how to handle a worrying text message
February 12, 2019 5:29 AM Subscribe
A newer member of an informal group sent an angry, sort of threatening text message to another, super nice, member. We don't all know each other that well, and it's a mystery where the anger is coming from.
A local arts/business/school hosts an event every Saturday for people to experience a fun activity, and there are a few regulars, with new people showing up regularly. It's a performing type of activity, and participants are generally friendly but also shy and insecure in a complicated mixture. Bringing in new participants is the point of the group, and they usually have a great time. I'm a regular, and lately I've been making an effort to make sure new people feel included and to get people to eat together afterward. A group of about six or eight of us seem to be bonding over the past several weeks.
One guy, "Garrison", has become my friend over the past few months. Although I'm female, I'm way older and we're strictly friends (maybe 'chosen family'), absolutely nothing more. He's about 23-24 and just entered the workforce recently. He's very friendly and generally positive and enthusiastic about people.
About three weeks ago, "Joe" came to the event for the first time. He was kind of shy at first, but seemed to have a lovely time. He seems to be in his thirties. We were welcoming, and four or five of us went to dinner afterward and had a great time. Joe was enthusiastic about the welcoming community and said it was wonderful to be part of a group.
The next week at dinner we talked about bringing snacks to the activity, and this past Saturday 4-5 young guys and me baked stuff and brought it to the activity, and we all ate each other's brownies and cookies. It was cool! Joe had said that morning that he wasn't feeling like baking, and offered to bring drinks and cups; since space and time was limited, I asked him to bring napkins instead, he did, and we all were participating and having a good time. I mention this to emphasize that I've been trying to build a community and it seems to be working.
Then we all went to lunch afterward. People sat at a long table, with Joe on one end, Garrison on the other, and me and two or three other people in the middle. There was singing, and a couple of us were talking about volunteering with one guy's organization at Joe's end of the table. I'm not that sure what went on at the Garrison end.
That was Saturday. Yesterday, Sunday, with no warning, Joe texts Garrison:
It might make a difference that Joe is black, while everyone else is white (as far as I can tell), but I don't think anybody has mentioned race at all.
He might also feel a little weird since he was the only one interested in drinking alcohol at the first dining group (he ended up not ordering alcohol); I'm not sure if anyone else was interested in drinking this week. At Saturday's group event, he also enjoyed some very broad pot humor, which other people joked about too, but not the people that went to dinner afterward -- we're kind of boring that way.
These are smart, funny people. Nobody wants to overreact. I definitely don't want to under-react.
The recipient has already texted back asking whether he's said something inappropriate. He hasn't received a response. Any thoughts on what to do here?
A local arts/business/school hosts an event every Saturday for people to experience a fun activity, and there are a few regulars, with new people showing up regularly. It's a performing type of activity, and participants are generally friendly but also shy and insecure in a complicated mixture. Bringing in new participants is the point of the group, and they usually have a great time. I'm a regular, and lately I've been making an effort to make sure new people feel included and to get people to eat together afterward. A group of about six or eight of us seem to be bonding over the past several weeks.
One guy, "Garrison", has become my friend over the past few months. Although I'm female, I'm way older and we're strictly friends (maybe 'chosen family'), absolutely nothing more. He's about 23-24 and just entered the workforce recently. He's very friendly and generally positive and enthusiastic about people.
About three weeks ago, "Joe" came to the event for the first time. He was kind of shy at first, but seemed to have a lovely time. He seems to be in his thirties. We were welcoming, and four or five of us went to dinner afterward and had a great time. Joe was enthusiastic about the welcoming community and said it was wonderful to be part of a group.
The next week at dinner we talked about bringing snacks to the activity, and this past Saturday 4-5 young guys and me baked stuff and brought it to the activity, and we all ate each other's brownies and cookies. It was cool! Joe had said that morning that he wasn't feeling like baking, and offered to bring drinks and cups; since space and time was limited, I asked him to bring napkins instead, he did, and we all were participating and having a good time. I mention this to emphasize that I've been trying to build a community and it seems to be working.
Then we all went to lunch afterward. People sat at a long table, with Joe on one end, Garrison on the other, and me and two or three other people in the middle. There was singing, and a couple of us were talking about volunteering with one guy's organization at Joe's end of the table. I'm not that sure what went on at the Garrison end.
That was Saturday. Yesterday, Sunday, with no warning, Joe texts Garrison:
You running your mouth is going to get your ass beat. Your best bet is to keep walking, when you see me. Don't make me be that person, but I will. That's not a threat, it's a consequence of your immaturity and your actions.Garrison has zero idea where this is coming from. He's asked me if I noticed anything he said. I suggested asking additional people for advice on how to handle this; his main concern is whether he accidentally said anything hurtful. I know Garrison cares a lot about building community, and he is a genuinely nice, sweet person. I think this is really bothering him.
It might make a difference that Joe is black, while everyone else is white (as far as I can tell), but I don't think anybody has mentioned race at all.
He might also feel a little weird since he was the only one interested in drinking alcohol at the first dining group (he ended up not ordering alcohol); I'm not sure if anyone else was interested in drinking this week. At Saturday's group event, he also enjoyed some very broad pot humor, which other people joked about too, but not the people that went to dinner afterward -- we're kind of boring that way.
These are smart, funny people. Nobody wants to overreact. I definitely don't want to under-react.
The recipient has already texted back asking whether he's said something inappropriate. He hasn't received a response. Any thoughts on what to do here?
Yeah, I came here to say the same thing as nosila, it is entirely possible that Joe meant to send that to someone else. It kinda makes no sense to tell someone to "keep walking" who is in a group doing stuff with you. Had I been Garrison, I would've responded "did you mean to send that to me as I genuinely don't know what you're talking about". I don't know why you would get involved at all at this point to be honest. These are grown men and you're not their mom or teacher.
posted by ClarissaWAM at 5:42 AM on February 12, 2019 [19 favorites]
posted by ClarissaWAM at 5:42 AM on February 12, 2019 [19 favorites]
If I sent that to someone by accident, I would at least follow it up with "omg wrong text window, so sorry" or the like, and it sounds like Joe didn't do that, which makes me think it's not an accident. If I were Garrison, I would be really freaked out, and I think it's absolutely valid that he's coming to other people to be like "hey this guy we know just threatened me, wtf?" because if Joe is threatening him, this isn't a situation where you should just expect them both to be adults and talk it out. You should take it as Joe letting you know who he is.
Joe needs to explain what's going on and why he sent Garrison that text, and if he wants to keep hanging out with you it needs to be a really solid explanation.
Honestly if I were Garrison, I would not want to be around Joe after this regardless of the explanation, and if my friends pretended that Joe's behavior was okay I would not want to be around them anymore either. This is scary.
posted by bile and syntax at 5:55 AM on February 12, 2019 [40 favorites]
Joe needs to explain what's going on and why he sent Garrison that text, and if he wants to keep hanging out with you it needs to be a really solid explanation.
