Support NeoGAF

[PhoenixDark]

Pay close attention to his two choices, because you're missing his point, which includes the fact you're coming into the conversation with a preconceived context.

I know exactly what his point was, as well as the context with respect to the gun. It doesn't change the fact.

It's hard to have a conversation on sexual harassment or rape with people who's first inclination is to find fault in the accuser (what was she wearing? what was she drinking? did she speak up?). To me this goes back to the idea of socially awkward behavior and unacceptable comments. If you don't "get" that the guys comments were inappropriate, and/or you don't "get" that criticizing a rape victim is simply not acceptable, you're never going to "get" it.

 

[Velkyn]

I think it would be an interesting alternative universe to explore what he would have done if she had said that, but alas we will never now. That said, you should not be forced into having to shut down unwanted sexual advances from a colleague. Is this the first time he approached her? doubtful. She is also not being responsive either. She is clearly uncomfortable. That should be enough to BACK OFF.

This was not a bar. He was inquiring about professional matters.

Well, obviously, I meant tell him to toss off, and then report him. In a situation like that, I feel like it's always best to tell the person off before reporting them, it lessens their ability to feel like they've been reported "for no reason".

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Regardless, there are rape resistance programs. Those aren't blaming the victim when they provide people with advice and techniques to resist or escape their attacker.

But considering what I'm reading here any such advice, or maybe any such advice coming from a man is victim blaming. By these rules there can be no honest and frank discussion on these matters without men being seen as judging from on high.

I tried to address this earlier, but my personal guidelines would be the following:

1.) After the fact is really not the time to start talking about "what could have been done." I'm sure the victim is already replaying the event tirelessly in their head, and any suggestion you might come up with has already been considered without your input. Further, I don't think it behooves society to impart into the victim that this might have all been avoided if they had just been better prepared.

2.) As a general bit of precaution, I don't think it's inherently egregious for society to spitball ideas and offer training. After all, I'm sure some women want to be better prepared to have some idea on how to fend off a would-be attacker. However, we need to consider that the advice may not, in fact, be helpful. Further -- particularly as men -- we need to be careful so as not to make it seem like training women to stop attacks while they are occurring is somehow the better plan of attack on this issue as opposed to trying to curb predatory behavior before it happens.

I understand that we don't necessarily want to tell people who might be scared that there's absolutely nothing they can do to prevent a sexual assault from occurring. But we also need to be careful to not be callous assholes who wind up playing the part of treating someone who's been attacked as though they were victim of a somewhat careless theft. People can often sound like the bystander going "yeah, it sucks that their car got stolen, but what did they expect parking in that part of town?" And particularly when it comes to victims of sexual assault, that's really not what you want to do.

 

[gogosox8]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vvcQs2wsn4

well about a minute and a half in he explains his facebook pickup game. you decide. it's pretty telling he doesn't remember doing it, but she does.

God Damn that was creepy as fuck. What the hell is this guy's problem? And look at the look on her face. She looked really uncomfortable.

 

[KissVibes]

You're a troll, sir.

That or so conditioned regarding 'no no' words and phrases that some 1st year SWMS teach taught you as an undergrad that you refuse to allow context to exist in this dojo.

Let me make a l'll quiz for you so your can best understand what I said on twitter. Here's a question:

Imagine you are- God forbid- being raped. You have two choices:

a- remove a gun hidden in your waistband and shoot the freak raper dead.

b- engage the rapist in conversation about the latest batch of comics you purchased in hopes the rapist is a fellow comic fan and thus will humanize you and stop raping (yes, this is STUPID on purpose).

Now, which is the better way to react to the rape, a situation that EVERYONE agrees is horrific, not your fault, and should not be happening in the first place?

TLDR: I can say the woman could have handled the situation better while still saying NOTHING about this was her fault.

How do you even have a job or are able to operate in an environment when you're this dense and don't realize how completely awful you sound to the vast majority? Think about what you're saying right now.

You're suggesting this hypothetical women isn't at fault but obviously didn't do enough to protect herself and could've done it better! You don't get to tell someone how it could've went better and yet say you aren't faulting them. Because yes, you are.

This is one of the most pathetic posts I've seen on this forum.

The lengths you have gone to find fault with female victims would almost be shocking, but alas blaming women is an age old concept. But as if to be even more asinine you suggest you aren't victim blaming, you're simply noting the victim could have handled things better, as if we're discussing some trivial matter in which after-the-fact reflection could offer better advice on how not to get raped.

Just to directly address your scenario, there are plenty of people who do believe that attempting to humanize with an attacker could be effective - showing a murderer pictures of your children, for instance, or (yes) attempting to engage a potential rapist in conversation. So even on that front you sound quite ignorant.

