Tuesday, January 21, 2014

SHELLEY DEVINE'S $38,544.81 PROMOTION PART II

Originally published 1/21/2014


The Banality of Systemic Evil - NY Times:
 "In “Eichmann in Jerusalem,” one of the most poignant and important works of 20th-century philosophy, Hannah Arendt made an observation about what she called “the banality of evil.” One interpretation of this holds that it was not an observation about what a regular guy Adolf Eichmann seemed to be, but rather a statement about what happens when people play their “proper” roles within a system, following prescribed conduct with respect to that system, while remaining blind to the moral consequences of what the system was doing — or at least compartmentalizing and ignoring those consequences."

This posting and the one before are about the recent promotions of two employees with well documented histories of abusing their positions of authority against subordinates. 


These are some of the responses Interim General Counsel Shelley Devine, wrote to BOLI (Bureau of Labor and Industries) on behalf of Trimet in defense of a complaint I filed. They are discrepancies, conflictual with Trimet's own policies and other documentation from other events she was aware of as well. Fabrications intended to deceive the BOLI civil rights process. Ethics violations! I took a break from writing these last postings as they were/are the most difficult, I didn't want to re-live them again. But the truth is Trimet is still retaliating against me and it's continuing to affect my livelihood. Each time I'm mandated into a meeting, they're still not telling me what I've been accused of, my time slips continue to be thrown away and reprimands and warnings get attached to my personnel files. When I saw the promotions I knew it was time to tell the rest of the story so I could move on with my life and let the legal system do it's thing.


Some of it's old. Some of it's new. But it is what it is...


In one of my earlier posts I talked about how Trimet Executives literally create 'teams' of employees from different levels within the company to retaliate against a subordinate.  It's a GROUP effort. Through THIS you'll see the names of 9 Executives and a Garage Manager who actually went about exchanging ideas through e-mail and conferences on how best to"avenge" me for whatever they believe I'm deserving of.  Trimet, a world filled with secrets, personalities and retaliation. 


IF YOU'RE A SUPERVISOR, MANAGER OR EXECUTIVE WHO'S WILLING TO USE THE POWER OF YOUR POSITION TO BULLY AND LIE ABOUT SUBORDINATES, THE CHANCES OF YOUR BEING PROMOTED ARE FAR FAR GREATER THEN IF YOU ARRIVED WITH JUST "QUALIFICATIONS AND INTEGRITY."


PROMOTED 
(interim) 


BEFORE
date unknown


AFTER
Image from 
November, 2013 

SHELLEY DEVINE
was
DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL SENIOR
$139,290.00 (3.22% secret merit raise.) per 2012 W2

REPLACED:

JANA TORAN
Devine's predecessor.
$175,663.00 (8.35% secret merit raise. ) per 2012 W2.

Assumably, Devine will be making the same as Toran, (IF SHE ISN'T ALREADY), when and if "interim"becomes permanent.  
If so, that means a 

$38,544.81 
raise.



Shelley Devine, Intérim General Counsel


WHAT SHE WANTS YOU TO BELIEVE ABOUT HER:



Apparently she represents Trimet. 

"...to effect positive change in people's lives."




1.) BE IMPECCABLE WITH YOUR WORD
Speak with integrity

3.) DON'T MAKE ASSUMPTIONS
Find the courage to ask questions...

4.) ALWAYS DO YOUR BEST

WHAT SHE DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW ABOUT HER:

Screen shots of documents Devine wrote:

From page two of her summation to the BOLI Investigator:

Click image for zoom


The truth, I filed a BOLI against Trimet and Peggy Callahan, etc  because they didn't investigate my complaints against Blogger Al or his complaints against me.  As a result I received reprimands in spite of the fact that Callahan refused to tell me what I was accused of, then Devine came along and protected another Operator from him,  but not me then retaliated against me for filling to BOLI by lying to the Investigator. 



