Let’s talk more about safe(r) spaces and how organizations/conference managers can create them. In yesterday’s post, I talked about how people were willing to give creepers chance after chance, especially if they say they’re autistic. I also noted that some of the guys (and, yes, it’s usually guys) who claim to just be awkward and not know where the line is usually know not to, say, hit on their male coworker who is working on a project with them. In other words, they do know where a broad line is.
Now, let’s say that maybe they are fine until they go on a date. Then, that’s when they don’t know where to draw the line. In the case I mentioned yesterday, it was known that the guy would stop if you were brutally clear to him that what he was doing was making you uncomfortable. That allowed two of his ardent defenders in the post I was reading (and, to be clear, none of us knew the actual person this was happening to) to say that it was him being hapless/hopeless about where that line was drawn.
Women rightly pointed out that it wasn’t on all the women to constantly have to keep him in check. If he did not know where that line was, then he should not be dating. No one has the right to date anyone they please, and it’s so tiring to constantly have to state no loudly and firmly. (that’s part of what enthusiastic consent is about. You want the buy in before you even start doing the activity).
Side note: when the idea of enthusiastic consent came about, some people were pooh-poohing it, and one reason they stated was because it would take the spontaneity and fun out of sex. I thought it was really telling that people objected on those lines, by the way. To me, what I heard was, “I want plausible deniability when I push this woman to do something she doesn’t really want to do” or even worse, “I don’t care if you consent or not. I’m getting what I want.”
Plausible deniability is where many creeps reside. They know how to push up against the line juuuuuust enough to test the waters without going firmly over the line. It really is a no-win siutation for the woman*. She’s supposed to be nice to any random guy who is around her, making sure not to upset his delicate ego. She must smile and be nonthreatening, being more of a visual accessoryldecoration than anything else else.
If a guy creeps on her, then she either had to give him a chance beacuse he’s such a nice guy! Why would she not go out with him? Or she had to turn him down so gently, he wasn’t hurt at all.
If that failed or if she went on the date and something bad happened, then it’s, “Why did you go out with him?” “Why did you wear that slinky dress?” “Why didn’t you fight?” The Monday morning quarterbacking went on and on and on. She was a cold bitch if she wouldn’t go out with him; she was a slut/dumb/naive if she did go out with him and something happened.
You know who often gets hurt by creeps who claim to be autistic? Neurodivergent women/Afab/nonbinary/genderqueer people. Because one thing creeps have in common is that they have an uncanny knack (or a skill honed over years) for picking on people who are weaker than they are/have less societal clout than they do. People who will not be believed or who society don’t care about.
I was getting so angry at these two defenders who put so much energy into protecting this one guy who was probably a creep rather than his potential victims. The defenders kept harping on the fact that he might be being bullied/this was “just” a dating problem. Meaning he should not be “punished” in any other way (like being pre-banned from a hobby group). They say punished, I say the natural consequences of his actions. People are allowed to take his history of behavior into consideration when evaluating a person’s behavior. Otherwise, we would always have to wipe our memory clean.
I agree that there should be a policy in place to deal with future creeps, but I also think that not allowing this guy to participate in the hobby group in the first place was reasonable. This is how Missing Stairs are created–when creeps are allowed to keep on creeping regardless of how uncomfortable they make other people. Or unsafe.
The two enablers kept harping on how it wasn’t faaaair to make a neurodivergent guy not be a creeper. Of course they didn’t phrase it like that, but that’s what it came down to. They downplayed all the incidents reported and were flailing their arms about wailing, “How could he possibly knooooooow?”
Again, I must repeat that I was glad a few people said that he truly did not know where the line was, then he should not be playing the game at all. Meaning, if he was consistently fucking up when it came to dating, then he should not be dating.
I have zero sympathy for this guy because to me, there is enough evidence that he was creep. Which leads me to another–
Side note: You can be neurodivergent AND an asshole. My tagline for FB used to be, “Being a minority and being an asshole are not mutually exclusive.” Meaning you can be a minority AND a raging jerk! Or a creep. In fact, I would argue it’s more ableist to excuse every behavior as, “Aw, he can’t help it. He’s autistic!” than saying, “Everything wrong with him is because he’s autistic.”
I mean, what if I were to say, “I’m autistic so if someone touches me when I don’t want it/don’t expect it, I have to punch them in the face in return”? Would that be acceptable? Nope. It’s not even acceptable to sternly turn down a guy, let alone punch one.
Saying it’s just bad dating behavior as if that was enough of a silo to allow him to act however he wanted inn other situations show how much we devalue women. Or think that the mistreatment of women by the men they’re dating is more than acceptable. None of that behavior should be acceptable in any situation. And, honestly, if a guy a creeper jerk towards the women he dates, then I would not have him around in the office.
That’s all for now. More tomorrow.
*Usually a woman or someone who is perceived as a woman being creeped on.