Honestly if I were Garrison, I would not want to be around Joe after this regardless of the explanation, and if my friends pretended that Joe's behavior was okay I would not want to be around them anymore either. This is scary.
posted by bile and syntax at 5:55 AM on February 12, 2019 [40 favorites]
Most likely its an accidental text and was meant for someone else, however, do you really want someone in the group that would send something like that to anyone? If you're the group leader, I would ask Joe not to return to the group. He would need to have a *very* good explanation for that message (like a quote or something that means he wasn't actually threatening the intended recipient)
If you're not the group leader, I would encourage Garrison to report the message to the leader.
posted by missmagenta at 6:11 AM on February 12, 2019 [4 favorites]
If you're not the group leader, I would encourage Garrison to report the message to the leader.
posted by missmagenta at 6:11 AM on February 12, 2019 [4 favorites]
Yeah, it pretty much doesn't matter if the text was meant for Garrison or not. Joe meant to send it to someone, which is shitty and troublesome. Full stop.
posted by uberchet at 6:12 AM on February 12, 2019 [30 favorites]
posted by uberchet at 6:12 AM on February 12, 2019 [30 favorites]
Before anyone goes diagnosing mental health issues it should be observed that in some subcultures just casually threatening physical violence all the time, and actually carrying it out, or not, is standard behavior. In particular I'm thinking of some people I've known from the military or sports fans who have readily said this kind of stuff or report it as common whereas it's completely unheard-of from most of the people in my life.
It doesn't fundamentally change any response to the situation but connecting the behavior to mental health doesn't seem like a good tack to take.
posted by XMLicious at 6:17 AM on February 12, 2019 [18 favorites]
It doesn't fundamentally change any response to the situation but connecting the behavior to mental health doesn't seem like a good tack to take.
posted by XMLicious at 6:17 AM on February 12, 2019 [18 favorites]
I tend to think this is an accidental miss-send as well, and agree that someone should ask Joe.
I would like to say that I don't think it's right to demand a good explanation of why Joe would send that to anyone.
It could be from a style of joking or banter, the culture of a particular institution or locale, or it could have been directed at someone who actually should stop running their mouth.
Whichever way, it's not really your business if it was accidentally miss-sent.
posted by AnhydrousLove at 6:27 AM on February 12, 2019 [9 favorites]
I would like to say that I don't think it's right to demand a good explanation of why Joe would send that to anyone.
It could be from a style of joking or banter, the culture of a particular institution or locale, or it could have been directed at someone who actually should stop running their mouth.
Whichever way, it's not really your business if it was accidentally miss-sent.
posted by AnhydrousLove at 6:27 AM on February 12, 2019 [9 favorites]
Doesn't matter where the anger's coming from.
Doesn't matter what the reason is, or if there was actually a reason.
All that matters is that a member of the group threatened another member of the group.
That behavior is totally out of bounds and should not be tolerated. No excuses, no inquiries.
The school/organization hosting this event must be informed of this so they can take steps to perform CYA. Hopefully, they can ban Joe. If they can't or won't, the other people should be informed, so they can take whatever precautions they deem necessary, which might include avoiding Joe or no longer attending the event.
posted by Lunaloon at 6:32 AM on February 12, 2019 [18 favorites]
Doesn't matter what the reason is, or if there was actually a reason.
All that matters is that a member of the group threatened another member of the group.
That behavior is totally out of bounds and should not be tolerated. No excuses, no inquiries.
The school/organization hosting this event must be informed of this so they can take steps to perform CYA. Hopefully, they can ban Joe. If they can't or won't, the other people should be informed, so they can take whatever precautions they deem necessary, which might include avoiding Joe or no longer attending the event.
posted by Lunaloon at 6:32 AM on February 12, 2019 [18 favorites]
I mostly agree with what's been said, but:
Is there some possibility that without intending to, Garrison said something really racist? Or that someone else interacting with Joe did? Is Garrison someone who might ignorantly say something extremely offensive?
I bring this up only because I've seen some extremely shitty dynamics play out in arts and activist orgs when basically everyone is white except one or two people. What usually happens is that a nice but careless/ignorant/clueless white person does or says something legit seriously hurtful and offensive, and the group dynamic is such that people close ranks around the white person and assume that the response of the person of color is coming from mental illness or just plain dangerousness. I'm not saying that in these situations it's cool to threaten people, but I have absolutely seen a situation where there was racism, the person on the receiving end came from a "in my social milieu it's talk-shit-get-hit" situation and it all got framed as "oooh, this Very Dangerous person of color is being super threatening, we must expel him".
Garrison can be a basically lovely person and still have said something really lousy. I like to think I'm a decent person, for instance, and I have said really lousy stuff in ignorance and hurt people before. I have had to step up and apologize for things that I said in carelessness or out of ignorance.
It seems far, far more likely that this text was sent by mistake somehow and that Joe is freaking out...but I seriously have seen things go badly in this way four times in a life of only intermittent volunteering.
It might be worth asking the other people at the table and asking Joe what happened rather than leading with "Joe you sent this unacceptable text". Garrison doesn't need to be a monster in this scenario; he may just need to make a sincere apology, and he sounds like the kind of guy who would want to apologize.
posted by Frowner at 7:00 AM on February 12, 2019 [56 favorites]
Is there some possibility that without intending to, Garrison said something really racist? Or that someone else interacting with Joe did? Is Garrison someone who might ignorantly say something extremely offensive?
I bring this up only because I've seen some extremely shitty dynamics play out in arts and activist orgs when basically everyone is white except one or two people. What usually happens is that a nice but careless/ignorant/clueless white person does or says something legit seriously hurtful and offensive, and the group dynamic is such that people close ranks around the white person and assume that the response of the person of color is coming from mental illness or just plain dangerousness. I'm not saying that in these situations it's cool to threaten people, but I have absolutely seen a situation where there was racism, the person on the receiving end came from a "in my social milieu it's talk-shit-get-hit" situation and it all got framed as "oooh, this Very Dangerous person of color is being super threatening, we must expel him".
Garrison can be a basically lovely person and still have said something really lousy. I like to think I'm a decent person, for instance, and I have said really lousy stuff in ignorance and hurt people before. I have had to step up and apologize for things that I said in carelessness or out of ignorance.
It seems far, far more likely that this text was sent by mistake somehow and that Joe is freaking out...but I seriously have seen things go badly in this way four times in a life of only intermittent volunteering.
It might be worth asking the other people at the table and asking Joe what happened rather than leading with "Joe you sent this unacceptable text". Garrison doesn't need to be a monster in this scenario; he may just need to make a sincere apology, and he sounds like the kind of guy who would want to apologize.
posted by Frowner at 7:00 AM on February 12, 2019 [56 favorites]
I appreciate that you're trying to build a sense of community, but this is a problem the business needs to deal with. You don't have the authority to exclude Joe from the weekly event. You can stop inviting him for food afterwards, but that doesn't solve the problem. Rock 'em Sock 'em has the answer. They need to exclude him under an existing policy or make a policy.
posted by Mavri at 7:02 AM on February 12, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by Mavri at 7:02 AM on February 12, 2019 [1 favorite]
Call Joe. Ask him politely if he intended to send that text to Garrison. Dollars to donuts it was a text that went astray. If so, be careful: don't escalate and don't lecture Joe on how to repair the situation. I expect he is already going to find it weird and awkward to have a third party authority figure involved (because if you're from that kind of culture, you tend to resolve those kinds of disputes directly). Your call, in those circumstances, is strictly FYI that the text went astray.