Re: Yellow screen shot above - "Unnamed" employee (Monica)  the same person Evelyn Warren referred to in e-mails below:  

The lawyer Devine heard the dispatcher call her "Monica" in the call.  She knew it when she discussed giving Al a 'warning' with Robert Romo. She knew it on February 10, 2011 when I complained about differential treatment to Carol Jolly. She knew about it when I complained to Shelly Lomax, Hayden Talbot,  Neil McFarlane et al on November 13, 2011.  She knew her name when she wrote BOLI Investigator Valverde on December 30, 2011, but instead chose to play dumb.  It's not like Monica went to HR with a bag over her head refusing to show her ID.

When managers, executives within the Agency become aware of Bullying behavior in the work environment but refuse to intervene or choose to act out against the target as well, like Callahan, Warren and Devine, they're all guilty of doing the same. These aren't children bullying children. They're all highly paid adults!




There was a conversation between a few Operators regarding Al making negative comments about some of the dispatch tapes so I contacted Evelyn Warren suggesting they ask him to start 'distorting' voices. The e-mails above was her response. 

Looking back, I now realize IT WAS SHELLEY DEVINE ALL ALONG WHO ULTIMATELY MADE THE DECISION THAT MONICA WOULD BE PROTECTED FROM AL AND I WOULDN'T. For Monica, Devine OVERRODE his Freedom of Speech, free airway by enforcing in-house policies which meant giving him a 'Warning' for publishing the tape. BUT for me she OVERRODE those same policies thereby protecting his Freedom of Speech.  In essence, it was Devine herself who violated Respectful Workplace and IT by refusing to enforce them.



Although the call is  difficult to listen to, Margulies didn't change the integrity of the recording by adding or removing or making comments about her. He simply posted it as is so the public could get an idea about what ACTUALLY happens on the buses and rightfully so. He didn't publish her name or images of her which he had easy access to. He didn't call her a "whack job", or a "Paranoid Schizophrenic", or "that woman with obvious mental problems". He didn't create a hostile bullying workplace for her. His friends weren't calling her names in the comments section of his or other Blogs around town. He wasn't trying to get her blackballed from her Union by soliciting signatures from co-workers during working hours on company property or like Chris Day did by sending out hate e-mails about her to the entire Black Caucus membership. He didn't use brainwashing or propaganda or other techniques to persuade co-workers, managers and others to take sides against Monica or ostracize her from the social workplace community. But what he did get was a 'Warning' for doing something perfectly legal and she got protection for complaining about something that shouldn't have been an issue in the first place.  Then Devine tried to cover up the differential  treatment between Monica and myself so she acts dumb and tells BOLI that Monica is "unnamed" so therefore must not exist.   


DEVINE

THIS IS WHAT MCFARLANE WANTS AS A REMEMBRANCE OF HIS LEGACY!

Then to add insult to injury I see THIS:



Last sentence:  (from Robert Romo, Ass't Mgr, Merlo) 

Romo: "Although dispatch radio communications is an open airway, the effect your posting had on your co-worker outweighs any reason why someone would want to post that event for the world to hear. As soon as management was aware of the posting I asked you to take it down. You did as asked, however, the damage was done and the coworker was offended, embarrassed, and distraught upon reporting to work, just before having to operator a bus."

Didn't ya think I was 'damaged' too because of the continuum of postings about me over the years?!! Didn't ya think I was "offended, embarrassed, and distraught" too "just before having to Operate a Bus?"  Didn't ya think I had feelings too or did ya just think that Monica's were more important?  Damage was done to me too but no one ever asked how I was faring through it.  What do you think it was like for me having to Operate a Bus with our customers recognizing me from Al's Blog and being in fear that one of them would act out. My picture was associated with name-calling and hatred. They knew what I looked like, then Lane Jensen posted my work schedule on BOTH blogs which made my operating a bus more then a safety issue. I don't have the same safe guards as my co-workers when driving or Trimet would've done something just as significant for me as they did for Monica and one of the trainers. You knowingly allowed Jensen, a customer,  access to your computers for the duration of my signup so I could be found no matter what route I drove and did nothing to stop him. Then you have him arrested for a felony of all things for texting your Spokeswoman on her 'on call' phone. It doesn't make sense.  You help Monica for a 'free air' tape but won't help me for the extreme Respectful Workplace IT violations.  Everything in Trimet land is la la, all askew from reality. It's like you're helping people you like, fucking those you don't and,  good gawd, where in the hell does 'professionalism' fit in?  