And you guys wonder why Spike and others cater to the lowest denominator of gamer culture, or why sports shows parade scantily clad women around. Look around.

This is a great post too.

 

[NoirVisage]

I don't think it has anything to do with a man explaining the right way to handle it. Jaffe's only crime seems to be (in this context) his gender. If a woman would've said that (and there's some that have! though not in this particular discussion that I see) would you also be as offended? It's a pretty universal thing to say though, to stand up for yourself and to fight back and not let people shit on you.

The thing that I want to illustrate here though is that we're all talking about an incident that happened, and we're not talking to the victim directly. We don't even know if the victim reads this forum. And this is a place for discussion, and talking about your opinions, even if they are wrong. Also, I don't think anyone's trying to teach her anything per se.

Look, I know it looks like I'm defending Jaffe but I'm really not. However, I don't think it's fair to shit on him without at least trying to see where he's coming from.

In some cases, its Knights gonna Knight, in others people see an angle of victim blaming, whether its there or not, in the worst case, Jaffe goes against the popular grain so much its a pleasure for some folks to make personal attacks and call him out in a manner worse than they would another Gaf member (for some reason in Jaffe's case, its ignored, but that's neither here nor there..) I'm happy that there is at least some form of discussion outside of the main headline of "THIS IS BAD!" even if people don't agree with him or care for his opinion, rather than a bunch of grey names just because people aren't falling in line with the usual stars of topics of this nature.

 

[Kacho]

What a bizarre conversation in the OP. One of those things that are so cringe worthy you get embarrassed reading it. Glad he's being called out on it.

 

[NoirVisage]

I know exactly what his point was, as well as the context with respect to the gun. It doesn't change the fact.

It's hard to have a conversation on sexual harassment or rape with people who's first inclination is to find fault in the accuser (what was she wearing? what was she drinking? did she speak up?). To me this goes back to the idea of socially awkward behavior and unacceptable comments. If you don't "get" that the guys comments were inappropriate, and/or you don't "get" that criticizing a rape victim is simply not acceptable, you're never going to "get" it.

The gun does change the fact if its one of only two options, and that's what YOU'RE not getting. but continue to stand on your moral highground, the view must be superb from there.

 

[NotLiquid]

The way I see it, the argument on hindsight only really works if you apply it to a controlled environment. This is where I partially agree with Jaffe's original point about this particular debacle, as even in the face of being worried about their "professional relations", this Josh guy already kicked things off pretty unprofessionally to begin with, and I doubt it would cause too much harm to simply say that they could do the discussion without the sexual advancements. But that is all "should haves" and "would haves". I don't know anything about these people so I don't know how they'd react to what they say to each other.

The rape comparisons though are just... no. That's not a controlled environment and chances are that most of the time, you're not prepared for any of that.

Hell why was it even brought up anyways, it unnerves me to no end just thinking about it.

 

[NoirVisage]

The way I see it, the argument on hindsight only really works if you apply it to a controlled environment. This is where I partially agree with Jaffe's original point about this particular debacle, as even in the face of being worried about their "professional relations", this Josh guy already kicked things off pretty unprofessionally to begin with, and I doubt it would cause too much harm to simply say that they could do the discussion without the sexual advancements. But that is all "should haves" and "would haves". I don't know anything about these people so I don't know how they'd react to what they say to each other.

The rape comparisons though are just... no. That's not a controlled environment and chances are that most of the time, you're not prepared for any of that.

Hell why was it even brought up anyways, it unnerves me to no end just thinking about it.

If I'm reading it correctly, he was asked a hypothetical question about rape..in hindsight possibly (and successfully) baited -__-

 

[Cybit]

These are the things most women know, this is why it's hard to reject unwanted advances, this is why we don't appreciate being told "Just fight back". Men and women are coming from different perspectives for these kind of encounters. Rejecting a woman is easy for men (Shut up), rejecting a man, especially one who might be sexist and certainly has power over you is a difficult proposition for a woman. It sucks, but that's what it is.

edit:
I would say from personal experience 8 or 9 out of 10 see politeness as politeness it's the last one or two that cause the problem. And trust me, being put in a situation where someone is quite obviously imagining you naked and thinking about...doing nasty things to you is one in which you don't want to be ever again. Makes you rethink being thought of as a frigid bitch.

I'll actually throw a little curveball to one part of that - I don't think it is any easier for the average guy to reject a woman than it is for an average woman to reject a guy. Just like a woman is worried about guy being a sexist aggressive douchewaffle (the 1 out of 10 rule), a guy is worried that a woman can go crazy psycho stalker on him. I think both genders have been equally burned just enough by crazy people that they let it be a large factor in how they handle the situation. The problem is that the consequences are severe enough that the relative rarity of it gets overshadowed (the average value of something is the percentage it happens * the magnitude of the effect). Seeing as both of the worst case scenarios could potentially ruin lives, it has a chilling effect on how we make our decisions.