If he did, then it's going to be a terrible mess. You still want to avoid refereeing the substantive situation. You don't know what happened between them and you don't want to get caught up in the dynamic Frowner describes, which is absolutely something that can happen. Just stress that you cannot have one group member threatening another. This is going to be difficult, because if Joe has a legitimate complaint you're not in a position to do much about it, as the group doesn't really seem set up for that kind of work, so you're in the position of shutting down aggression from one side and not from the other. You can try to relay to Garrison any specific concerns that Joe raises, but since the two can't really steer clear of each other in such a small group it's most likely going to end with one or both of them leaving. Ultimately, drawing a line at threats of violence is fair, but you have to do your best to not unintentionally give cover to other forms of aggression in the group.
posted by praemunire at 8:14 AM on February 12, 2019 [1 favorite]
If he did, then it's going to be a terrible mess. You still want to avoid refereeing the substantive situation. You don't know what happened between them and you don't want to get caught up in the dynamic Frowner describes, which is absolutely something that can happen. Just stress that you cannot have one group member threatening another. This is going to be difficult, because if Joe has a legitimate complaint you're not in a position to do much about it, as the group doesn't really seem set up for that kind of work, so you're in the position of shutting down aggression from one side and not from the other. You can try to relay to Garrison any specific concerns that Joe raises, but since the two can't really steer clear of each other in such a small group it's most likely going to end with one or both of them leaving. Ultimately, drawing a line at threats of violence is fair, but you have to do your best to not unintentionally give cover to other forms of aggression in the group.
posted by praemunire at 8:14 AM on February 12, 2019 [1 favorite]
I'm also in camp "threats of violence are unacceptable even if intended for someone else," but they're still really common. I would not call Joe, actually. I don't really see why you should get involved further. If this is actually an imminent confrontation you aren't doing yourself any favors by getting involved.
he also enjoyed some very broad pot humor, which other people joked about too
This jumped out at me, was Garrison one of those people? "Very broad pot humor" can have pretty gross racial undertones. You are missing some information.
posted by aspersioncast at 8:19 AM on February 12, 2019 [8 favorites]
he also enjoyed some very broad pot humor, which other people joked about too
This jumped out at me, was Garrison one of those people? "Very broad pot humor" can have pretty gross racial undertones. You are missing some information.
posted by aspersioncast at 8:19 AM on February 12, 2019 [8 favorites]
"Running your mouth" to me suggests that Joe thinks that Garrison has been gossiping or complaining about Joe. You can check with Garrison to see if he has done that. "Keep walking" suggests that they would only meet by chance rather than at regular meetings. I feel pretty confident that this text was not intended for Garrison.
posted by Rock Steady at 8:35 AM on February 12, 2019
posted by Rock Steady at 8:35 AM on February 12, 2019
I'm wondering how it is that Joe has Garrison's cell #? Maybe everyone exchanged numbers, or there's a roster? If not, they may have had more contact than you realize?
Anyway, you've said Garrison already texted back asking what was going on, so Joe ought to know by now that the text reached Garrison, and I'd assume that if it had been misdirected he would have said so by now.
I dunno. I'm reminded of a law firm I worked at once where a new admin, who'd been interviewed and hired and reference checked etc, started screaming and threatening to beat someone up on her first day. Sometimes people just have a screw loose in a way that isn't obvious at first blush, but comes into focus before long.
posted by fingersandtoes at 8:45 AM on February 12, 2019
Anyway, you've said Garrison already texted back asking what was going on, so Joe ought to know by now that the text reached Garrison, and I'd assume that if it had been misdirected he would have said so by now.
I dunno. I'm reminded of a law firm I worked at once where a new admin, who'd been interviewed and hired and reference checked etc, started screaming and threatening to beat someone up on her first day. Sometimes people just have a screw loose in a way that isn't obvious at first blush, but comes into focus before long.
posted by fingersandtoes at 8:45 AM on February 12, 2019
I’m from a “casual threats of violence” culture as well. Much more intimately than just hearing about it around. Those people still don’t randomly threaten to beat people’s asses out of nowhere.
We may be thinking of completely different sources of behavior because every time I've seen this happen it's been just that, but the person making the threat insists it's perfectly normal behavior and doesn't appear to grasp how what they've said is going to be perceived from an outside perspective.
Like “dude, you just threatened to maim someone over a dispute about fishing”, and the guy replies with something just like the final sentence in the OP text about how it's not really a threat, or that it's a rational response.
In this specific example, a response to making too many waves in a passing watercraft, by someone who wasn't fishing themselves. And other sport fishermen agree in subsequent discussion that that's how you react. But none of these people behave in a remotely similar way in, for example, a work situation. So if it's a mental health issue then it's some kind of mass psychosis thing.
All I'm saying is, I don't think the evidence presented cinches that this was a completely uncaused aggression of the sort that can only be the result of mental health issues. Maybe, but also maybe it's someone who's an aggressive jerk from a culture of aggressive jerks, or even someone who is reacting to a perceived interpersonal conflict in a manner that makes sense to them under some set of rules but still can't be tolerated in a stable community or organization where everyone else is acting responsibly. (Or also as has been proposed it could be a mistake, of course, though still not an acceptable excuse for the behavior.)
posted by XMLicious at 8:54 AM on February 12, 2019
On another note: When I was part of a volunteer organization which struggled with some interpersonal things we actually screwed up a lot of stuff did a couple of things which helped:
1. We had volunteer coordinators who made themselves available to respond to any concerns over interpersonal stuff, while also making it known that people could handle conflict themselves if they felt comfortable doing so.
2. We asked everyone to handle conflicts in person or over the phone, and offered to mediate those conversations if needed. We found that email (this was before texting was universal) was just inflaming things.
3. We wrote this stuff down and made sure that participants knew about it.
Curiously, just foregrounding these policies made interpersonal conflicts dry up - with the main thing being the "no email" request. Text-based communication of grievances really, really isn't a good idea for members of an organization unless you're sending some kind of official/formal/serious thing.
On third note: I once seriously offended someone through a total language misunderstanding - there was no harm intended, there was no accidentally-saying-something-bad, it was just pure miscommunication. (We sorted it out.) Be open to the possibility of total miscommunication on the level of Garrison saying, "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat is just terrible and I hate it" and someone else hearing "Joe is terrible" and then telling Joe. If a lot of group interactions have been in crowded, noisy settings, this is actually quite possible.
posted by Frowner at 9:38 AM on February 12, 2019 [11 favorites]
1. We had volunteer coordinators who made themselves available to respond to any concerns over interpersonal stuff, while also making it known that people could handle conflict themselves if they felt comfortable doing so.
2. We asked everyone to handle conflicts in person or over the phone, and offered to mediate those conversations if needed. We found that email (this was before texting was universal) was just inflaming things.
3. We wrote this stuff down and made sure that participants knew about it.
Curiously, just foregrounding these policies made interpersonal conflicts dry up - with the main thing being the "no email" request. Text-based communication of grievances really, really isn't a good idea for members of an organization unless you're sending some kind of official/formal/serious thing.
On third note: I once seriously offended someone through a total language misunderstanding - there was no harm intended, there was no accidentally-saying-something-bad, it was just pure miscommunication. (We sorted it out.) Be open to the possibility of total miscommunication on the level of Garrison saying, "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat is just terrible and I hate it" and someone else hearing "Joe is terrible" and then telling Joe. If a lot of group interactions have been in crowded, noisy settings, this is actually quite possible.
posted by Frowner at 9:38 AM on February 12, 2019 [11 favorites]
I can't second enough Frowner's suggestion of framing this as a "Hey Joe, so this happened, what's up with that?" type of thing rather than as a smackdown from authority when all the facts might not be known.
