AnonymousCowherd wrote:katamari Damassi wrote:
Isn't Zvan one of the feminists who insisted that conferences needed anti-harassment policies? Now many online feminists(McEwan being one of them)are saying that Richards had to go public because when women confront men or take their complaints up the chain of command, nothing gets done. So why have these policies in the first place if their useless and never to be utilized?
It is about power, but not over the individual conference goers involved - they're just cannon fodder. The first exercise of power is getting the policy you want, in the form you want it. Then you use it to control the organisation, as in "you said in your policy you'd throw out people I don't like, and I don't like s/h/it, so throw them out or I'll have a heart attack...and it will be messy. Then I'll make such a stink of your failure to implement your own organisation's rules that you will be replaced." Win.
For a lot of these people, that's the only sort of power they want, or can even imagine. The power to do something worthwhile, or substantial comes with both work and responsiblity - much too hard.
I think you're somewhat closer to the truth, but to be honest, I never understood why Zvain et al would want things codified, that doesn't work well for them.
If you have a set of rules, written down, available for all to see, then the problem for Zvain is, she loses a lot of power. Because now there are rules, formal ones. They are specific, they are real, there is no "you know what I mean" anymore, and they apply
equally to all. It is clear to me that my last item never crosses her mind when she's advocating this. The idea that Zvain would be expected to follow the same rules as the proles is never something that occurs to her, or any of those other tits. They should be the LAST people advocating a formal ruleset for behavior at conferences, as that kind of thing eviscerates their ability to win based on vague accusations with no proof.
That I think is one reason why EBW is getting raked over the coals. Look at her statement. She was pretty clear that not only the
accused had to follow the rules, but the
accuser as well. Had she stated that in a way that said the accused was always going to get reamed, I don't think the reaction would have been as bad, because that's what the FTB lot really wants: accusation as conviction, no proof necessary. EBW, for her faults, has had some training as a lawyer and at least in that arena, is not stupid. She understands that when you create a code of conduct, it
has to apply to everyone under its domain equally, otherwise you leave yourself open to some rather inconvenient action.
She's also seeing just how unwilling the FTB lot are to follow the rules they insist on being made and posted.