I think our confirmation bias kicks in enough so that we see that it is "easier" for the other gender and "harder" for us (Hell, you could probably apply this to a variety of situations, not just this one). Women see men who just shoot them down aggressively and sort of wish they could do that, men see women who don't have to put themselves out their first for these things and wish they could be them.

I would be super curious as to modern studies done on rejection w/ respect to gender, though. This is just anecdotal from the people I've interacted with - I live in an area where women (should) have significant dating advantages due to supply & demand (there are a crapton more single men than single women in the area), so I readily admit that this colors my perspective. (Thankfully, I don't have to worry about the dating out here part currently)

Note: Not saying that the worst case scenarios are remotely equal, but they are both sufficiently shitty enough that it affects how we respond more or less equally; both sides are scared enough to be very, very careful.

Now, in the case of the indiestatik bit, the fact that one person was a developer and the other a journalist adds a power aspect to it that makes it much harder for the developer to reject the journalist's advances - my example assumes no power imbalance due to work / outside influences. In the developer's case, she's (unfortunately) more or less stuck having to be nice in her eyes. Even if statistically, the journalist is just clueless and wouldn't hold a rejection against the dev, the dev has to weigh the probability of the journalist holding it against the dev (statistically speaking: probably low) versus the potential effect if the journalist did (developer could hurt her livelihood).

I'd argue Jaffe's flaw in his argument isn't that of his gender or his race, but instead the fact that he's his own boss, and that he's someone who is not afraid of confrontation. The idea that someone can't just be like "dude, chill the eff out" or flat out be aggressive back to him, even at a power disadvantage, is something he's not used to / doesn't make sense to him.

In a weird way, if that is the case, it might actually make him a really good boss.

 

[boiled goose]

Well, obviously, I meant tell him to toss off, and then report him. In a situation like that, I feel like it's always best to tell the person off before reporting them, it lessens their ability to feel like they've been reported "for no reason".

In some cases these mechanisms don't exist, and when they do, they heavily favor those in power or the majority. So again, blaming the victim is useless. The victim is aware of what the options are, and if the victim didn't chose one alternative we should think about the problem holistically, not be saying ' you should have handled it better'.

 

[gogosox8]

This is about rape now?

Regardless, there are rape resistance programs. Those aren't blaming the victim when they provide people with advice and techniques to resist or escape their attacker.

But considering what I'm reading here any such advice, or maybe any such advice coming from a man is victim blaming. By these rules there can be no honest and frank discussion on these matters without men being seen as judging from on high.

This is a story that went from personal to public, and once its in the public sphere people were going to talk about it, and analyze it and share their opinions and their advice. Everybody agrees the guy went way over the line, and many think she should have told him to stop or are surprised that she didn't. I honestly don't see how this is even controversial, or victim blaming, or leading to crazy rape analogies, but here we are internet.

Well you can blame Jaffe for that. No one was talking about rape until he brought it up.

 

[Nephtis]

The way I see it, the argument on hindsight only really works if you apply it to a controlled environment. This is where I partially agree with Jaffe's original point about this particular debacle, as even in the face of being worried about their "professional relations", this Josh guy already kicked things off pretty unprofessionally to begin with, and I doubt it would cause too much harm to simply say that they could do the discussion without the sexual advancements. But that is all "should haves" and "would haves". I don't know anything about these people so I don't know how they'd react to what they say to each other.

The rape comparisons though are just... no. That's not a controlled environment and chances are that most of the time, you're not prepared for any of that.

Hell why was it even brought up anyways, it unnerves me to no end just thinking about it.

I agree with you on the rape part. I don't know why it was brought up either. It's unfortunate too, because the conversation easily goes on a terrible downward spiral when it's brought up. =\

 

[boiled goose]

I'll actually throw a little curveball to one part of that - I don't think it is any easier for the average guy to reject a woman than it is for an average woman to reject a guy. Just like a woman is worried about guy being a sexist aggressive douchewaffle (the 1 out of 10 rule), a guy is worried that a woman can go crazy psycho stalker on him. I think both genders have been equally burned just enough by crazy people that they let it be a large factor in how they handle the situation. The problem is that the consequences are severe enough that the relative rarity of it gets overshadowed (the average value of something is the percentage it happens * the magnitude of the effect). Seeing as both of the worst case scenarios could potentially ruin lives, it has a chilling effect on how we make our decisions.

I think our confirmation bias kicks in enough so that we see that it is "easier" for the other gender and "harder" for us (Hell, you could probably apply this to a variety of situations, not just this one). Women see men who just shoot them down aggressively and sort of wish they could do that, men see women who don't have to put themselves out their first for these things and wish they could be them.

