I have been a funder of both CEA and Rethink Priorities in the past, to the tune of low 5-digit sums per year. Iâm personally acquainted with Julia, Chana and Peter, and I trust their judgement to an extent, so I tend to believe that they have good reasons for their actions, even if I donât know what they are yet.
Despite this, if the basic claims youâre making (as I understand them) are true:
youâve been instrumental in getting a double-digit number of abusers excluded from the community over the last 6 years or so,
this is a relatively uncontroversial claim that Julia et al would straightforwardly agree with,
then Iâd be willing to fund you to continue this work, even if CEA didnât want to pay you themselves. Given your credentials and background, I donât know if I could afford you by myself, but if not I imagine there might be other people interested in contributing too.
I donât want to sound like Iâm promising anything. Iâm generally nervous of being over-eager to fund things without fully understanding the situation and all perspectives on it. I think thereâs a reasonable chance that when I ask the CH team about this they have very good reasons for why they havenât had a better relationship with you, and perhaps there could be some reason that funding you to continue this work would be counterproductive somehow.
I also understand that the fact youâre not paid to do this work is not your only complaint, and maybe not even in your top three complaints. But it is the complaint that seems easiest to address, especially as a comparative outsider.
No, my main complaint isnât the lack of payment; I was taking reports and speaking to survivors for years prior. What I didnât realize until two weeks ago is that the way in which CH used my work puts me at higher legal liability, so I want to replace it. My main complaint is that the orgs and the folks listed arenât knowledgable on the topicâwhile Iâm sure are lovely humans in many regardsâalso arenât willing to admit that theyâre in over their heads and not experts on SA. I donât think itâs malice, justâbeing overwhelmed, carelessness, bad communication, a lack of putting themselves in my shoes or survivor shoes, that sort of thing. Trying to gather more data makes sense, but trying to gather that data to see if itâs worth CHâs time/âresources to take stronger action on SH/âSA without addressing the inherent issues with the difficulty of obtaining such data is short-sighted at best, and from a moral standpoint, we should reduce sexual harassment/âassault without first needing to see if the scope of the problem is greater than it is for other groups or not.
My main things are: given that CH seems pretty antagonistic toward survivors or seeing that thereâs a problem and puts me at risk of legal liability (I guess payment is number 4). Creating a formal relationship with them would lower risk (some information is private, the flow of info from me to CH is better), and for CH, create conditions in which confidentiality exist. And if CH continues to be antagonistic toward survivors, then Iâd rather not connect survivors to them. How can I possibly ever send survivors to talk to someone who says she needs to how the accused is beneficial to the movement to make any sort of judgement? I do genuinely want them to more survivor-friendly. I do want them to see that women are being harmed; especially because more trauma comes from mishandling rape cases than from rape itself*. But at the same time, I donât want to spend all that time working with CH without getting paid for my time, nor do I think itâs a good idea to try to spend that time unless we have better communication between them & me.
Definitely donât think youâre promising anything! And tbh, Iâm not sure how I feel about funding versus getting paid directly for doing work (thus far, I donât charge survivors for my work, and only in the past five months have been charging institutions).
*this is from my experience in speaking to survivors, one of my mentorâs 30+ years experiences in advocacy, and data (eg, survivors who file police reports experience PTSD at much higher rates than survivors who donât)
My main complaint is that the orgs and the folks listed arenât knowledgable on the topicâwhile Iâm sure are lovely humans in many regardsâalso arenât willing to admit that theyâre in over their heads and not experts on SA.
given that CH seems pretty antagonistic toward survivors or seeing that thereâs a problem and puts me at risk of legal liability.
Creating a formal relationship with them would lower risk (some information is private, the flow of info from me to CH is better), and for CH, create conditions in which confidentiality exist.
If CH continues to be antagonistic toward survivors, then Iâd rather not connect survivors to them. How can I possibly ever send survivors to talk to someone who says she needs to how the accused is beneficial to the movement to make any sort of judgement? I do genuinely want them to more survivor-friendly. I do want them to see that women are being harmed; especially because more trauma comes from mishandling rape cases than from rape itself*. But at the same time, I donât want to spend all that time working with CH without getting paid for my time, nor do I think itâs a good idea to try to spend that time unless we have better communication between them & me.