I also strongly agree with praemunire that asserting yourself as a referee, especially one with authority over Joe, is not going to play out super well. Even if it was all a gigantic misunderstanding that ultimately ends well, it feels awkward and bad, as an adult, when another adult who potentially has a degree of authority over you asserts that authority in a situation where they are otherwise an uninvolved third party. Now, obviously since this concerns a threat of violence, you have to take this seriously. Which might mean that it's worth some bad feelings. But you should know going in that Joe probably isn't going to thank you for butting in.
posted by the milkman, the paper boy at 9:54 AM on February 12, 2019 [7 favorites]
I also strongly agree with praemunire that asserting yourself as a referee, especially one with authority over Joe, is not going to play out super well. Even if it was all a gigantic misunderstanding that ultimately ends well, it feels awkward and bad, as an adult, when another adult who potentially has a degree of authority over you asserts that authority in a situation where they are otherwise an uninvolved third party. Now, obviously since this concerns a threat of violence, you have to take this seriously. Which might mean that it's worth some bad feelings. But you should know going in that Joe probably isn't going to thank you for butting in.
posted by the milkman, the paper boy at 9:54 AM on February 12, 2019 [7 favorites]
Garrison has a big personality, may have said something stupid, Joe is quiet and may have taken offence - even if Joe’s misunderstood (or even rightly understood) some communication from Garrison, that is an unacceptable way for an adult to defend themselves, yes it is scary, yes it does sound like a mental health issue.
Nth leaving it to the organizers to sort this out. Vulnerable people sometimes come to this kind of group, some are more vulnerable than others. Maybe the organizers can reach out for help in deciding how to handle it if they don’t know, but it’s not your job.
posted by cotton dress sock at 11:22 AM on February 12, 2019
Nth leaving it to the organizers to sort this out. Vulnerable people sometimes come to this kind of group, some are more vulnerable than others. Maybe the organizers can reach out for help in deciding how to handle it if they don’t know, but it’s not your job.
posted by cotton dress sock at 11:22 AM on February 12, 2019
Mod note: From the OP:
OK, the latest: Is there any good way to deal with what seems to be a horrible cultural misunderstanding?posted by taz (staff) at 11:17 PM on February 12, 2019 [1 favorite]
I talked to Joe. I was considering whether to invite him to a gathering I'm having. Without mentioning the gathering, I asked him what Garrison had done or said. My intent was just to provide an opening for Joe to explain whatever he felt like explaining, without interrogating him at all. Joe was ready to talk.
Joe was very upset and kept repeating that Garrison "knows what he did". Eventually it emerged that, I think at dinner, Joe thought Garrison was joking about Joe being feminine and/or wearing women's clothing. I think. He wouldn't just talk to me about it; he ranted a lot about how Garrison knew what he did.
Garrison remembers none of this, but it could have easily happened. In the culture of the group, this is not unusual. We have a lot of guys who, having followed an artistic path, know that they're not particularly macho, embrace this, and joke in this way about themselves. When I talked to him, he mentioned the way that Garrison was looking at him, disrespecting him, maybe commenting on his clothes being girly, and bullying him and basically (he didn't use these words) asserting dominance. (Joe did use the word "bullying").
I tried to make sure Joe felt heard, and asked him several times if he did feel heard, and how he felt generally.
I made clear that beating was unacceptable in this group no matter what was said or implied, and that there were other possible actions besides a) "taking it" or b) beating someone. I'm not sure that sunk in.
I myself am engaged to a guy who told me he thought his parents were probably surprised at this, since they probably assumed he was gay (they're open-minded but they don't talk about stuff). Garrison has a similar vague status with his parents - nobody assumes anything about anybody's orientation. People get invited to drag shows all the time. It's fine and sweet that people feel comfortable enough to talk and joke about it.
I strongly suspect that Joe comes from a very different culture.
Garrison still has zero idea what he did or said, and I'm sure that if he commented on anything Joe was wearing or doing it was meant as play. Garrison is not insensitive or loud at all, and he doesn't go around making ill-advised jokes. I'm way more insensitive than he is. I totally believe that Joe is seeing a confrontation that is entirely in his own mind, probably based on cultural expectations that are wildly different from Garrison's and mine.
The current plan is to talk to the organization; they have some mechanism for dealing with problems like this, but I'm not sure how good they are.
I guess I'm wondering if anyone has resources or advice for dealing with such a huge misunderstanding around the divide between an arts culture, where it's totally safe for dudes to joke about each other's clothes and make eye contact with abandon, and the culture Joe comes from, which seems to be one that's got enough machismo that he emphasized several times that I couldn't possibly understand what was happening because I'm a woman.
I'm not seeing any way to convince Joe that Garrison was completely innocent. I'm not even sure what Garrison can do to avoid offending Joe in the future. Joe seems to need the group so much. What the heck can anybody do?
So, I want to approach this with as much good faith as possible. Reading your initial post and response, I can't help but wonder if part of the issue is that you (and the rest of your group) created an awkward situation because you're so wary of interacting with POCs. In my experience, it's not uncommon for very intersectionality/social justice-focused majority-culture people to inadvertently treat their interactions with POCs like walking through a minefield and make them feel patronized from the get-go.
I strongly suspect that Joe comes from a very different culture.
I totally believe that Joe is seeing a confrontation that is entirely in his own mind, probably based on cultural expectations that are wildly different from Garrison's and mine.
the culture Joe comes from
OP, I want you to consider your language here. You probably didn't mean them to come across as weasel words, but they unfortunately have a bit of that effect. Joe, despite being black, is a person who chose to interact with your group due to shared interests. He's not from another planet. You're trying to be good at handling racial/cultural inclusion in your social life and that's great, I applaud that! But I suspect that there's some overcorrection at play.
There's a slightly paternalistic vibe to how you're describing your relationship with Joe (and to a lesser extent, Garrison too). It sounds like this is a group that calls for peer relationships, not noblesse oblige. Just be mindful of that.
posted by blerghamot at 6:00 AM on February 13, 2019 [13 favorites]
I strongly suspect that Joe comes from a very different culture.
I totally believe that Joe is seeing a confrontation that is entirely in his own mind, probably based on cultural expectations that are wildly different from Garrison's and mine.
the culture Joe comes from
OP, I want you to consider your language here. You probably didn't mean them to come across as weasel words, but they unfortunately have a bit of that effect. Joe, despite being black, is a person who chose to interact with your group due to shared interests. He's not from another planet. You're trying to be good at handling racial/cultural inclusion in your social life and that's great, I applaud that! But I suspect that there's some overcorrection at play.
There's a slightly paternalistic vibe to how you're describing your relationship with Joe (and to a lesser extent, Garrison too). It sounds like this is a group that calls for peer relationships, not noblesse oblige. Just be mindful of that.
posted by blerghamot at 6:00 AM on February 13, 2019 [13 favorites]
I'm going to bend over backwards to give Joe the benefit of the doubt here and say that maybe Garrison was teasing and bullying him. Maybe it was even done with malicious intent, to make Joe feel unwelcome.