I would be super curious as to modern studies done on rejection w/ respect to gender, though. This is just anecdotal from the people I've interacted with - I live in an area where women (should) have significant dating advantages due to supply & demand (there are a crapton more single men than single women in the area), so I readily admit that this colors my perspective. (Thankfully, I don't have to worry about the dating out here part currently)

Note: Not saying that the worst case scenarios are remotely equal, but they are both sufficiently shitty enough that it affects how we respond more or less equally; both sides are scared enough to be very, very careful.

Now, in the case of the indiestatik bit, the fact that one person was a developer and the other a journalist adds a power aspect to it that makes it much harder for the developer to reject the journalist's advances - my example assumes no power imbalance due to work / outside influences. In the developer's case, she's (unfortunately) more or less stuck having to be nice in her eyes. Even if statistically, the journalist is just clueless and wouldn't hold a rejection against the dev, the dev has to weigh the probability of the journalist holding it against the dev (statistically speaking: probably low) versus the potential effect if the journalist did (developer could hurt her livelihood).

I'd argue Jaffe's flaw in his argument isn't that of his gender or his race, but instead the fact that he's his own boss, and that he's someone who is not afraid of confrontation. The idea that someone can't just be like "dude, chill the eff out" or flat out be aggressive back to him, even at a power disadvantage, is something he's not used to / doesn't make sense to him.

In a weird way, if that is the case, it might actually make him a really good boss.

I agree with the power angle, but fundamentally agree with the conclusion. Not being able to understand the perspective of his employees or why they might not respond like he would to certain situations makes him a good boss? BS.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

What a thread. Now that it's come out that the guy has a history of doing this public shaming seems totally fair. He likely saw nothing wrong with it beforehand (which is backed up by his dating vid) and probably would have continued even if someone he tried it on told him to fuck off. This way him and others might actually learn that it's not okay.

 

[LightofRohan]

I thought this would be exaggerated like usual, but that was pretty damn creepy of him. Wow. But I feel a bit bad for this guy, his entire career/reputation is going to be screwed from this... hopefully everything gets worked out and the guy can reform his creepiness.

 

[Cybit]

I agree with the power angle, but fundamentally agree with the conclusion. Not being able to understand the perspective of his employees or why they might not respond like he would to certain situations makes him a good boss? BS.

Sorry, I should have clarified that part - if he doesn't understand why someone in power would get upset / take it out on someone under them who disagrees fiercely with them, that's actually a pretty good trait to have in a boss. Basically means that his subordinates are free to be fiercely argumentative with him about something, and it wouldn't enter his mind to take it out on them. That's a pretty cool trait to have as a boss, IMO.

That said, I didn't consider the "not being able to understand the perspective of his other employees" part - but I'm hoping that is something that would be far more clear to him on a "in face, person to person" level as opposed to the internet. I think the internet does a weird thing to empathy in general, so when someone comes across as lacking empathy over the internet, I generally give them the benefit of the doubt about it.

 

[Calibrated Chaos]

Do you guys think if she said something along the lines of "hey as you know I'm going through a divorce so I'm not looking for anything right now" that would have diffused the situation and not escalated it? I don't think that would have hurt his ego.

I'm not saying she had to say something I'm just saying there was the option to without offending or hurting anyone especially if they were some degree of friendly with each other.

 

[cameron]

The situation in this topic and you expressing your opinion is a bit different.

Expressing my opinion in a snarky way is how I flirt.

I don't think it has anything to do with a man explaining the right way to handle it. Jaffe's only crime seems to be (in this context) his gender. If a woman would've said that (and there's some that have! though not in this particular discussion that I see) would you also be as offended? It's a pretty universal thing to say though, to stand up for yourself and to fight back and not let people shit on you.

If Jaffe was female and he spewed the same nonsense, I'd imagine the reaction to it will still be the same. There was a thread about a female Arizona judge who blamed an assault victim by literally saying to the victim "If you wouldn't have been there that night, none of this would have happened to you."

Do you really believe that people would be okay with the judge's remark just because the judge is female?

 

[besada]

So are you fine with the direction this thread is going?

I haven't been fine with the way this thread has been going for awhile, but short of going on a ban spree or stifling discussion by locking the thread, all we can do is to encourage people not to call each other names, and attempt to address the various arguments.

This is your GAF, too. If you want this thread not to be awful, you all have the power to make it that way.

 

[Shosai]

There's a lot of people doing a better job of dissecting your opinion but I would like to say something. Have you ever been literally frozen in fear? It's a terrifying experience. Now imagine a rape victim who was so scared and confused that she just didn't react. And now you come along all big and macho and say "I'm not gonna tell you how you should've reacted, but you should've fought back!"

Do you know how absolutely disgusting that would be? How that would make her feel?

