Showing posts with label Jon Ronson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jon Ronson. Show all posts

Tuesday, 22 December 2015

In Which We Discuss Public Shaming

Last week I listened to So You've Been Publicly Shamed on audible.  I don't recommend the audiobook, by the way; it's read by the author, whose skills do not lie in reading out loud and who uses the word 'said' far too much, something only accentuated by the choppy, staccato reading style.

The book focuses on examples of recent public shamings, which I won't go into detail about because one thing it did convince me of is that public shaming is bad and I don't want to bring something back up google if it's been successfully buried and I don't feel a pressing need to emote on it.

The specific incident I had the most feelings about involved a tech conference.  A woman of colour attended the conference and was offended to hear two male programmers behind her making what she felt were sexist jokes.  She felt threatened and was reminded of various misogynistic attidues which she worried would prevent future female programmers.  Please note that the women in question had made a similarly sexual joke only a few days earlier in her twitter feed.

She stood up, took two pictures of them and shared them online.  She also texted the conference organisers, who were known to her, to speak to the two men about the subject.

The organisers spoke to all parties and the two men apologised.  That really should have been the end of it.

The women in question wrote a blog post a few days later, explaining what had happened and sharing the photo she had taken.  This lead to a public shaming and one of the men in question lost his job. Then the internet turned on her.  She was publicly shamed and lost her job.

What really annoyed me, reading this book, was that the women in question never showed any regret or contrition.  Maybe she genuinely thinks she did the right thing.  I don't.  Or, maybe she just wasn't ready to express contrition publicly.  Hard to say.

I can understand her viewpoint.  I grind my teeth when I hear offensive comments and I can't bear not to say something.  I get that sometimes it's quite intimidating to bring up the fact that you're offended, so you discuss it with a third party, like the conference organisers.  However; you do not share photos of total strangers online.  That's where I think she went wrong, in taking someone's photo without consent, sharing it without consent and attempting to call down the power of the crowd upon that someone.

The man who lost his job now has another.  He's quoted as saying he is worried about speaking to female programmers but that isn't an issue because there aren't any where he works now.  The lady in question had not been offered another job at the time the book was published.

Another person mentioned was further vilified after his initial public shaming when he did not appear appropriately contrite during his apology (which I guess means people had the same sort of feelings that I do about the female programmer).  The issue of looking contrite interests me.

Drowning victims don't flail, or panic, or shout for help.  If you're drowning your body won't do any of those things.  It won't be able to.

From this article;

  1. Except in rare circumstances, drowning people are physiologically unable to call out for help. The respiratory system was designed for breathing. Speech is the secondary or overlaid function. Breathing must be fulfilled, before speech occurs.
  2. Drowning people’s mouths alternately sink below and reappear above the surface of the water. The mouths of drowning people are not above the surface of the water long enough for them to exhale, inhale, and call out for help. When the drowning people’s mouths are above the surface, they exhale and inhale quickly as their mouths start to sink below the surface of the water.
  3. Drowning people cannot wave for help. Nature instinctively forces them to extend their arms laterally and press down on the water’s surface. Pressing down on the surface of the water, permits drowning people to leverage their bodies so they can lift their mouths out of the water to breathe.
  4. Throughout the Instinctive Drowning Response, drowning people cannot voluntarily control their arm movements. Physiologically, drowning people who are struggling on the surface of the water cannot stop drowning and perform voluntary movements such as waving for help, moving toward a rescuer, or reaching out for a piece of rescue equipment.
  5. From beginning to end of the Instinctive Drowning Response people’s bodies remain upright in the water, with no evidence of a supporting kick. Unless rescued by a trained lifeguard, these drowning people can only struggle on the surface of the water from 20 to 60 seconds before submersion occurs.

In short, drowning victims don't look like we expect.

Rape and rape victims don't either.  A lot of people picture rape as being a stranger in a dark alley, perhaps attracted by clothing.  I cannot express strongly enough quite how ridiculous this concept is.  The person most likely to rape another is someone close to them - a relative, friend or partner.  And it's not because one day the victim decided to dress so sexily that the rapist couldn't control themselves.

I feel very  strongly about this because, when I was raped, the police treated called me a liar.  I find that more traumatic than the actual attack; I still have panic attacks about it.

I just went and wrote a review for that health centre (Small Heath Health Centre), which I am going to share here because I feel that they do deserve to be publicly shamed.

I was first assigned to this healthcare centre following suicidal thoughts and feelings of depression.  I made an appointment with a member of staff for 2:30pm.  He called me in at 4pm, and when I brought up the time difference he said "I'm sorry if that happened".  There was no acknowledgement that he had scheduled an appointment for himself that he had failed to keep - just a fake apology.

When I finally saw a psychiatrist - months later, after they sent me several unsuitable appointments with no flexibility - we discussed that fact that I am a rape victim.  I described a stranger - a "friend of a friend" - who crawled into my bed and attacked me, despite my saying no.  I am very precise in my use of language, and there was no ambiguity in my description.