Monica and I were both published on his blog.  She complained to HR and the tape was immediately removed, as a result he received a 'warning'.  I complained to HR for a much longer period of time (2009 to 2011) about way more serious policy violations but ya all refused to help me through the same policies with the same concerns and as expeditiously as you did for her. Trimet ignored my pleas for help but used my concerns instead as a tool to beat me up. 




*********


Screen shot from page two of Devine's summation to BOLI:
HOW ABOUT THIS? IS THIS FACTUAL ENOUGH FOR YOU???!!



I forwarded these from my trinet (work) account to home.  




...and again
click images for zoom





I followed Peggy's instructions to try and stop the policy violations by reporting to my Assistant Manager every two to three weeks. 

At one point she told me, "HR isn't going to help you." Then she started sending 'prayers' to my company e-mail.  There were other issues at that time as well. Hayden Talbot and Mickey Young exposed my FMLA diagnosis to co-workers and Chris Day / John Olsen (neither of whom I've ever had a conversation with) kept writing me up and HR wouldn't investigate. I wanted to be treated equally, professionally. I wanted them to enforce their policies - NOT send me prayers! HR knew about it because Carol Jolly, an investigator told me Trimet IT has access to in-house e-mail and monitors it regularly.  Plus Boli paperwork reveals Peggy Callahan investigated and Devine signed. I wouldn't sign my name to a legal document I knew wasn't true.


When I asked for policy enforcement I was told to pray. 




Prayers and religion are very much a part of Trimet's managerial and executive culture. But at the same time, their hiring practices are amongst the best in the country in terms of diversity. Once you get in it's a whole different thing. Those of us who are not Christians are treated like we're not Christians. Like we're going to hell. There's an underlying expectation. It becomes an issue! Hayden Talbot, former Director of Transportation was a born again Christian and he held prayer meetings in his office. He used his religion to manage and judge subordinates. He hand picked Managers and Assistant Managers who believe as he. There's a very conservative religious right wing influence running Trimet. Very strong homophobic faction to this day! 


And then, you have Neil McFarlane giving speeches at Basic Rights Oregon.




 Neil McFarlane: Pour another cup:


"One rider asked if TriMet offers cultural competency training to its employees. I was pleased to report a new development: I have set aside funding for the next fiscal year to give a pivotal group of over 100 of our frontline employees – the ones with the most contact with customers and operators – training that will strengthen their understanding of the diverse communities they serve each day..."


SERIOUSLY!!!  


The dysfunction within TM is overwhelming. The right hand doesn't know what the left hand's doing.  I'm not against religion it's just that I don't believe in Church and State.  I don't want anyone trying to sell theirs to me and I don't want it used against me.  This Agency needs to be run more professionally. We should be celebrating the diversity of our community of employees and customers instead of secretly practicing and preaching hatred against them by giving in-house homophobic religious and political groups the power to exist.

I wear a blue shirt. We are generic - we are one.  It became miserable for me. One of my friends told me that Ruth used her position against her to discriminate time loss because Ruth's religion didn't believe in abortion. The abortion didn't have anything to do with my friends time-loss, it just came up in conversation but she nevertheless used it against her because she didn't like her views on the subject. 

Evelyn Warren, another from Talbott's group told My Union Rep and I the same thing in a grievance hearing. "HR isn't going to help you." She said because my reprimands came from HR the grievance process won't work.  So, somehow HR has decided they're EXEMPT from the Union Contract?!!  


From Devine's BOLI Summation:


Click images for zoom

"DOES NOT TOLERATE DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT, OR RETALIATION IN ANY FORM."