Terrible, no doubt. But we're not exactly talking about a rape victim. I think it's unreasonable to expect one's feelings to be effectively conveyed to another party while at the same time actively suppressing any expression of them. There is *some* onus of responsibility to communicate in order to be understood.

 

[anexanhume]

I tried to address this earlier, but my personal guidelines would be the following:

1.) After the fact is really not the time to start talking about "what could have been done." I'm sure the victim is already replaying the event tirelessly in their head, and any suggestion you might come up with has already been considered without your input. Further, I don't think it behooves society to impart into the victim that this might have all been avoided if they had just been better prepared.

2.) As a general bit of precaution, I don't think it's inherently egregious for society to spitball ideas and offer training. After all, I'm sure some women want to be better prepared to have some idea on how to fend off a would-be attacker. However, we need to consider that the advice may not, in fact, be helpful. Further -- particularly as men -- we need to be careful so as not to make it seem like training women to stop attacks while they are occurring is somehow the better plan of attack on this issue as opposed to trying to curb predatory behavior before it happens.

I understand that we don't necessarily want to tell people who might be scared that there's absolutely nothing they can do to prevent a sexual assault from occurring. But we also need to be careful to not be callous assholes who wind up playing the part of treating someone who's been attacked as though they were victim of a somewhat careless theft. People can often sound like the bystander going "yeah, it sucks that their car got stolen, but what did they expect parking in that part of town?" And particularly when it comes to victims of sexual assault, that's really not what you want to do.

The what could have been done talk probably does need to occur at some point, or at least have the subject broached by a health professional. Unfortunately, being sexually assaulted once doesn't mean it will never happen again. After the person is able to get some emotional stability, they should probably consider measures to protect themselves in the future, or at least have a professional bring up the subject with them. I could see how it could even give the victim some security or confidence knowing that they have some ability to prevent it rather than being a helpless victim of the universe, which is actually a narrative that feminists have been striving to defeat. For me to pontificate on how to begin to do that without any gender-empathy, personal abuse history or professional training would be ignorant, though.

I understand others' aversions to anyone offering thoughts to that angle, but they are also made irrespective of the victim's recovery timeline. No one outright suggests that those lessons happen immediately following the assault, nor does anyone usually imply that teaching those methods or precautions should be done in any way that suggests any scrap of victim culpability for the assault. I can see how the fear that some internalization of the guilt may be resultant from such education may arise, but I think it's difficult to speculate on how much that would actually manifest itself in victims with training/counseling afterward.

edit: I say all of this with the personal opinion that most women likely know exactly what they should have done differently without education. Suggesting that a woman wouldn't know that jogging alone at night is a bad idea is an insult to her intelligence. However, in the case of date rape where the man has all appearances of being a charming, intelligent, kind man at the start may be a scenario in which there may be a clue that was missed or overlooked that can be helpful in the future to protect oneself.

 

[TwEE-N-Toast]

If they didn't have a working relationship would people find this to be acceptable (though really poor) flirting?

If they didn't have a working relationship would using the name and shame technique still be an acceptable way to promote your values.

If naming and shaming are acceptable in any situation (social interactions) is it acceptable to name and shame women who act in ways that don't align with your values. For example women who use very sexual explicit language to hit on a guy, or who grab and touch without explicit permission?

Does the name and shame technique come into play only when there is a power disparity between the two individuals, regardless of sex?

 

[LightofRohan]

Do you guys think if she said something along the lines of "hey as you know I'm going through a divorce so I'm not looking for anything right now" that would have diffused the situation and not escalated it? I don't think that would have hurt his ego.

I'm not saying she had to say something I'm just saying there was the option to without offending or hurting anyone especially if they were some degree of friendly with each other.

I dunno, they are friends, so it is hard to judge exactly how things could have been taken. I joke around pretty oddly with my close-friends, it depends on how close they are I guess. It's not "excusable", but it is more understandable if they were close friends for a while. But obviously not if she leaked the conversation out... which is also a bit immature I think. Unless this has happened before and he wont STOP when told.

But this all based on context. Weird as hell judging as an outsider (which I know neogaf loves to do).

 

[jon bones]

If naming and shaming are acceptable in any situation (social interactions) is it acceptable to name and shame women who act in ways that don't align with your values. For example women who use very sexual explicit language to hit on a guy, or who grab and touch without explicit permission?

this isn't about a guy whose values don't align with mine, it's about a creeper who rightfully got called out for sexual harassment

but please, tell us what you really think instead of beating around the bush

 

[Cybit]

If they didn't have a working relationship would people find this to be acceptable (though really poor) flirting?

If they didn't have a working relationship would using the name and shame technique still be an acceptable way to promote your values.