Even if that is the case, unless Joe is 100% on board with the idea that threatening violence is never acceptable, unless he is willing to apologize for doing so, and unless he is able to promise that he will never threaten another member, even if they disrespect him, Joe can no longer be welcome in this group.
Even if Garrison was intentionally making Joe feel unwelcome, there are better ways to address that than violent threats, and Joe will need to accept that if he wants to continue to be a member of the group. This is not open for compromise. There are certainly compromises to be made around the way Garrison and other members of the group interact with Joe, if he thinks Garrison crossed some lines, but violence is a non-starter.
posted by Rock Steady at 6:32 AM on February 13, 2019 [3 favorites]
Even if that is the case, unless Joe is 100% on board with the idea that threatening violence is never acceptable, unless he is willing to apologize for doing so, and unless he is able to promise that he will never threaten another member, even if they disrespect him, Joe can no longer be welcome in this group.
Even if Garrison was intentionally making Joe feel unwelcome, there are better ways to address that than violent threats, and Joe will need to accept that if he wants to continue to be a member of the group. This is not open for compromise. There are certainly compromises to be made around the way Garrison and other members of the group interact with Joe, if he thinks Garrison crossed some lines, but violence is a non-starter.
posted by Rock Steady at 6:32 AM on February 13, 2019 [3 favorites]
Oof, what a mess. I am going to write a lot, but this is directly about my experiences in similar situations.
Blerghamot is making a good point, too, not necessarily because you're sitting there fucking up and not caring, but because it is really, really challenging and time-consuming and up-ending for people to do the work that creates cross-race and cross-class organizations, and even if you are trying hard, you can still majorly screw it up. Ask me how I know!
The problem you're describing is one I totally recognize. Cultures aren't like lego blocks that you can just snap apart; it's really difficult to say "this organization is welcoming to working class people but also really down on some of the ways that it's common for working class people to talk about race and gender", for instance. Even if some of those ways are really, intrinsically not cool, it can still feel extremely patronizing and alienating to have a middle-class or white-led organization finger-shaking about it.
And there's no reciprocity - if you're a white-led or middle-class led organization, it's not like your working class and/or BIPOC members have an equivalent leadership which can shake its finger at you when you're patronizing or racist. Inevitably, white and middle-class actions will get ignored, covered up or not understood as harmful unless the organization is balanced in membership and leadership and actively works on this.
This is very, very hard to do well, and you must get used to hoping to fail better rather than establishing total success.
~~
If I were Garrison, I would apologize. Not for joking around about masculinity, which is fine (and if Joe is going to be a giant cis-man stick in the mud, he won't be a good fit for your group) but for assuming the intimacy that makes those jokes totally okay when that intimacy wasn't present. This is something that IMO white people (or people in positions of privilege) do almost unconsciously - assume that our norms are everyone's and act like there's intimacy when it's convenient but not building true intimacy.
I am sure Garrison meant no harm and is not a bad person, and he sounds like someone who has a healthy relationship to gender stuff. I also think that in this area, Joe probably has some learning to do.
However, to show respect we need to read the room. Like, Garrison faces different expectations and coercions around gender than Joe, and because Garrison is white, his masculinity isn't going to be exploited or pathologized by racist people. I will go out on a limb here and say that for white middle class people, we are not forced to be constantly worrying about being respected/disrespected, because our race and class status does not subject us to a barrage of disrespect. We get more respect more easily because of privilege.
So anyway: If I were Garrison, I would apologize to Joe if I could do so without causing a giant blow-up. I might do it by text. I would say something like this:
"Anonymous told me that she talked to you. I want to apologize for insulting you. I joke around with my friends about gender stuff a lot and we don't mean anything by it, but it was disrespectful of me to make those jokes to you when I don't really know you. I did not intend to make you feel disrespected or attacked".
The issue is that Garrison assumed comfort and intimacy that didn't exist given the actual inequalities of society. That's a natural thing to do given the way our society works - it's not a sign that he is a monster or careless with people's feelings or a huge bigot. It's not about how you can never joke with straight Black men about gender stuff or something. It's just about reading the room. If you accidentally made a joke about a sore subject to a friend, you'd apologize there too.
~~
On the violence front, look, I have literally had to have a conversation very similar to this one with a man of color who came from a working class background and went into the military and for whom aggro language was just normal day-to-day and survival stuff. People aren't stupid or unable to modulate their behavior in different settings. Unless you get a recurrence from Joe, assume that he is capable of understanding that different rhetorics get used in different settings.
"I will kick your ass" is a rhetoric, not a pure expression of someone's id.
~~
Basically, if you want a truly cross-class and cross-race organization, I suspect you're going to have to change up your intake process a bit. This is difficult and will never be perfect. But if you don't at least have a bash at it, your group will always be white and middle class, and you will periodically have fucked up interactions with working class people of color, and your group will always end up wondering why, by some weird coincidence, it's always working class people of color who are the problem.
Again, ask me how I know.
I would suggest that your organizers research some books and articles to read about race, gender and the arts, and that if at all possible you reach out to (and pay) working class and/or POC trainers or consultants to help you work out some basic practices and principles.
~~
If you consider this situation, you can see how it works - middle class white people set a bunch of norms about behavior but do not interrogate their own behavior. Working class people and/or people of color interact with the organization. Something hurtful happens because of normal white middle class behavior. Working class and/or POC people react in ways that are normal for them. But only their ways of reacting are pathologized and as a result they feel patronized, scolded and isolated and they leave.
Middle class people perceive physical violence in public settings just fine because it is not something we encounter very often. But we don't perceive the social violence which is present every day in microaggressions, carceral assumptions, etc, because that is normalized.
Like, it isn't acceptable to threaten violence and if it happens again you'll have to ask Joe to leave. But threatening violence doesn't happen in a vacuum because working class and/or POC people are some kind of Dickensian underclass with no values. It's a dynamic system.
(Part of this is because it is considered really weird/gauche/ impossible to talk frankly about race and class, so it's hard for even kind, well-meaning people to process this stuff.)
Seriously, I have been in this situation. I've watched it kill organizations because people didn't want to talk honestly. It's not new. I really implore you to study and work on ways to make your org actively friendly and welcoming to working class and/or people of color participants. Don't assume either that you're doing everything right and other people need to change or that you're horrible monsters who just need to accept threats of violence to be "authentic" or something. You can build a way of working that is both welcoming and true to your values.
This is hard! I have been in very similar situations and some have worked out okay and some haven't. I don't feel super great about all of them. I know that it sucks and probably feels stressful, overwhelming and anxiety-inducing. I find it helpful to remind myself that those feelings are going to happen in a racist, unequal society - that they are the normal result of oppressive dynamics and not the result of some unique failing on my part.
posted by Frowner at 6:55 AM on February 13, 2019 [23 favorites]
Blerghamot is making a good point, too, not necessarily because you're sitting there fucking up and not caring, but because it is really, really challenging and time-consuming and up-ending for people to do the work that creates cross-race and cross-class organizations, and even if you are trying hard, you can still majorly screw it up. Ask me how I know!
The problem you're describing is one I totally recognize. Cultures aren't like lego blocks that you can just snap apart; it's really difficult to say "this organization is welcoming to working class people but also really down on some of the ways that it's common for working class people to talk about race and gender", for instance. Even if some of those ways are really, intrinsically not cool, it can still feel extremely patronizing and alienating to have a middle-class or white-led organization finger-shaking about it.
