236
Being able to recognise, and willing to act on red flags WITHIN a community or organisation is vital to its success
(lemmy.dbzer0.com)
ID: From a Comrade posted:
"In the coming year, things will pop off. When they do, someone will volunteer to do security. They will possibly show up with a lot of battle rattle and a take-charge, can-do attitude.
Do not let them do security. Ask them to read some bell hooks. Ask them how many women they know trust them. Ask them to do some reproductive labor first, like working in a kitchen. Talk to them in depth about political theory. Understand their motivations and their relationship to violence and power.
Over half of people who want to do security, are people who should never do security. The biggest red flag for weeding out bad security people, is that they are eager to do security."
'Ask them how many women they know trust them' Strange sort of question to go around asking people, maybe not the soundest vetting process
Yeah, expecting misogynists to self-report is pretty unlikely to work.
You're missing the point - they are self reporting, even though they don't mean to. As you can see happening here - simply asking the question is enough for the worst types to weed themselves out by instantly getting defensive and prioritising their own feelings (which are at most of mild discomfort, but to them feel like violent oppression because they're used to always being centred and catered for) over the safety and equity of everyone in the group.
The ones who pass this most superficial questioning without throwing a complete tantrum are automatically much more likely to fit the task at hand, and even if they aren't, at least they've proven to be capable of facing the most mild and indirect kind of criticism that exists, making them significantly more likely to be open to learning and improving.
I work around some of the most misogynistic men. I've asked them how many female friends they have. They insist all women love them. They are not correct, so they're either lying or deceiving themselves. My point is that they will lie to you if you simply ask a straightforward question like that.
Something like "Who is your favorite female celebrity?" might be more revealing. Still possible to be deceptive with an answer to that, but they'd probably blurt out a porn actress' name or something. Ynowutimsayn?
(Edit: at the moment I'm remembering Simone Giertz, the "queen of shitty robots". That would be my answer if you put me on the spot right now)
I think you're reading way to much into my critique of a poorly thought out vetting question. I agree it is useful to know the people you put into positions of power are trustworthy and trusted by vulnerable groups, but you need to ask the community if they trust the candidate, not the other way around.
@scholar
"‘Ask them how many women they know trust them’ Strange sort of question to go around asking people, maybe not the soundest vetting process"
Yeah
Really
I mean, women only make up -- what is it now? -- one half of the human race?
What would they know, and who would care?
cc @ShareMySims
Go on then, how many women you know trust you?
@scholar
All of them
Because I trust them
Also, bye...
What do we think Vetting Board, does the candidate's answer meet your approval?
It's (almost) funny how they think they're here taking some sort of brave stand against oppression, when in reality all they're doing is telling the rest of us that they don't see women as people. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Not if you're prioritising the safety of women ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If someone's coming in to be a bad actor, they'll just lie about how many women trust them. I can't think of a way to vet that sort of thing online.
How would you even answer that? Guess? Say "hang on, let me go and ask all the women I know if they trust me"? By trust I'm assuming we mean 'feel safe around'. It's dumb to rely on self reported answers, particularly if you don't trust the interviewee in the first place (which the post clearly doesn't)
I would imagine, one lies about it. Maybe instead of relying on the persons desire to be said security position, they can proclaim, “maybe me” with links to their decade long social media presence vetting their incellyness. Where other users can now input their opinion on whether they feel said individual would behave appropriately to an agreed upon code of conduct vs the possibility of them going rogue. Shouldn’t even consider anyone who can’t sign anything with a verifiable key.
It’s a question that should get someone thinking.
Kneejerk answers of “all women trust me” are a red flag.
Someone who actually ponders the question and is honest about who doesn’t trust them and why would be enlightening.
“Sara doesn’t trust me because I yelled at her during our first date” is very different from “Helen doesn’t trust me because our joint business venture imploded.”
“All women trust me, to be a douchebag”
Certainly there must be a middle ground.
How about instead of, “all women trust me” we pick from, “I would definitely have sex with that man” vs “I would never have sex with that man”
/s
"I've never had any bad experiences with the women I know, they seem comfortable around me but how far does that comfort go? How far do they trust me? What are they trusting me with? Whay is this question actually asking?" - Is a more average train of thought through that question. You're assuming that 1) everyone knows someone who doesn't trust them, and 2) knows that they aren't trusted and why
Exactly.
And losing your shit over the mere suggestion of being asked that question is so much more than a flag, it's a red flashing neon banner with alarms going off.
Yet those with the most fragile of egos and most privilege (which they refuse to even acknowledge) to lose simply can't help but tell on themselves.
It's actually pretty fucking effective!