If naming and shaming are acceptable in any situation (social interactions) is it acceptable to name and shame women who act in ways that don't align with your values. For example women who use very sexual explicit language to hit on a guy, or who grab and touch without explicit permission?

Does the name and shame technique come into play only when there is a power disparity between the two individuals, regardless of sex?

While I pretty much abhor the entire concept of name & shame, as I don't know if it actually is effective in modern society (see: self-selection) - if this was something of a pattern, which it seems it might have been (see earlier twitter comments), and he had been talked to already about this (both of which are unknown) - then they may have just ran out of options at that point.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

If they didn't have a working relationship would people find this to be acceptable (though really poor) flirting?

If they didn't have a working relationship would using the name and shame technique still be an acceptable way to promote your values.

If naming and shaming are acceptable in any situation (social interactions) is it acceptable to name and shame women who act in ways that don't align with your values. For example women who use very sexual explicit language to hit on a guy, or who grab and touch without explicit permission?

Does the name and shame technique come into play only when there is a power disparity between the two individuals, regardless of sex?

When a woman hits on me by grabbing my dick and telling me she wants to take a bath in my man chowder, I tell her that I'm not interested because I find it a tactless and unappealing kind of advance regardless of gender. If someone who is actually my superior at work does it, I don't feel like I can do the same thing privately because of the power imbalance. In that circumstance there is safety for the victim when naming and shaming happens, because the behaviour of the aggressor is made a matter of public record.

 

[Corronchilejano]

If they didn't have a working relationship would people find this to be acceptable (though really poor) flirting?

Sort of. You'd still make most (all) women really uncomfortable for doing so and you probably need to refine your technique. (Read: Be more respectful.)

If they didn't have a working relationship would using the name and shame technique still be an acceptable way to promote your values.

Yes, it happens all the time, everywhere. I wouldn't call it downright acceptable in all cases though.

If naming and shaming are acceptable in any situation (social interactions) is it acceptable to name and shame women who act in ways that don't align with your values. For example women who use very sexual explicit language to hit on a guy, or who grab and touch without explicit permission?

This is more of a social issue, but this happens all the time and can lead to bullying or downright "slut-shamin." I have no problem with shaming a woman that is overly touchy the same way I'd have a direct (and more confrontational) problem with an overly touchy guy.

Does the name and shame technique come into play only when there is a power disparity between the two individuals, regardless of sex?

No. Anywhere you have no expectation of privacy you can and will be shamed.

Personally, I do not find shaming useful, as I don't actually see long term results with it. If anything, it turns people with inward personalities even more enclosed, effectively shielding them from understanding proper social etiquette.

 

[Nerokis]

God Damn that was creepy as fuck. What the hell is this guy's problem? And look at the look on her face. She looked really uncomfortable.

Wow. Really? I honestly don't understand these reactions to that video at all. It's harmless, and he and the girl had a perfectly fine rapport. Seriously, you guys are putting it in the worst possible context, and seeing something that isn't there. I suppose that tends to happen when something is selectively dragged up from someone's past.

 

[APF]

She should have just taken out a missile launcher, preferably with homing, or a flamethrower or something along those lines. Alternately, rape can be prevented by just running over the would-be assailant with your ice cream truck. I'm not telling her what to do though, I'm just disagreeing with her decision to not turn into a homicidal clown whose head is on fire.

 

[Wazzy]

Oh Christ at Jaffes comments. One of the dumbest responses I've ever read.

Thanks for the horrible advice Jaffe! I'll keep all of that in mind if I ever get raped.

 

[Stet]

How do you even have a job or are able to operate in an environment when you're this dense and don't realize how completely awful you sound to the vast majority? Think about what you're saying right now.

Did you just ask David Jaffe how he had a job? He won't be able to answer that, FYI.

 

[Gold_Loot]

Holy smokes, this thread is huge and I apologize in advanced if these concernes have been addresed elsewhere in this thread.

Of course this guy was acting like a total douche, tool, shithead ect. The man was being competley disrespectful to say the least. I must say that The lady in question (Laura right?) handled things very well in that convorsation, and I applaud her for that much but, one thing is hanging over my head.
What was the reasoning for making this thing public? Shouldn't she have contacted local authorities, block him, make a harrasment claim ect.? What is the point of showing the world how shity the guy was in a private convorsation?
Like I said though, I may be mising some pieces of the story here, but it all just feels a little 'grade schoolish' ?
Help me out here.

 

[BakedYams]

I haven't been fine with the way this thread has been going for awhile, but short of going on a ban spree or stifling discussion by locking the thread, all we can do is to encourage people not to call each other names, and attempt to address the various arguments.

This is your GAF, too. If you want this thread not to be awful, you all have the power to make it that way.

Can... Can I call you Grandfather Besada-Senpai? On a more serious note, I always read what you write with respect because of that thumbnail and custom title quote.