And there's no reciprocity - if you're a white-led or middle-class led organization, it's not like your working class and/or BIPOC members have an equivalent leadership which can shake its finger at you when you're patronizing or racist. Inevitably, white and middle-class actions will get ignored, covered up or not understood as harmful unless the organization is balanced in membership and leadership and actively works on this.
This is very, very hard to do well, and you must get used to hoping to fail better rather than establishing total success.
~~
If I were Garrison, I would apologize. Not for joking around about masculinity, which is fine (and if Joe is going to be a giant cis-man stick in the mud, he won't be a good fit for your group) but for assuming the intimacy that makes those jokes totally okay when that intimacy wasn't present. This is something that IMO white people (or people in positions of privilege) do almost unconsciously - assume that our norms are everyone's and act like there's intimacy when it's convenient but not building true intimacy.
I am sure Garrison meant no harm and is not a bad person, and he sounds like someone who has a healthy relationship to gender stuff. I also think that in this area, Joe probably has some learning to do.
However, to show respect we need to read the room. Like, Garrison faces different expectations and coercions around gender than Joe, and because Garrison is white, his masculinity isn't going to be exploited or pathologized by racist people. I will go out on a limb here and say that for white middle class people, we are not forced to be constantly worrying about being respected/disrespected, because our race and class status does not subject us to a barrage of disrespect. We get more respect more easily because of privilege.
So anyway: If I were Garrison, I would apologize to Joe if I could do so without causing a giant blow-up. I might do it by text. I would say something like this:
"Anonymous told me that she talked to you. I want to apologize for insulting you. I joke around with my friends about gender stuff a lot and we don't mean anything by it, but it was disrespectful of me to make those jokes to you when I don't really know you. I did not intend to make you feel disrespected or attacked".
The issue is that Garrison assumed comfort and intimacy that didn't exist given the actual inequalities of society. That's a natural thing to do given the way our society works - it's not a sign that he is a monster or careless with people's feelings or a huge bigot. It's not about how you can never joke with straight Black men about gender stuff or something. It's just about reading the room. If you accidentally made a joke about a sore subject to a friend, you'd apologize there too.
~~
On the violence front, look, I have literally had to have a conversation very similar to this one with a man of color who came from a working class background and went into the military and for whom aggro language was just normal day-to-day and survival stuff. People aren't stupid or unable to modulate their behavior in different settings. Unless you get a recurrence from Joe, assume that he is capable of understanding that different rhetorics get used in different settings.
"I will kick your ass" is a rhetoric, not a pure expression of someone's id.
~~
Basically, if you want a truly cross-class and cross-race organization, I suspect you're going to have to change up your intake process a bit. This is difficult and will never be perfect. But if you don't at least have a bash at it, your group will always be white and middle class, and you will periodically have fucked up interactions with working class people of color, and your group will always end up wondering why, by some weird coincidence, it's always working class people of color who are the problem.
Again, ask me how I know.
I would suggest that your organizers research some books and articles to read about race, gender and the arts, and that if at all possible you reach out to (and pay) working class and/or POC trainers or consultants to help you work out some basic practices and principles.
~~
If you consider this situation, you can see how it works - middle class white people set a bunch of norms about behavior but do not interrogate their own behavior. Working class people and/or people of color interact with the organization. Something hurtful happens because of normal white middle class behavior. Working class and/or POC people react in ways that are normal for them. But only their ways of reacting are pathologized and as a result they feel patronized, scolded and isolated and they leave.
Middle class people perceive physical violence in public settings just fine because it is not something we encounter very often. But we don't perceive the social violence which is present every day in microaggressions, carceral assumptions, etc, because that is normalized.
Like, it isn't acceptable to threaten violence and if it happens again you'll have to ask Joe to leave. But threatening violence doesn't happen in a vacuum because working class and/or POC people are some kind of Dickensian underclass with no values. It's a dynamic system.
(Part of this is because it is considered really weird/gauche/ impossible to talk frankly about race and class, so it's hard for even kind, well-meaning people to process this stuff.)
Seriously, I have been in this situation. I've watched it kill organizations because people didn't want to talk honestly. It's not new. I really implore you to study and work on ways to make your org actively friendly and welcoming to working class and/or people of color participants. Don't assume either that you're doing everything right and other people need to change or that you're horrible monsters who just need to accept threats of violence to be "authentic" or something. You can build a way of working that is both welcoming and true to your values.
This is hard! I have been in very similar situations and some have worked out okay and some haven't. I don't feel super great about all of them. I know that it sucks and probably feels stressful, overwhelming and anxiety-inducing. I find it helpful to remind myself that those feelings are going to happen in a racist, unequal society - that they are the normal result of oppressive dynamics and not the result of some unique failing on my part.
posted by Frowner at 6:55 AM on February 13, 2019 [23 favorites]
"I will kick your ass" is a rhetoric, not a pure expression of someone's id.No. "I will kick your ass" is, on its face, a threat of violence, and must be parsed as such.
posted by uberchet at 8:33 AM on February 13, 2019 [5 favorites]
A further thought: I have spent a total of probably about ten years volunteering at specific activist arts spaces; I've also spent years before, after and during running or participating in activist, union and art projects. I'm not a leader and I would not blow my horn about my big successes. Indeed, I would have to blow my horn about some big failures.
However, I have never - not once - seen a situation where a marginalized person complained of bias where nothing was wrong and it was just them imagining things and the organization itself didn't need to make changes. I've absolutely seen miscommunications, mutual fault, structural problems, marginalized people who were difficult or bad fits for groups and people lacking the language/experience to express precisely what was going on with them. But I've never noticed people to make shit up.
When you get a complaint about someone's behavior, a good starting assumption is that something went seriously wrong because your organization is not robust enough to prevent problems.
I can't speak for Joe, who might have totally different feelings, but as both a marginalized person and a privileged person, I know that it often takes a lot of effort and courage for people who are marginalized to belt up and join a group led by and dominated by more privileged people. It often takes a lot of effort and courage to say something when you're hurt rather than just doing a slow fade. It is reasonably likely that Joe is actually already making a lot of effort to try to make your org work for him - far more effort than other participants.
posted by Frowner at 8:47 AM on February 13, 2019 [8 favorites]
However, I have never - not once - seen a situation where a marginalized person complained of bias where nothing was wrong and it was just them imagining things and the organization itself didn't need to make changes. I've absolutely seen miscommunications, mutual fault, structural problems, marginalized people who were difficult or bad fits for groups and people lacking the language/experience to express precisely what was going on with them. But I've never noticed people to make shit up.
When you get a complaint about someone's behavior, a good starting assumption is that something went seriously wrong because your organization is not robust enough to prevent problems.
I can't speak for Joe, who might have totally different feelings, but as both a marginalized person and a privileged person, I know that it often takes a lot of effort and courage for people who are marginalized to belt up and join a group led by and dominated by more privileged people. It often takes a lot of effort and courage to say something when you're hurt rather than just doing a slow fade. It is reasonably likely that Joe is actually already making a lot of effort to try to make your org work for him - far more effort than other participants.
posted by Frowner at 8:47 AM on February 13, 2019 [8 favorites]
On update, I'll add this. I'm also part of a creative organization that spills over into social stuff, and where there's sort of a shared group ethos in the way that you talk about a lot of people being involved in your thing being flip and self-deprecating about gender, queerness, etc. It's not that particular thing, but there are shared "oh yeah we all like being casual and flippant about X and nobody cares" aspects.