I was sent a summary report which repeatedly referred to me by the wrong name and described my rapist as "a boyfriend you did not want to sleep with but willingly had sex with".

I don't know what kind of evil, incompetent, sadistic monster could have thought such a thing was acceptable.  Being sent such comments increased my depression, panic attacks, and suicidal thoughts, which you might notice is the exact opposite of what they were supposed to do.

I raised a complaint, and was not advised in any way that this would affect my treatment - I expected to be transferred to a competent psychiatrist or to another centre.

My complaint was never fully addressed.  In a phone call, the director of the centre could only bleat, pathetically "no one else has ever had this problem!".  As if that was in any way relevant or helpful.

The director of the centre also insisted that my records were correct, but failed to show me these records as requested.  This further begs the question of how someone could make such an appalling "mistake" as they kept insisting that it was.

Happily, I have now moved out of the area and will never be subject to the incompetence and brutality of this centre again.  I have also been advised that the psychiatrist and the trainee who wrote the summary no longer work at the centre; however, it was never clarified whether they were fired for incompetence - as they should have been - or sent off to spread their poison elsewhere.  I asked that my experience would be taken into account in future training and would be reported on both women's files, but received no confirmation that this had been done.

If you value your mental health and want to live, do not go to this centre.  They make it very clear that they do not care about their patients and are not capable of doing their jobs.  They also do not respond to complaints effectively, instead making pathetic excuses.

I would share the names of the evil bitches in question (I do try not to use sexist language, but come on), but I've hidden away the summary somewhere because looking at it upset me so much.

The centre has published my review, but edited it without notifying me that they had done so.

Anyway, point I was making.  Drowning victims don't look like we expect.  Rape victims don't look like we expect.  Maybe contrition doesn't look like we expect.

Friday, 18 December 2015

In Which We Discuss Books I Read in my 27th Year, Week 18/52 and I Go Off on a Rant about the Gilmore Girls


Only three books last week; a library book, an audio book and a book I bought from a charity shop on the way back from Lorna Doone country last March.

I love Lorna Doone.  It's one of my favourite books, and I love Lorna and John as a couple.  They're so cute!  Like when John tries to copy a feel of Lorna's arse, but pretends he was 'reaching for a flower'.  And the dirty joke about cucumbers in chapter 58, which no one ever believes until I show it to them.

Anyway, I bought The More You Ignore Me from a charity shop we stopped after spending a day traipsing round Exeter.  I didn't realise Jo Brand was a writer as well as a comedian.  I quite enjoyed the book; it's about a girl growing up in the 80s with a mother struggling with severe mental illness and a love of The Smiths.  The ending chapter is quite weak, but the journey there was fun.

I quite want to have a rant about So You've Been Publicly Shamed, because it gave me feelings.  I don't so much recommend the audiobook.  The author did the narration, and he's not great at different voices which, to be fair, isn't really his job.  However, that and his constant use of 'said' makes the many, many quoted conversations a terrible, direful drone.

Finally, You Remember Me was the sequel to Grinny which I read last week.  I might not have bothered, but the library had the two books bound in one edition, so I had it handy and it's a very quick read.

I've read very little this week, and that's due to to things.  My new (not really) hobby this week has been watching all seven seasons of the Gilmore Girls in preparation for the new episodes on Netflix.  I can't stand the Gilmore girls, and that's not bolded because I mean the characters, not the show.

I'm up to season 7, and Rory's snobby side is really coming out.  It's something Logan brings out in her more.  Their relationship begins when she takes offensive at his talking to her friend Marty "like a servant".  Logan debates his right to treat to people like servants and Rory inexplicably finds it charming.

Later, when Logan's family reject her as not good enough, Rory's upset because "I'm a Gilmore!".  Not because the whole question of her being "good enough" is the wrong one, because what does that even mean?  If we take it as meaning "suitable for this relationship" or "right for this relationship" then I don't see how that question is anyone's business other than the two people in it.  But Rory doesn't see it that way; she never expresses any problem with the Huntzbergers judging people in general, she just thinks they've not evaluated her correctly. 

While writing this, Rory and Logan tried to steal food from the Yale cafeteria just because they can.  That's classy.

Rory - and Luke - also expressed similar snobbery regarding Jess' other girlfriend Shane, who never did a single thing wrong on screen apart from express affection publicly towards someone Rory assumed she had a right to.  Luke refers to her as having a petri dish rather than a family, for instance.  What a bunch of arseholes.

Maybe Rory gets it from her father, Christopher.In season 7, Lorelei arranges a 'man date' between him and Jackson, which Christopher refers to as "having a drink with a farmer" which he clearly means in a derogatory way, using the phrase to imply that the meeting is unimportant.  Never mind that Jackson is Lorelei's best friend's husband and someone she works with regularly; his opinion can't possibly matter because he grows vegetables. for a living.

I think I only watch the show for Paris.

The other thing is that I bought myself a copy of RPGMaker 2K3 and I've been turning one of my novel ideas into a videogame.  It's great fun; like a cross between the sims, programming and playing with dolls.