If these are your main complaints, Iâm a little confused about why youâve included RP and Peter in alongside the community health team. I wonât speak for the CH team, but I donât think Peter has claimed to be an expert on SA, and I feel confident that heâd be pretty happy to admit this. 2~4 seem also mainly to be relevant for CEA /â the members of the CH team, not for Peter /â RP.
You (ed: missing two words) have until- and to be clearâit could be CEA or RPâto decline or accept my offer by Friday, February 24. And clearly, if itâs accepted, there will have to be some sort of mediation or conversation on the topic of healing my wounds/âanger with EA.
I do also want to manage expectationsâif RP does not accept the offer, it is unlikely to be because decision-makers at RP believe that work to make the community a safer and more inclusive space is not worth doing, or that RP is âantagonistic to survivorsâ, or that you donât deserve some conversation RE: healing your wounds /â anger with EA. Some more plausible reasons might include:
Funding this work is not within RPâs scope /â theory of change.
RP does not have the financial flexibility to fund something like this
RP does not have the capacity to review your proposal and decide if they should fund this within a 1 week period
To be clear, I donât make the decision around whether RP accepts the offer or not, and Iâm not speaking on behalf of RP hereâIâll clarify and update this post if Iâve made any mistakes.
I hope, based on the brief conversation we had prior to this post, that you donât see this comment as an attack against your work (but rather a defence of Peter /â RP).
Oh, donât see your post as an attack at all. From what little I know of RP, it doesnât feel to me that RP is right for this either since theyâre not community-facing and work more on research (though, who knows, two friends at RP said they might so I ccâd/âincluded Peterâso I guess two people you know). Also, Peter & I exchanged a couple emails, and (I donât want to speak on Peterâs behalf Iâll be brief) - he said SA is something he spends a lot of time on, he wants to do what he thinks is best about SA, he asked what Iâm looking to do, and the email I copied here is my response to that. I also copied Peter because I do feel frustrated with CH/âfeelâand who does one talk to about that?
Also, I felt that the information I pointed out to Peter are relevant info for EAers to have (eg, about defamation), which is the main reason I included the email I sent to him here.
AFTER I said that, both Catherine and Julia asked me to send survivors & bad actors their way. I found this really quite not okay. And youâre right, that situation is not Peterâs fault.
But also, I donât expect CH or RP to accept the proposal, and Iâm not going to be bitter when Friday passes in continued silence. Sending it was basically me sayingâhereâs what I need in return for helping you. I have a 99% expectation that the answer is that EA (as a whole) would rather not have my help if itâs conditioned upon reciprocity or admission of a problem. I wanted to state why I was leaving/âdiscontinuing this work with EA, give a number on assaults so more people would take it seriously (seems like I failed in that effort), and highlight my experience with CEA to show why I think rape will be ongoing problem.
Hi there,
I have been a funder of both CEA and Rethink Priorities in the past, to the tune of low 5-digit sums per year. Iâm personally acquainted with Julia, Chana and Peter, and I trust their judgement to an extent, so I tend to believe that they have good reasons for their actions, even if I donât know what they are yet.
Despite this, if the basic claims youâre making (as I understand them) are true:
youâve been instrumental in getting a double-digit number of abusers excluded from the community over the last 6 years or so,
this is a relatively uncontroversial claim that Julia et al would straightforwardly agree with,
then Iâd be willing to fund you to continue this work, even if CEA didnât want to pay you themselves. Given your credentials and background, I donât know if I could afford you by myself, but if not I imagine there might be other people interested in contributing too.
I donât want to sound like Iâm promising anything. Iâm generally nervous of being over-eager to fund things without fully understanding the situation and all perspectives on it. I think thereâs a reasonable chance that when I ask the CH team about this they have very good reasons for why they havenât had a better relationship with you, and perhaps there could be some reason that funding you to continue this work would be counterproductive somehow.
I also understand that the fact youâre not paid to do this work is not your only complaint, and maybe not even in your top three complaints. But it is the complaint that seems easiest to address, especially as a comparative outsider.