From 1948 Greyhound ad


WANNA BET?!!!  JUST THIS LAST YEAR: 

1.) THREE of my time slips (pay time) for mandated meetings were DESTROYED and in their place I was given time-loss.  One was paid as the result of filing a grievance, the other two are still awaiting the grievance process.  The last one, a grievance filed for receiving a 'warning' for honking has yet to go to the pre-filing conference.  When other pre-filings get heard within a week or two, this one's been waiting over two months. 

2.) I was beaten up in meetings so badly that my disability kicked in and I was UNSAFE to Operate a Bus by Trimet's own 'fitness for duty' standards (SOP 584). But, Trimet Management expected me to drive. They refused to accommodate my disability. They threatened, drive or suffer time-loss.  This came from Warren.

3.) I was literally BLINDSIDED by an outside lawyer Trimet hired to investigate this Blog as an attempt to SILENCE ME from exposing them about such things as is being written here right now.  I was cleared. The internet is the internet. I don't need to ask anyone's permission to capture their image and publish it. The lawyer charged tax payers $5, 276.25 in fees.  

4.) I was charged with INSUBORDINATION after saving a guy's life who suddenly appeared within a foot or two of my Bus.  Management refused to tell me why and the only way I could find out was through Public Record Documents.  Trimet Center Street Management refused to let me see the Supervisors and Investigators reports.  Ass't Manager Mark Poulson tried to keep me from seeing his. They retaliated through the accusation then refused to tell me why I was charged.  The event was March 3rd. Poulson's investigation cleared April 4th. On July 7th my Union Rep and I asked Evelyn Warren in a grievance hearing if she knew why I was charged and she said, "no".  She said, "NO HARM DONE". It wasn't until November 21st that I found through Public Record Documents that I had been cleared.  From March 3rd to November 21st.  8 1/2 months later.  

5.) Management mandated me into meetings, THREE TIMES without telling me why. Because of that, I loose the ability to defend myself because I don't know what I've been accused of, so I can't collect witness cards even after the fact.  In the red light/horn honking meeting Montoya refused to show us the data pack for the red light one.  Then admitted I didn't run one. Then accused  me of HONKING the horn inappropriately, then hands me the Oregon State Statutes for Horn Use.  At some point later that afternoon she went into the Station Agents area, got ahold of the 2 1/2 hour time-slip and threw it away. (which put me time-loss) then she gave me a 'WARNING FOR USING THE HORN I have to keep calling the Time-keeper to verify if I've been paid. No one else is treated like this. RETALIATION!

6.) I complained to:

Evelyn Warren
Center Street Garage Manager
$82,141.71, per 2012 W2


... that her new Assistant Manager Montoya was creating a Bullying hostile work environment for me by mandating me to meetings, refusing to tell me what I was accused of, destroying my time slips (pay), giving me behavioral 'Warnings' and HR violations without investigating, lying in a grievance determination, and being physically and emotionally intimidating.  It was like she came out with both gloves on swinging. I asked Evelyn for permission to see another Ass't if needed but she refused to respond.  If a subordinate tells a Manager the ass't manager is Bullying and harassing them, then the Manager has to take action or she's participating. Warren was part of the problem. Very little if anything is allowed to go on with her Management team without her input.  

Hostile work environments are serious legal actions these days. Trimet doesn't care and I think that's because the Federal Government takes care of their legal fees and the tax payers pay damages.  The employee being sued has no personal liability UNLESS you are caught purposely lying.  Then you can go after their pensions, savings, homes.  


THEN THERE'S THIS:


click images for zoom...

A customer complaint.  This one in particular is from Lane Jensen. I have 8 complaints in my file just from him and his friends. I didn't receive them until I asked for a full accounting (erc file) and follow up info for the last year. Liza Mitzel and Mark Poulson, both Assistant Managers at two different times, assured me the complains would be THROWN OUT. They weren't!  They typically stay in our employee file for 18 months, BUT now that I find the Lawyer Devine was involved,  they'll remain forever after in legal. Probably filed under 'Enemy of the State'! 

WHAT IS DEVINE DOING IN MY SIP FILE AND WHY?


