Matthew Garrett ([personal profile] mjg59) wrote2012-10-29 05:06 pm
Entry tags:

Ted Ts'o is a rape apologist and why this matters

(This post contains some discussion of rape and sexual assault but does not go into any specifics)

There was a brief controversy at Linux.conf.au back in 2011. The final keynote speaker gave a compelling presentation on online privacy, including some slides containing sexualised imagery. This was against the terms of the conference policies, and resulted in an apology from the conference organisers and the speaker. The situation was unfortunate but well handled, and that should have been the end of it.

Afterwards, there was some pushback on the conference mailing list. Concerns were raised about the policy being overly restrictive and the potential for it to be used to stifle speech that influential groups disagreed with. I don't agree with these arguments, but discussion of why policies have been implemented is completely natural and provides an opportunity for a community to determine what its expected standards are.

And then Ted Ts'o effectively called rape victims liars[1]. At first I assumed that this was just some sort of horrific failure to understand the implications of what he was saying, so I emailed him to check. The reply I got drew a pretty clear distinction between the case of a drunk college student raping another drunk college student in their room and the case of knifepoint rape in a dark park. You know, the difference between accidental rape and rape rape. The difference between the one any of us might have done and the one that only bad people do. Legitimate rape and the "rape" that those feminists talk about. The distinction that lets rapists convince themselves that they didn't really rape anyone because they weren't holding a knife at the time.

Ted Ts'o argues that only a small percentage of rape really counts as what people think of as rape. Ted Ts'o is a rape apologist.

There's an ongoing scandal in the UK at the moment. A well known DJ, Jimmy Savile, died last year. He grew up in a working class family, but through hard work and natural talent was one of the most significant figures in promoting pop music in the UK in the 50s and 60s, and worked in various parts of the BBC for the best part of 30 years. He spent significant amounts of time raising money for charity, and it's estimated that he raised over £40 million for various causes. Since his death, around 300 people have accused him of sexually abusing them. The BBC is desperately trying to explain why it cancelled an expose shortly before it aired. Multiple people who worked there at the time claim that everyone knew he was involved in indecent activities, but saying anything would risk both their career and the charities that depended on his fundraising. Nobody said anything, and he was allegedly free to continue his abuse.

Ted Ts'o is a significant figure in the Linux kernel community. He has expressed abhorrent beliefs that damage that community. Condemnation was limited to a mailing list with limited readership, meaning, effectively, that nobody said anything. Last week the Ada Initiative published a blog post pointing out the damage that did, and I realised that my effective silence was not only helping to alienate 50% of the population from involving themselves with Linux, it was also implicitly supporting my community leadership. I was giving the impression that I was basically fine with our community leaders telling people that it wasn't really rape if you were both drunk enough. I was increasing the chances of members of our community being sexually assaulted. Silence is endorsement. Saying nothing is not ok.

In the absence of an apology and explanation from Ted, I'll be interacting with him to the bare minimum that I'm compelled to as a result of my job. I won't be attending any Linux Foundation events he's involved in organising. If I'm running any events, I won't be inviting him. At a time when we're finally making progress in making our community more open and supportive, we don't need leaders who undermine that work. Support organisations who encourage that progress, not the people who help drag us back.

Footnotes

[1]The original archive has vanished. I've put up a copy of the relevant thread here. Throughout, Ted states that he's actually arguing against the idea that women need to be frightened of sexual assault, and not against the definition of rape. Except saying things like This one does a pretty good job of taking apart the Koss / Ms. Magazine study, which is the source for the "1 in 4" number. For example, it points out that over half of those cases were ones where undergraduates were plied with alcohol, and did not otherwise involve using physical force or other forms of coercion is difficult to read in any way other than "Half of the people you're counting as having been raped haven't really been raped", and favourably referring to an article that asserts that the rate of false rape reports is probably close to 50% is pretty strong support for the idea that many rape victims are liars.

(Update 2012/10/30: Adam Williamson suggests in this comment that this mail is a better example of Ted's behaviour - there's some explicit victim blaming and a lot of "Is that rape" questioning with the obvious implication that the answer should be "no". Ted Ts'o is a victim blaming rape apologist.)

(Update 2012/11/05: It's been suggested that I haven't been sufficiently clear about which of Ted's statements justify my claims. So, here we go.

In this mail, Ted links to and endorses this article. He explicitly links to it because of its treatment of rape statistics. Quoting directly from that article:
the rate of false reports is at least 9 percent and probably closer to 50 percent
Ted explicitly endorses an article that claims that a significant percentage of reported rapes are false. The study that generated that figure is held in poor regard by other researchers in the field - Australian police figures indicate that 2.1% of rape accusations were classified as false. Ted asserts that he was trying to argue against poor use of statistics, so it's a fair assumption that he agrees with the alternative statistics that he's citing. Ted believes that many rape victims are making false accusations. Ted believes that many rape victims are liars.