No, my main complaint isnât the lack of payment; I was taking reports and speaking to survivors for years prior. What I didnât realize until two weeks ago is that the way in which CH used my work puts me at higher legal liability, so I want to replace it. My main complaint is that the orgs and the folks listed arenât knowledgable on the topicâwhile Iâm sure are lovely humans in many regardsâalso arenât willing to admit that theyâre in over their heads and not experts on SA. I donât think itâs malice, justâbeing overwhelmed, carelessness, bad communication, a lack of putting themselves in my shoes or survivor shoes, that sort of thing. Trying to gather more data makes sense, but trying to gather that data to see if itâs worth CHâs time/âresources to take stronger action on SH/âSA without addressing the inherent issues with the difficulty of obtaining such data is short-sighted at best, and from a moral standpoint, we should reduce sexual harassment/âassault without first needing to see if the scope of the problem is greater than it is for other groups or not.
My main things are: given that CH seems pretty antagonistic toward survivors or seeing that thereâs a problem and puts me at risk of legal liability (I guess payment is number 4). Creating a formal relationship with them would lower risk (some information is private, the flow of info from me to CH is better), and for CH, create conditions in which confidentiality exist. And if CH continues to be antagonistic toward survivors, then Iâd rather not connect survivors to them. How can I possibly ever send survivors to talk to someone who says she needs to how the accused is beneficial to the movement to make any sort of judgement? I do genuinely want them to more survivor-friendly. I do want them to see that women are being harmed; especially because more trauma comes from mishandling rape cases than from rape itself*. But at the same time, I donât want to spend all that time working with CH without getting paid for my time, nor do I think itâs a good idea to try to spend that time unless we have better communication between them & me.
Definitely donât think youâre promising anything! And tbh, Iâm not sure how I feel about funding versus getting paid directly for doing work (thus far, I donât charge survivors for my work, and only in the past five months have been charging institutions).
*this is from my experience in speaking to survivors, one of my mentorâs 30+ years experiences in advocacy, and data (eg, survivors who file police reports experience PTSD at much higher rates than survivors who donât)
If these are your main complaints, Iâm a little confused about why youâve included RP and Peter in alongside the community health team. I wonât speak for the CH team, but I donât think Peter has claimed to be an expert on SA, and I feel confident that heâd be pretty happy to admit this. 2~4 seem also mainly to be relevant for CEA /â the members of the CH team, not for Peter /â RP.
I do also want to manage expectationsâif RP does not accept the offer, it is unlikely to be because decision-makers at RP believe that work to make the community a safer and more inclusive space is not worth doing, or that RP is âantagonistic to survivorsâ, or that you donât deserve some conversation RE: healing your wounds /â anger with EA. Some more plausible reasons might include:
Funding this work is not within RPâs scope /â theory of change.
RP does not have the financial flexibility to fund something like this
RP does not have the capacity to review your proposal and decide if they should fund this within a 1 week period
To be clear, I donât make the decision around whether RP accepts the offer or not, and Iâm not speaking on behalf of RP hereâIâll clarify and update this post if Iâve made any mistakes.
I hope, based on the brief conversation we had prior to this post, that you donât see this comment as an attack against your work (but rather a defence of Peter /â RP).
(Disclaimer: Work for RP)
Oh, donât see your post as an attack at all. From what little I know of RP, it doesnât feel to me that RP is right for this either since theyâre not community-facing and work more on research (though, who knows, two friends at RP said they might so I ccâd/âincluded Peterâso I guess two people you know). Also, Peter & I exchanged a couple emails, and (I donât want to speak on Peterâs behalf Iâll be brief) - he said SA is something he spends a lot of time on, he wants to do what he thinks is best about SA, he asked what Iâm looking to do, and the email I copied here is my response to that. I also copied Peter because I do feel frustrated with CH/âfeelâand who does one talk to about that?
Also, I felt that the information I pointed out to Peter are relevant info for EAers to have (eg, about defamation), which is the main reason I included the email I sent to him here.
AFTER I said that, both Catherine and Julia asked me to send survivors & bad actors their way. I found this really quite not okay. And youâre right, that situation is not Peterâs fault.
But also, I donât expect CH or RP to accept the proposal, and Iâm not going to be bitter when Friday passes in continued silence. Sending it was basically me sayingâhereâs what I need in return for helping you. I have a 99% expectation that the answer is that EA (as a whole) would rather not have my help if itâs conditioned upon reciprocity or admission of a problem. I wanted to state why I was leaving/âdiscontinuing this work with EA, give a number on assaults so more people would take it seriously (seems like I failed in that effort), and highlight my experience with CEA to show why I think rape will be ongoing problem.