After Carol Jolly refused to investigate my claims of Respectful Workplace against Al Margulies and Chris Day I wrote a rebuttal. As you can see from the screen shot below it was also copied onto Neil McFarlane.  He refused to respond.



McFarlane, "Who me?"  


I thought,  perhaps he didn't know anything about internal policies like RESPECTFUL WORKPLACE and how IT outside blogging by co-workers affect it, Bullying / Harassment etc.

NOT TRUE!!!

He actually CHOOSES to look the other way! 

CHECK IT OUT:

OPERATOR'S NEWSLETTER
RESPECTFUL WORKPLACE, 2007


Click image for zoom


List of names under "Whom to contact" for policy violations:
Colleen Sexton, Director of Human resources.
Lucy Shipley, Director of Employee Services
HR Manager, Angela Burns-Brown
or any executive director,
Dave Auxier
Steve Banta
Olivia Clark
Neil McFarlane, 
Brian Playfair
Carolyn Young.  


All of the names listed were active employees in 2009 when the problem with 
Margulies started . They remain at Trimet today with the exception of Banta,  
Plairfair and Young. Three from HR and they didn't intervene?!! I talked with Carolyn Young about it a couple years ago. Trimet communications monitors employee blogs, the first to do it was Josh Collins then Jessica Bucciarelli. 

As a result, 
All the Executive, HR and Managerial factions of the agency are updated at weekly 
meetings. They're all part of the problem because they KNEW it was  going on but did NOTHING to stop it! Wouldn't even acknowledge it. 

The bottom section of the newsletter is as follows: 

Q and A
What should I expect from a respectful workplace?

Section 171of the HR Manual includes a dozen question and answer pairs. 
Here's the first answer:

"Trimet demands a work ethic based on integrity, fairness and personal respect for each employee. Negative slurs, stereotyping, profiling, use of offensive written or graphic materials, or threatening or intimidating, hostile acts on the basis of protected characteristics will not be tolerated. Employees should treat each other respectfully, work professionally with one another, and act professionally their dealings with subordinates, peers and supervisors."




Devine's response to BOLI

I like to show this one (Trimet's response second paragraph) because she didn't do her research, She tried to cover it all up with a bunch 'a baloney. The whole situation with Margulies and his Blog was and remains so horrifying to me that there's no way I'm gonna let them get away with it.  I'm still fighting back. Al is who he is and I finally came to terms with him, but when your employer writes and enforces in-house policies protecting others from similar violations but not you,  you can't let it go.   My career, my safety, my life  is just as valuable as anyone else's.  




ROBOT WOMAN

EDUCATE YOURSELF:

PEGGY CALLAHAN - dba - TRIMET, PART ONE















Wednesday, January 8, 2014

INTERNET HARASSMENT - NPR

Internet Harassment Of Women: When Haters Do More Than Just Hate

Anyone who posts something online runs At the risk of getting negative feedback. But for some female writers, things are taken to an extreme level. Host Michel Martin talks with Amanda Hess, about her article "Why Women Aren't Welcome On The Internet." Writers Bridget Johnson and Mikki Kendall also discuss how they've handled harassments and threats - on and off line.

MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: 
I'm Michel Martin and this is TELL ME MORE from NPR News. Finally today, we want to take a look at the world of Internet media. Now we often hear that the Internet is the brave new world where things like race and gender don't matter. Everybody can be who they want to be and have equal access and equal say. But we also know that there is an ugly side to the Internet, and that's something you may have experienced yourself, particularly if you are a girl or a woman.
That's what we're going to talk about today. Writer Amanda Hess, in a piece in Pacific Standard magazine titled "Why Women Aren't Welcome on the Internet," says that the way women are treated online really is different - that women are subjected to a level of abuse that is in fact more pervasive and more vicious than that directed at men. She says, in short, quote, we have been thinking about Internet harassment all wrong, unquote. And Amanda Hess is with us now from Southern California Public Radio in Pasadena. Amanda Hess, welcome. Thanks so much for joining us.
AMANDA HESS: Thanks for having me.
MARTIN: Also joining the conversation, Bridget Johnson, the Washington, D.C. editor for PJ Media. That's a conservative libertarian news and commentary site. She's one of our regular contributors here in Washington, D.C. Mikki Kendall is also with us, writer and media critic with HoodFeminism.com. She's with us from member station WBEZ in Chicago. Welcome back to you both. Thank you both so much for joining us.
BRIDGET JOHNSON: Great to be here, Michel.
MIKKI KENDALL: Thank you for having me.
MARTIN: Now here's where I think I need to pause and say if you want to know what we're talking about, you need to know what we're talking about. So some of the things that we are going to talk about might be very upsetting, and this is the time that I need to say maybe this is - you might need to make a different choice for the next couple of minutes about how to spend your time. We hope you'll stay with us if you can. So, Amanda Hess, let me start with you. How do you know that this is happening more and more often and more viciously to women? Because I'm sure there are people who will say, well, women are just more sensitive.
HESS: Sure. Well, there hasn't been a huge body of research on this issue, but there have been a few organizations and legal scholars who are beginning to dig into it who have been able to sort of isolate some statistics that show that women are disproportionately affected by online threats and harassment. The Pew Research Center is...
MARTIN: Well, you cite some of that in your piece, for example, in 2006, researchers from the University of Maryland set up a bunch of fake online accounts and then sent them into chat rooms. And you said that accounts with female usernames or feminine usernames incurred an average of 100 sexually explicit or threatening messages a day and the masculine names received 3.7. And that you said that there was another study by the Pew Research Center, which has been tracking the online lives of Americans for more than a decade, that women and men have been logging on in equal numbers since the year 2000, but that the kinds of communications we're talking about are disproportionally lobbed at women. Any idea why?
HESS: Well, I think when you have any group that is traditionally marginalized in life, you're going to see a similar marginalization online because the Internet is really intimately connected to our real lives. So when we talk about women being oversensitive, that's also a complaint that's been applied to women who pursue sexual harassment litigation against their employers.
MARTIN: Well, that's another area we're going to get into. Just talk about your experience if you would - username - you talked about, in your piece, a personal experience you had with this. And I just think this is where you need to explain to people what it is that we're actually talking about. There's a person that goes by the username HeadlessFemalePig, and he did what?
HESS: HeadlessFemalePig set up a Twitter account this summer expressly for the purpose of threatening to rape me and cut off my head. He's just sort of the latest abuser in a long line of mostly anonymous people who have taken to the Internet to make sexual comments against me and threaten my life.
MARTIN: Do you feel that that is in part because of your subject matter? I mean, you often write about racy topics - you know, dating, female sexuality. Your bio website is titled Sex With Amanda Hess. Do you think that those kinds of stories are more likely to bring out people with this kind of, I don't know, desire to harass?
HESS: Yeah. I mean, I think when I speak with other women who talk about women's issues, whether it's, you know, from abortion to dating - by the way, I don't find dating to be a particularly racy topic - there will...
MARTIN: Point taken.
HESS: ...Be people who sort of use gendered harassment to lash out against people who are specifically taking on misogyny or discussing sexuality, frankly.
MARTIN: Well, here's why it's important that we have Bridget Johnson with us because you are a conservative writer for a conservative website, and I wanted to ask if you have had similar experiences.
JOHNSON: I...
MARTIN: And you write about politics.
JOHNSON: Yeah, I get kind of two different types of harassment. The first, you know, since I write about terrorism a lot, I get it from extremists. I actually don't really mind that that much 'cause I feel like it's more of a toe-to-toe battle. It actually does bother me more when you get ones that are, you know, personally harassing, that you know it's somebody with a screw loose.