This has become a HUGE problem in my organization, especially along the lines you mention. When someone comes along who doesn't have that one particular personality quirk and isn't ready to get on board with "everyone here jokes about X but doesn't mean anything by it", they feel rejected by the community around the organization, and they tend to leave the organization entirely. Which is a public facing thing, and a somewhat money-making enterprise (we sell tickets, we have a physical space we pay rent on, there are paid employees, etc).
A lot of the people who don't easily slot into the "we all joke about X and nobody is hurt by it" dynamic are people of color and other underrepresented groups. Our organization outwardly values diversity and is billed as a place for anyone, no matter their background and identity, but the chummy cliquish vibe where if you can't hang with a few weird personality quirks that are accepted in the in-group that has formed around the organization has become a HUGE stumbling block to inclusivity.
It should be said that, like your case, the thing everyone jokes about is NOT race or racism. It's not even particularly adjacent. But it is something that, like masculinity/femininity, can come off different to people of different cultures, and in general could be easily misunderstood by a newbie.
posted by the milkman, the paper boy at 9:51 AM on February 13, 2019 [7 favorites]
This has become a HUGE problem in my organization, especially along the lines you mention. When someone comes along who doesn't have that one particular personality quirk and isn't ready to get on board with "everyone here jokes about X but doesn't mean anything by it", they feel rejected by the community around the organization, and they tend to leave the organization entirely. Which is a public facing thing, and a somewhat money-making enterprise (we sell tickets, we have a physical space we pay rent on, there are paid employees, etc).
A lot of the people who don't easily slot into the "we all joke about X and nobody is hurt by it" dynamic are people of color and other underrepresented groups. Our organization outwardly values diversity and is billed as a place for anyone, no matter their background and identity, but the chummy cliquish vibe where if you can't hang with a few weird personality quirks that are accepted in the in-group that has formed around the organization has become a HUGE stumbling block to inclusivity.
It should be said that, like your case, the thing everyone jokes about is NOT race or racism. It's not even particularly adjacent. But it is something that, like masculinity/femininity, can come off different to people of different cultures, and in general could be easily misunderstood by a newbie.
posted by the milkman, the paper boy at 9:51 AM on February 13, 2019 [7 favorites]
Nothing about the facts really indicates that Garrison inadvertently did something disrespectful, that’s pure conjecture.
Except Joe said he was bullied. That he stated that he was bullied is a fact. The conjecture is around it being a misunderstanding based on some kind of perceived cultural context, which is purely speculative, and the assumption is that Garrison couldn’t/wouldn’t possibly offend anyone. Joe’s reaction may have been unacceptable - what is the group’s policy around violence and threats of violence, and is this explained to all new members as part of an induction? - but it seems to have come from a place of himself feeling threatened in some way.
Do you have the skills to facilitate a meeting between Joe and Garrison, to honestly let both of them work through this together rather than make it a forum for Garrison to explain how he honestly didn’t mean it or whatever way you might be currently phrasing things? If you don’t, is someone else in the organisation able to do this? It may well be that Garrison has some learning to do about what might feel hurtful to other people, as opposed to the assumption that Joe was just mistakenly offended. Both need a chance to bring their side of the interaction and that can’t happen if the person managing it isn’t objective, and it doesn’t really sound like you are.
posted by billiebee at 10:44 AM on February 13, 2019 [2 favorites]
Except Joe said he was bullied. That he stated that he was bullied is a fact. The conjecture is around it being a misunderstanding based on some kind of perceived cultural context, which is purely speculative, and the assumption is that Garrison couldn’t/wouldn’t possibly offend anyone. Joe’s reaction may have been unacceptable - what is the group’s policy around violence and threats of violence, and is this explained to all new members as part of an induction? - but it seems to have come from a place of himself feeling threatened in some way.
Do you have the skills to facilitate a meeting between Joe and Garrison, to honestly let both of them work through this together rather than make it a forum for Garrison to explain how he honestly didn’t mean it or whatever way you might be currently phrasing things? If you don’t, is someone else in the organisation able to do this? It may well be that Garrison has some learning to do about what might feel hurtful to other people, as opposed to the assumption that Joe was just mistakenly offended. Both need a chance to bring their side of the interaction and that can’t happen if the person managing it isn’t objective, and it doesn’t really sound like you are.
posted by billiebee at 10:44 AM on February 13, 2019 [2 favorites]
Except Joe said he was bullied. That he stated that he was bullied is a fact. The conjecture is around it being a misunderstanding based on some kind of perceived cultural context, which is purely speculative, and the assumption is that Garrison couldn’t/wouldn’t possibly offend anyone.
The fact that Joe refused to explain exactly what happened beyond "he knows what he did" and "you wouldn't understand because you're a woman" leads me to believe that the problem is more at a conceptual level, but you are absolutely right that the organization should offer Joe a meeting with someone that he believes will hear him and understand his concerns - possibly including Garrison, possibly without, depending on each of their comfort levels.
posted by Rock Steady at 10:58 AM on February 13, 2019 [1 favorite]
The fact that Joe refused to explain exactly what happened beyond "he knows what he did" and "you wouldn't understand because you're a woman" leads me to believe that the problem is more at a conceptual level, but you are absolutely right that the organization should offer Joe a meeting with someone that he believes will hear him and understand his concerns - possibly including Garrison, possibly without, depending on each of their comfort levels.
posted by Rock Steady at 10:58 AM on February 13, 2019 [1 favorite]
This is really way above the pay grade of the members/participants in the group, and the local arts/business/school needs to step in and mediate or come up with clear rules or whatever. The only thing you should be doing is kicking it up to them and not getting more deeply involved in this interpersonal conflict.
There are so many jumping-off points in your question for speculation about what's really going on with Joe and Garrison and I don't think it's really helpful to see where they all might lead.
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:00 AM on February 13, 2019 [1 favorite]
There are so many jumping-off points in your question for speculation about what's really going on with Joe and Garrison and I don't think it's really helpful to see where they all might lead.
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:00 AM on February 13, 2019 [1 favorite]
"Anonymous told me that she talked to you. I want to apologize for insulting you. I joke around with my friends about gender stuff a lot and we don't mean anything by it, but it was disrespectful of me to make those jokes to you when I don't really know you. I did not intend to make you feel disrespected or attacked".
If Garrison decides to make this kind of apology, the one thing I'd be wary of is saying something like "we don't mean anything by it" without explaining how that could be. (If someone told me "I'm sorry I called you stupid in front of your coworkers, I didn't mean anything by it!" that would strike me as disingenuous or hollow, unless there truly was some context that made it make sense. That context would need to be acknowledged and laid out for me to evaluate.)
So something like "we don't mean anything by it, because [these are our feelings about gender and power that make it seem friendly to us instead of an attack]. I made those jokes assuming that you had similar feelings about [gender and power], but I should not have just made assumptions without getting to know you first."
posted by trig at 1:13 AM on February 14, 2019 [2 favorites]
If Garrison decides to make this kind of apology, the one thing I'd be wary of is saying something like "we don't mean anything by it" without explaining how that could be. (If someone told me "I'm sorry I called you stupid in front of your coworkers, I didn't mean anything by it!" that would strike me as disingenuous or hollow, unless there truly was some context that made it make sense. That context would need to be acknowledged and laid out for me to evaluate.)