 

[EdibleKnife]

What was the reasoning for making this thing public? Shouldn't she have contacted local authorities, block him, make a harrasment claim ect.? What is the point of showing the world how shity the guy was in a private convorsation?
Like I said though, I may be mising some pieces of the story here, but it all just feels a little 'grade schoolish' ?

She probably wasn't ready to spend any money and/or time going through any sort of legal process yet still wanted to oust this kind of behavior as reprehensible yet almost an industry staple. Plus there's testimony that he's more than likely behaved this way before with little results in terms of him getting a grip. She may have heard about it and decided it was time to stop pussyfooting around. Or she heard nothing about him and was just fed up with that kind of behavior in general. Also Laralyn is a friend of the dev who was part of the convo. She convinced the friend to release it.

 

[BobbyRobby]

Is anyone worried that that we are overcompensating here when it comes to the victim blaming issue?

I'm worried that we are making women feel powerless, like they have no agency.

I'm not offering any advice on how she should have acted. I just don't like how everyone assumes that this girl is tramautized from this encounter when that might not be the case. It seems like doing so may further the notion that all women are damsels that need to be rescued by us men.

How do you even have a job or are able to operate in an environment when you're this dense and don't realize how completely awful you sound to the vast majority? Think about what you're saying right now.

You're suggesting this hypothetical women isn't at fault but obviously didn't do enough to protect herself and could've done it better! You don't get to tell someone how it could've went better and yet say you aren't faulting them.

You sound pretty aggressive. I don't know if I'd want to work with you.

 

[Wazzy]

Is anyone worried that that we are overcompensating here when it comes to the victim blaming issue?

I'm worried that we are making women feel powerless, like they have no agency.

I'm not offering any advice on how she should have acted. I just don't like how everyone assumes that this girl is tramautized from this encounter when that might not be the case. It seems like doing so may further the notion that all women are damsels that need to be rescued by us men.



You sound pretty aggressive. I don't know if I'd want to work with you.

In what way is the responses in here making women seem "powerless"?

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Is anyone worried that that we are overcompensating here when it comes to the victim blaming issue?

I'm worried that we are making women feel powerless, like they have no agency.

I'm pretty sure women love it that people give a shit about sexism.

This isn't a situation where a white man is getting overly protective of African-Americans for no reason.

 

[BobbyRobby]

In what way is the responses in here making women seem "powerless"?

Comparing her situation to rape.

Assuming that she was frozen in fear.

I don't think she handled the situation poorly , and would be annoyed if I was in her position and people were assuming I acted the way I did because I was frozen in fear.

 

[docbon]

You sound pretty aggressive. I don't know if I'd want to work with you.

to be fair, he is responding to a post that is the next level of offensive stupidity.

 

[Devolution]

You continue to miss the point.

I'm not telling YOU how to respond to ANYTHING.

I'm saying that I can say I disagree with how she responded to the situation w/out saying she was in ANY WAY responsible or at fault for the terrible situation.

Seems the divide between us is that once she is placed in a category of 'victim' the ONLY response you will allow is to shower her will well wishes and hugs and 'Oh you poor thing's. And she deservers ALL of those wonderful, supportive reactions to her terrible situation and more! I agree with that- but I also think me having an opinion on how she handled it doesn't take away from my desire for her to feel better and to never have had to deal with this at all.

Agree to disagree, agree to hate each other- fine by me.

Gotta go to work- later Gaf!

David

So we've moved on to telling sexual assault victims how they should deal with a situation in which they feel threatened, vulnerable and powerless.

I don't know how to fully explain how much it depresses me that a well known game developer is taking time out of his day to patronize even more victims today.

"She should have..."

Let me stop you right here. There is no magic bullet for each and every rape situation. They come in all different shades and sizes. You want to talk grey area. That's the grey area. There is no universal way for a woman to handle rape. Sometimes you let it happen because gee golly he could harm me in worse ways, like me ending up dead which is what does happen to some. But please, keep lecturing the crowd on how victims can prevent events they typically don't see coming. And here it's the same.

Spend your time running down the events after the fact in your mind from a place of complete and utter privilege. What's the reason you think she can simply stay stop and it all goes away and everything's fine? Because YOU can. You lack the basic thought process that allows a person to see past their own perceptions called empathy. True empathy is knowing and realizing that not only is she a person, she's a person put in a precarious situation she didn't fucking ask for and now she has weigh her choices about how to handle it. And your answer to the obvious question of what to do: shame the asshole that put her there is to dissect every little thing she did in order to I dunno, make yourself relevant.

Bravo sir, bravo.

 

[Wazzy]

Comparing her situation to rape.

Assuming that she was frozen in fear.

I don't think she handled the situation poorly , and would be annoyed if I was in her position and people were assuming I acted the way I did because I was frozen in fear.

