(no subject)

[serene]

I'm signed on to the Open Source Women Back Each Other Up Program.

This is not a joke. This is not satire. This is not a test.

(A quote, but you need to go read the whole thing:

Here's my pledge: if I see somebody groping you in public, and you're not moaning Yes! Yes! Yes!, I will break through your Somebody Else's Problem invisibility field and come over and ask if you're okay. If your situation looks dangerous enough I can't help on my own, I will call over friends or, if it's a situation in which I think the cops would be on your side, I will call the cops. If you're being harassed by a guy, you can say so to me, even if you don't know me. I pledge I will distract him so you can get away, or I will tell him that he needs to leave, or whatever I can do to the best of my ability. I pledge that yes, actually, because you are a woman I will give you the benefit of the doubt. If you tell me that a guy just did something shitty to you I will not refuse to look at any evidence and tell you that I know him and he's a great guy and you must have been imagining things. I have great loyalty to my male friends but I will not allow that to blind me to the fact that none of us are saints and even my best friends can screw up and may need to be called on it. I pledge that I will walk you to your car if you don't feel safe walking alone at night, and then you can drive me to mine.

)

Comments

[johnpalmer.livejournal.com]

When it comes to harassment, think of "benefit of the doubt" as being like playing the odds.

She says he was harassing. He says he wasn't.

Which is more likely? That she made up a story about his harassing her, or that he was harassing her? I'm not saying that the former is *impossible*; it clearly isn't. But which way would you bet? Which do you think happens more often, harassment or false accusations of it?

And if the response is protective, not vindictive, the benefit of the doubt going to the accuser is safer.

[clawfoot.livejournal.com]

I completely understand and agree with that. But what if the genders were switched?

He says she was harassing. She says she wasn't.

Who is more likely to be believed? I'm still going to go with the protective response and give the benefit of the doubt to the victim. Saying that you'll give the benefit of the doubt to the victim because she's a woman indirectly says, to me, that you wouldn't give the benefit of the doubt to the victim if he was male, possibly because he's male.

And that, more than anything, is what sits poorly with me.

[johnpalmer.livejournal.com]

Okay, I see that point.