Again in this mail, Ted argues against a claimed figure that 1 in 4 women have been sexually assaulted. One of his arguments is that Also found in the Koss study, although not widely reported, was the statistic that of the women whom she classified as being raped (although 73% refused to self-classify the event as rape), 46% of them had subsequent sex with the reported assailant. Ted disagrees with a statistic because some rape victims subsequently have sex with the reported assailant. This means that Ted believes that this indicates that they were not really raped. Ted is a rape apologist.)

Re: Worst piece of libel on Planet Gnome ever

(Anonymous) 2012-10-31 11:07 am (UTC)(link)
I have half a mind to go into how vague that question is for the purpose of extrapolating a rape scenario, but I know better now than to explore such issues. Even as Anonymous I wouldn't want the kind of irrational backlash Ts'o got. So consider me converted; All crimes are equal and everything is rape.

Re: Worst piece of libel on Planet Gnome ever

(Anonymous) 2012-10-31 03:51 pm (UTC)(link)
I think there are problems with it, and that's what one of the studies Ted cites were looking into, which I think it did in a good way. If you read it you'll note there's no silly hypotheticals and no extrapolating to infinity. It's Ted who got irrational with it; he extrapolated from 'there may be issues with the question's wording' to 'rape studies are a feminist trick to demonize men and there's no problem with rape, just drunk college kids having sex'. That's going way too far. I didn't ask you whether you thought there were problems with the wording, but whether you think the question is so bad that all you can glean from it is whether a person answering it maybe had sex when they were drunk once. Actually the gender reversal on that question is an interesting notion, because I think it rather makes clear that even though you _can_ take issue with the question, it's clearly telling us more than 'did you have sex when you were drunk?'.

Re: Worst piece of libel on Planet Gnome ever

(Anonymous) 2012-10-31 06:37 pm (UTC)(link)
As for why I didn't answer your question, it's because your question is moot. However, feel free to reference the colloquial terms "coyote morning" and "beer goggles" and consider which gender social order you think they originated in.

It's this witch hunt that is irrational. I understand that a certain subset of the gnome organization has been pushing against disenfranchisement of women in IT. For what it's worth I think that is a noble cause, and when an industry is 90% male causing the to have to push against an inherent frathouse mentality I agree they will have to be vocal. You cross the line when you engage in a politically motivated character assassination attempt against an individual. Matt's post made serious allegations against Ts'o based on very little evidence for the purpose of making an example out of him. The mere allegation of rape endorsement can affect his job and personal relationships. Yet, if I combine each assertion that you and matt have made together I can come up with one verifiable allegation.

Let's look at them:

1) Ts'o "called rape victims liars".
2) He believes the "case of a drunk college student raping another drunk college student in their room" is not rape.
3) "Ted Ts'o argues that only a small percentage of rape really counts".
4) "Ted Ts'o is a rape apologist".
5) You can equate Ts'o's to Jimmy Savile's.
6) "He has expressed abhorrent beliefs that damage that community".
7) "Ted attempted to argue that there was less rape than there actually is"
8) "That whole post [...] in its full, well, glory - is _classic_ rape denial.
9) Ts'o was "making excuses for rape_".
10) his comments were "destructive, offensive to the women involved, incorrect, inappropriate, and definitely constituted 'rape apology'"
11) "Ted clearly states that he believes people who are raped bear 'at least some responsibility' for being raped."

Wow look, you have supported NONE of these allegations with anything even resembling a fact. Your interpretations have been challenged almost overwhelmingly. Furthermore, the more I read about this "study" proclaiming 1 in 4 women have been raped, the more obvious it becomes that the majority of Ts'o's statements that you and matt based your accusations on are factually correct.

This entire subject has taken way more of my time than I should ever have given it, except that I felt compelled to defend someone from obvious hyperbole and misrepresentation by you people who think you're doing us a great service but whom are actually doing the community great harm. That is why this post was pulled off of Planet Gnome, and if I was the Planet Gnome maintainer I would remove matt's feed completely for abusing it.

I won't be back to read your response.

Re: Worst piece of libel on Planet Gnome ever

(Anonymous) 2012-10-31 08:45 pm (UTC)(link)
"As for why I didn't answer your question, it's because your question is moot. However, feel free to reference the colloquial terms "coyote morning" and "beer goggles" and consider which gender social order you think they originated in."

note the question is clear about the other party in the sexual transaction providing the alcohol/drugs. That does not accord with those terms.

I'm not speaking for all of Matt's arguments or accusations. Matt can do that. I believe I have supported all of mine sufficiently and am happy to leave this entire conversation on the record for others to look at. I do not believe it is true that "the majority of Ts'o's statements that you and matt based your accusations on are factually correct" at all. I have based my accusations not on Ted's statements directly relating to the surveys he initially posted about, but his separate pontifications on what is 'really' rape and who is to blame for it, which are not supported even by the methodological challenges to specific surveys which he originally cited. They're just Ted pontificating.