There could be multiple reasons for why she didn't say anything. People are just suggesting what could have happened to show that it's not as simple as saying no.

She most definitely could have been frozen in fear. She also could have been worried about her game since he was reporting on it.

Just because there's situations that CAN make a women powerless doesn't mean the point of all these responses is to say all women are powerless no matter what. It's that there is a bigger pressure on how to act in certain positions/situations that many men will never have to deal with.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

Is anyone worried that that we are overcompensating here when it comes to the victim blaming issue?

I'm worried that we are making women feel powerless, like they have no agency.

I'm not offering any advice on how she should have acted. I just don't like how everyone assumes that this girl is tramautized from this encounter when that might not be the case. It seems like doing so may further the notion that all women are damsels that need to be rescued by us men.

Would you say that you're "concerned"?

 

[cameron]

Is anyone worried that that we are overcompensating here when it comes to the victim blaming issue?

I'm worried that we are making women feel powerless, like they have no agency.

I'm not offering any advice on how she should have acted. I just don't like how everyone assumes that this girl is tramautized from this encounter when that might not be the case. It seems like doing so may further the notion that all women are damsels that need to be rescued by us men.

This post is so sincere and honest.

Comparing her situation to rape.

Assuming that she was frozen in fear.

I don't think she handled the situation poorly , and would be annoyed if I was in her position and people were assuming I acted the way I did because I was frozen in fear.

Rape was brought up by your buddy Jaffe. Frozen in fear was brought up as a response to Jaffe's nonsense analogy. Nobody thinks the woman in this incident was frozen in fear. Keep fighting the good fight, though.

 

[bishoptl]

Would you say that you're "concerned"?

I'm worried about the baggage retrieval system they've got at Heathrow.

 

[FyreWulff]

It feels people like Jaffe - the "you coulda done somethin' if you really tried" - are often viewing the situation through the eyes of male pride and self projection. It is hard for some men to realize that not everyone in this world can just power out of an aggressor's attack, or the concept of surrendering the battle to win the war, versus what we're often taught - you can win the war, but if you lost a specific battle, your victory is meaningless.

It's not often if you're of size and strength that you get frozen in fear, locked up mentally by someone you thought you trusted betraying you, or get easily overpowered by someone simply holding your arms. It only takes a bit of empathy to realize the goal of many victims is simply survival, not getting a punch in on the rapist. Which can often escalate a rape into a beating or a murder.

Rape victims have to come back to people that should be supporting them 100%, except they get questioned on why they didn't at least try from people that never have to try. They have to deal with feelings of violation, trust being lost, self image, and often the mental schism of someone attacking you but having an orgasm from them raping. You're told as a woman to do x,y,z,a,b,c to not get raped, you still end up being raped, and you recover from it only to have people tell you "well, why didn't you try 'e'? You would have been able to not get raped then".

 

[marrec]

Comparing her situation to rape.

Assuming that she was frozen in fear.

I don't think she handled the situation poorly , and would be annoyed if I was in her position and people were assuming I acted the way I did because I was frozen in fear.

I think you're mistaking a few things:

1) Nobody in their right minds are saying 'This is like rape!' the comparisons come from the idea of Victim Blaming. Someone on Twitter rightly pointed out to Jaffe that he was blaming the victim in this case and he then decided to go on a diatribe proving her point both here, and on Twitter.

2) I don't think anyone is suggesting she was 'frozen in fear' while communicating with Josh. Only that she choose to deflect his ridiculous advances through ignoring and humor.

 

[Devolution]

It feels people like Jaffe - the "you coulda done somethin' if you really tried" - are often viewing the situation through the eyes of male pride and self projection. It is hard for some men to realize that not everyone in this world can just power out of an aggressor's attack, or the concept of surrendering the battle to win the war, versus what we're often taught - you can win the war, but if you lost a specific battle, your victory is meaningless.

It's not often if you're of size and strength that you get frozen in fear, locked up mentally by someone you thought you trusted betraying you, or get easily overpowered by someone simply holding your arms. It only takes a bit of empathy to realize the goal of many victims is simply survival, not getting a punch in on the rapist. Which can often escalate a rape into a beating or a murder.

Rape victims have to come back to people that should be supporting them 100%, except they get questioned on why they didn't at least try from people that never have to try. They have to deal with feelings of violation, trust being lost, self image, and often the mental schism of someone attacking you but having an orgasm from them raping. You're told as a woman to do x,y,z,a,b,c to not get raped, you still end up being raped, and you recover from it only to have people tell you "well, why didn't you try 'e'? You would have been able to not get raped then".

But Kratos is strong breh.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

But Kratos is strong breh.

Holy crap, I just now got how disturbing the sex mini-games are in light of Jaffe's comments yesterday.