, just to get to the new response (something some folks around here are really bad about).Regardless, I wasn't trying to hide anything. Your posts are your posts. I can't edit it them and they're visible to everyone. As to your question: for two long threads now you've continually brought up examples of women supposedly pulling the same kind of objectionable behavior that men undertake, and then advised that we all remain skeptical of claims of harassment (or worse) from women.That's a false comparison, to the point of being morally and ethically objectionable. Look, some women engage in harassing behavior.And some women experience harassment and sexual abuse at Cons.  These are two different categories of people. No, really, they are in fact two different categories.Could there be overlap between them? Sure.However, by likening one group with the other to the point that you would advise Con staff be skeptical of claims of harassment, you are suggesting the area of overlap is extensive.Where is the evidence for this, beyond your own opinion?Worse, the more you press your argument, the more you erode the idea that a woman's word, by itself, is good enough to merit immediate and swift action by staff to correct a problem.I can't speak to your intentions, because I can't read your mind. But I can say with confidence that the net effect of your arguments is to weaken the position of women in gaming. We're long past the point of asking this question. Harassment and abuse of women in gaming is a major problem. The majority of harassers are male.No, it's a way to skip over a problematic part of an argument and go straight to the conclusion. The core of Rygar's argument is that a proactive harassment policy means there is a potential for people to abuse the system, such that a Magic the Gathering player (for example) could lose a tournament via a pair of accusations of harassment. His remedy? "Leave nothing up to the interpretation of the person making the complaint."In other words, reduce the value of the voice of people who are harassed. This means the value of a woman's voice is reduced, because women are the subject of the majority of harassment. How in the hell is a woman's voice worth less than the value of a Magic tournament win? The mere suggestion is morally reprehensible. And so is the idea that Con staff should be forced to take the position that the word of every single woman who was in fact harassed is no longer good enough to take action. (Every man, too, now that I think about it.)Your arguments and Rygar's argument merely work to reduce the voice of women in gaming. They also serve to drive women from this website.</blockquote>

Verification