I just meant to use the same language as the OP, but that is a reasonable point. If someone writes a more polished guide for this kind of thing, different wording could be used.
I think parts of this could be turned into a list of general advice for people who initiate romantic/sexual relationships. And then there could be a sublist within that for people who think they may have caused harm. Does that sound better? (Glad to hear other feedback on this!)
I think you explained this really well! Thanks for writing this.
I agree: Detailed feedback from survivors is not the only way for perpetrators to improve their behavior. (I think this also applies more broadly with social skills; direct feedback from people you’ve hurt is definitely not the only way to get better.)
You already provided some good ideas in your post, but here are more ideas on how non-survivors can improve the situation.
Here are things that perpetrators could do besides soliciting direct feedback from those they’ve harmed:
Describe what happened to your friends (especially female friends) and ask for ideas on what went wrong. (Understand that your side of the story won’t capture all relevant details!)
Solicit anonymous feedback on your behavior from anyone who is happy to give it (not just people who were harmed by you).
Spend more energy paying attention to how people are feeling. (Read facial expressions and nonverbal cues. Verbally check in, but know that’s not foolproof.)
Become comfortable with rejection. Make people feel safe turning you down at any point.
Read books or online materials on consent, power dynamics, and how to avoid making people uncomfortable.
Exercise great caution with romantic/sexual advances (or halt them entirely) until you’re certain that these advances can be made without harm.
These ideas could also be helpful for people who are concerned they’ve caused harm but aren’t sure of it. Or for people who are concerned they might cause harm.
Contact CEA’s community health team for info on any local people they’ve received reports about.
Pay attention to people’s behavior (and pay attention to gossip about their behavior). Seek out additional information on anyone who seems to be behaving poorly.
Explicitly state that you are happy to receive reports of harmful behavior regarding local EAs. (Even if the bad behavior is minor! Minor bad behavior should not result in a ban, but it can form a serious pattern.)
Consider talking to attendees about their behavior if they’ve made others uncomfortable, even if their behavior is far from ban-worthy. (But protect the privacy of reporters.)
Have a woman on your organizing team.
Here’s an anecdote: I’m female and I used to organize local EA events. One time, one of my attendees made a weird flirty comment towards me, and it seemed suspicious, but not that bad on its own. But it inspired me to contact CEA about this attendee. I heard other (worse!) reports about him. So I banned him.
Oftentimes, when I’ve gotten sketchy vibes from a guy, later info has revealed that he treats women poorly. Sketchy vibes aren’t sufficient for a ban, but they are a good indication that you should pay attention and ask around.
If you see someone in the community behave inappropriately towards someone else, consider talking to them about it or reporting it.
Be a supportive friend and a good listener to others in the community. Show that you can be a trustworthy confidant; keep sensitive information private unless you are told you can share it.
Offer to help people report information to local event organizers and/or CEA and/or police. You can help them stay anonymous, if that’s what they wish. Or you can just help them explain the situation to others and field questions. Or they might just need validation that what happened is worth reporting! (I think that even relatively minor things are worth reporting — as I said earlier, minor incidents can form a pattern.)
Report incidents of people behaving inappropriately towards you — even if it’s not bad enough that you’d call yourself a “survivor.”
I agree with this post. Given that we react more leniently towards selfish behavior when people appear to have good intentions, it seems clear to me that we are incentivizing everyone to convince themselves that they really do have good intentions. Regardless of whether they’re actually doing morally good behavior.
I don’t think this is isolated to “having good intentions.” I think it affects many other internal states and ways-of-seeing-oneself. e.g. If we give people more slack for missing deadlines when they have ADHD, that incentivizes people to convince themselves they have ADHD (whether or not they truly meet the criteria). If we give people whatever they want when they throw a tantrum, that incentivizes them to avoid learning how to regulate their emotions.
(Of course, all of these examples involve trade-offs, and the answer isn’t clearly “stop giving any special treatment towards people who have some sympathetic internal state.”)
There’s a related concept in medicine called “secondary gain.” Basically, a patient may be subconsciously motivated to stay sick because their illness resulted in some indirect benefit, e.g. their spouse started helping more with housework.
This idea has been called the Petrie multiplier. I agree that this probably makes things worse for women in EA.
I don’t see anything at that link now. I expect those openings were taken?
I’m in Facebook groups where people in California and the Bay Area specifically are searching for appointments (and leftover vaccines); it seems pretty difficult for eligible people to find an appointment.
Thanks for sharing. It’s interesting to hear about this from the perspective of someone in this community. I’d be happy to see more posts like this on EA forum.
This was the most interesting part to me:
This is kind of relatable. My own past abuse — and the effects it has had on me — both do not fit existing narratives very well at all. People (including therapists) don’t seem to get it, and that makes it harder to figure things out and make progress.