So something like "we don't mean anything by it, because [these are our feelings about gender and power that make it seem friendly to us instead of an attack]. I made those jokes assuming that you had similar feelings about [gender and power], but I should not have just made assumptions without getting to know you first."
posted by trig at 1:13 AM on February 14, 2019 [2 favorites]
Joe was very upset and kept repeating that Garrison "knows what he did". Eventually it emerged that, I think at dinner, Joe thought Garrison was joking about Joe being feminine and/or wearing women's clothing. I think. He wouldn't just talk to me about it; he ranted a lot about how Garrison knew what he did.
Before I say this, I am not disagreeing with Frowner. Frowner is correct about getting a higher-up to handle it, and about the potential for racism and classism inherent to situations like this.
That said, if I were in a group, and someone else was around who was so offended by ideas around gender nonconformity and queerness that they threatened someone with bodily harm, I would get out of there for my own safety. I have had to do this more than once in the past and I anticipate having to do it again in the future.
Also "he knows what he did" and "you wouldn't understand because you're a woman" are huge, huge red flags. This is not cool.
This should go to a higher-up, but that person also needs to address Joe's issues around gender and homophobia.
posted by bile and syntax at 9:37 AM on February 14, 2019 [4 favorites]
Before I say this, I am not disagreeing with Frowner. Frowner is correct about getting a higher-up to handle it, and about the potential for racism and classism inherent to situations like this.
That said, if I were in a group, and someone else was around who was so offended by ideas around gender nonconformity and queerness that they threatened someone with bodily harm, I would get out of there for my own safety. I have had to do this more than once in the past and I anticipate having to do it again in the future.
Also "he knows what he did" and "you wouldn't understand because you're a woman" are huge, huge red flags. This is not cool.
This should go to a higher-up, but that person also needs to address Joe's issues around gender and homophobia.
posted by bile and syntax at 9:37 AM on February 14, 2019 [4 favorites]
It's hard to speak with confidence in this sort of strangers-on-the-internet setting, and I'm obviously only offering one hypothesis among many, but this is consistent with previous situations I've seen where two cultures mis-match precisely so that the right thing to do in one culture is exactly the wrong thing to do in another. It's hard to fix, because it impedes the acquisition of the sort of cultural competence that would let people avoid it.
But there are absolutely places where casually questioning a stranger's masculinity under the guise of friendly banter is a standard and conscious tactic used by bullies to identify new victims, where the socially accepted and expected response is to "stand up for yourself," physically if necessary, and where "taking it" is an invitation for others to join in and even do worse.
In such a setting, it really would be hard to believe that an adult could not know the implications of his words, if only because if he habitually made such comments he would have gotten into lots and lots of fights by now.
This is also consistent with the comments that you, as a woman, wouldn't understand. I have less knowledge of this, but my understanding is that in these places social interaction is highly gendered. The rules for men and women do differ enough that a woman might not be trusted to interpret an interaction between men. For example, I have the vague impression that it's much less dangerous for a woman to be considered manly than a man to be considered womanish.
It's hard for people to cross this sort of cultural divide. I've had one job where I had to do it going the other way, and mostly failed. I was lucky that almost none of my coworkers where the sort of bully that would take advantage of me, and that a few kind, well-respected people took me under their wing to explain even as much as I learned. So the consequences were mostly limited to being frozen out socially and getting well more than my share of the scutwork.
I was also surprised by how deeply the culture there impressed itself on me. Years later, in a different job, someone complained about how slowly I was filling a bucket by describing me as "making love" to the bucket. I barely stopped myself from turning around and dumping the bucket on him, and for hours afterward I replayed the scene in my head second-guessing whether I should have done it. I knew that in this setting, it would not have been appropriate, that in this setting I wasn't even being threatened, but it was still hard to convince my amygdala.
Anyway, I don't want to argue that this sort of cultural background (and to be clear, that's not an euphemism for race) makes it okay for Joe (I don't even know if he comes from such as place) to behave as he did in your space. I support your decision to categorically prohibit beatings at your gatherings. I only want to offer an alternative to the hypothesis that Joe is some sort of regressive, dangerous person who offers violence unprovoked. Sometimes bad things happen without anyone being individually a bad person.
posted by meaty shoe puppet at 8:46 AM on February 15, 2019 [6 favorites]
But there are absolutely places where casually questioning a stranger's masculinity under the guise of friendly banter is a standard and conscious tactic used by bullies to identify new victims, where the socially accepted and expected response is to "stand up for yourself," physically if necessary, and where "taking it" is an invitation for others to join in and even do worse.
In such a setting, it really would be hard to believe that an adult could not know the implications of his words, if only because if he habitually made such comments he would have gotten into lots and lots of fights by now.
This is also consistent with the comments that you, as a woman, wouldn't understand. I have less knowledge of this, but my understanding is that in these places social interaction is highly gendered. The rules for men and women do differ enough that a woman might not be trusted to interpret an interaction between men. For example, I have the vague impression that it's much less dangerous for a woman to be considered manly than a man to be considered womanish.
It's hard for people to cross this sort of cultural divide. I've had one job where I had to do it going the other way, and mostly failed. I was lucky that almost none of my coworkers where the sort of bully that would take advantage of me, and that a few kind, well-respected people took me under their wing to explain even as much as I learned. So the consequences were mostly limited to being frozen out socially and getting well more than my share of the scutwork.
I was also surprised by how deeply the culture there impressed itself on me. Years later, in a different job, someone complained about how slowly I was filling a bucket by describing me as "making love" to the bucket. I barely stopped myself from turning around and dumping the bucket on him, and for hours afterward I replayed the scene in my head second-guessing whether I should have done it. I knew that in this setting, it would not have been appropriate, that in this setting I wasn't even being threatened, but it was still hard to convince my amygdala.
Anyway, I don't want to argue that this sort of cultural background (and to be clear, that's not an euphemism for race) makes it okay for Joe (I don't even know if he comes from such as place) to behave as he did in your space. I support your decision to categorically prohibit beatings at your gatherings. I only want to offer an alternative to the hypothesis that Joe is some sort of regressive, dangerous person who offers violence unprovoked. Sometimes bad things happen without anyone being individually a bad person.
posted by meaty shoe puppet at 8:46 AM on February 15, 2019 [6 favorites]
But there are absolutely places where casually questioning a stranger's masculinity under the guise of friendly banter is a standard and conscious tactic used by bullies to identify new victims, where the socially accepted and expected response is to "stand up for yourself," physically if necessary, and where "taking it" is an invitation for others to join in and even do worse.
This is exactly it! This exactly expresses what I could not! This is what I have seen! This is what happened with the ex-military guy I mentioned upthread! He was absolutely coming from a place of "survival means talking big and tough so people don't fuck with you" and the other people in the group were coming from a place of "people only talk big and tough when they are dangerous people who plan to hurt or scare you".
It may or may not be what's going on with Joe, but it happens a lot in spaces where people want to be cross-cultural, cross-class and cross-race. The only thing I've seen to work is some really, really frank speaking about what people said and what they meant, and not always even then.
posted by Frowner at 9:16 AM on February 15, 2019 [6 favorites]
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by nosila at 5:38 AM on February 12, 2019 [23 favorites]