[MR] Personal Responsibility & Sexual Harrassment (Re: Society Notice)

[Sandi Rust]

Greetings good gentles and civil company.
   
  I have been in the SCA for almost two decades, granted not always a paying member, but we have always been of the attitude that one doesn't have to "pay" to "play". I, too, have seen the "sexual harassment card" played all too often; mostly by people who had nothing to do with the situation. Allow me to show example: Lord A is a genial type person, huggy, flirty, but would not even consider doing something "untoward" to anyone - especially a lady. Lady C is a shy, delicate, person who was raised in a non-huggy atmosphere. Lord A sees her and does some flirting, she smiles while inside she is shivering, he hugs her in parting, she smiles and says nothing. Then she goes to someone and complains that this gentle "touched her" without her permission. Now Lord A is marked for "molestation". He didn't receive any warning, it was "BAM!"  another example: A Bardic circle, Lord P is singing a slightly bawdy song (no children around, it is late), after a shower Lady R is walking
 back to her cabin and happens to walk by said bardic and is shocked out of her wits at what she's heard (an adult double-entente). She goes to the Autocrat (poor person) and complains that Lord P is doing "something inappropriate" where children could see/hear. Lord P is asked to leave the event. Here is another: Lady E and Lord T are having a conversation. They are just talking about a certain groups' peerage and how is is amazing that they don't strive to work hard now that they have gotten their peerages. Lord F is walking by and hears "peers don't work hard", and he, being a peer, takes it upon himself to correct these two gentles of their "oversight", that indeed peers *DO* work hard. Mush to the shock of the gentles in the conversation. 
   
  In two of these cases, the one offended didn't talk to the gentle that "offended" her and did not tell of their uncomfortableness. 
   
  Much grief could have been spared should the Lady merely mentioned that no, she was uncomfortable with hugs, or the person she talked to went to the gentle in question and asked for his side of the story or asked the lady what *exactly* did he do, right then and there.  To most of us in the SCA "No" means "No". If one is intimidated by the "outward visage" of a person (ie, pointy hats, large size), then talk to someone you can talk to and don't embellish, embellishing to "get even" with a gentle isn't cool and in the end, will only make the embellish-er look bad.
   
  The Lady walking by the Bardic IMHO should not have said anything. She should have just realized that everyone at that bardic was there voluntarily and "IF"  there were children there asked politely if the children's parents were there. IF they were, not her monkey. Parents have the right to raise their children. IF they weren't, then talk to the person singing the song and ask if such is appropriate to those underage. IF the performer asks "Where?", she might have been surprised to know that the "children" were in fact much older than they looked.
  but I digress...  
  If one is so inclined to note, the more "straight-laced" personages usually don't show up to a bardic circle. they know what is going to be sung and choose not to be there and be offended, or come earlier in the bardic where the songs are not so bawdy. Or I can put it in the allergic standpoint: I'm allergic to tobacco smoke: so, when I go to places designated for smokers, I do so at my own risk - I know there will be those smoking there. If there is someone who is just smoking besides me and not in a designated area, I will comment.
   
  This treads in nicely to what else I would suggest..  If the words or acts aren't directed at you and the person does not appear to be under attack and handling his/herself, and it offends you - walk away. I remember  a war when a couple groups of warriors played "capture the bride", ALL parties involved were in on it. There might have been some personages offended, but no one was hurt and the ones doing the "game" were able to throw the newlyweds a grand party.
   
  Also as a word of note: travel in at least a pair, walking alone makes one a target no matter where you are.
   
  In a "game" with over 100,000 "players", SOMEONE will manage to offend SOMEONE.
   
   
  On the thread of background checks: 
   
   Make it part of the warranting procedure. WARRANTED Chancellors of minors and WARRANTED Youth Combat and Page's Academy Coordinators should IMHO have a background check. But, also PARENTS: remember that Children's Corners are NOT DAYCARES! Neither are CHILDREN'S ACTIVITIES. I feel that a good portion of parents have become "spoiled" on the fact that a good portion of SCAdians *ARE*  good people, but the predator finds groups such as ours and exploits our trusting nature... and our children. Granted the rule of "2 adults and one 'at least 16 y/o assistant'" is a viable one; as is signing the children in and knowing exactly WHO is allowed to "pick up" the (older) child. Personally, I would like to see a "responsible person" actually WITH the child at children's activities. 1. It shows interest in the activity, and 2. Shows interest in the child. Children like instant gratification for their work. having someone there to help them work on a project or tell them what a good
 job, brightens a child's day.
   
  IOW... PARENTS NEED TO TAKE AN ACTIVE/PROACTIVE ROLE IN THEIR CHILD'S LIFE!
   
  IMHO, bringing children are like bringing pets to events - If you aren't willing to take care of them, you shouldn't bring them. 
   
  YIS,
  Marie Hélène of the New Forest, GOA
  Minister of Minors for the Canton of Cyddlain Downs
  Deputy Herald- Cyddlain Downs
   

       
---------------------------------
 Get your own web address.
 Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.