(CROSSTALK)
MARTIN: But do they say things about your gender? Do they say things that are sort of directed to you as a woman?
JOHNSON: Yeah.
MARTIN: Like what - do you mind if I ask?
JOHNSON: Things about a person's looks, things about, you know, if you write something that has to do with, you know, policy on birth control, etc., you could be branded as slutty very easily. When I was at the Rocky Mountain News, actually my home computer router was hacked. And the hacker made it so that when I started to enter the automatic fields where, you know, your name would drop down, it would be Bridget and then insults after that.
MARTIN: And can I ask you, Bridget Johnson, because, as I said, this is a conservative libertarian sort of news and website - do you think that the people who attack you online in that space, do you think that they are people who don't agree with your politics who are attracted to the site in order to be - harass you? Or are they fellow conservatives who don't agree with you about a particular issue and just become nasty - not just - but become nasty and harassing in expressing whatever?
JOHNSON: I can definitely...
MARTIN: Are they fellow conservatives is what I'm asking you.
JOHNSON: It comes from both sides. You can get, you know, the people who are coming onto the site, you know, just with express purpose of that. But you also have people, I think, who settle into a site and get really comfortable with it. And then if they see either on our site or another site another writer who is insulting somebody, they kind of - they're a follower. They kind of go along with that, and they feel that the Internet has given them this great license to be able to say, behind of the mask of a screen name, what they don't have the guts to say to somebody face-to-face in person.
MARTIN: Mikki Kendall, what about you?
KENDALL: So my experience has been both gendered and racial. I'm going to get called the B-word. I'm going to get called the N-word. I'm often going to be called them together. You get a lot of this - I think we all can all agree that it comes almost regardless of your topic. I had someone troll me - I posted a video yesterday of me and my kids having sort of fun science experiments in the deep frost. And I got a couple of angry trolling comments about throwing boiling water in the air to turn it into snow.
If you can find something controversial in snowed-in science, I don't really know what else to - I can't please you. And I've definitely had - I wrote about abortion. I definitely got a lot of flak and stalking and harassment behind that. But I've also, frankly, gotten from people who were theoretically on my side - you know, men of color, women of color, white women, whatever - who just don't like what I have to say that day. And they want to make sure that I know that they don't think I have a right to say it.
MARTIN: But you were dancing around the truth. In a way, we have to dance around a little bit because some of the kinds of things that have been said that - Amanda, that you write about in your piece and, Mikki, you told us about - are just not things that we would like to say in this space. But, Mikki, can you give us an example of what you're talking about? I mean, people threatening to rape you, that kind of thing. In addition to...
KENDALL: I've actually gotten rape threats. I've gotten death threats. I've gotten...
MARTIN: People threatening your children.
KENDALL: Someone sent me a picture of me and my kids walking across the parking lot of the building we were living in and threatened to come see us. We had to move. I had to actually move a few years ago. And it was horrible. And I've sort of gotten, in the wake of that experience - of an actual stalking - I've sort of gotten this sense of when I have to pay attention to the threats and when the threats are such that I can make fun of them.
MARTIN: If you're just joining us...
KENDALL: And I can block that person.
MARTIN: I understand, Mikki. OK.
KENDALL: Because sometimes there's just no use in trying to talk back and trying to interact with people. I've also gotten very careful about how much of my personal information is actually public. The name I write under is not the name I live under.
MARTIN: And you've had to do that because of - is this harassment that started in the real world and that was reflected online or is this stuff that started online?
KENDALL: No, it definitely - it began online and then spread offline. I had a couple of people even go so far as to do it on Facebook with their actual Facebook - you know, their real names and locations. And they sent me these messages on Facebook. And I suspect they were very confused when the police came a-knocking. But...
MARTIN: Well, let me talk about that because - if you're just joining us, we're talking about the whole question of why so many women writers are targets of Internet harassment. Our guests are Mikki Kendall - that's who was speaking just now - of HoodFeminism.com, Bridget Johnson of PJ Media and Amanda Hess who wrote an article about this for Pacific Standard magazine. Amanda, you draw a distinction - well, there are a couple things I wanted to ask you about - there's a lot to talk about in a short amount of time - is that you say that these - you liken these harassers to the Ku Klux Klan. These are people who are hiding under their hoods or behind usernames whose sole purpose is to intimidate people.
And you also say that, you know, law enforcement is sometimes just technologically ill-equipped to deal with this. But you also say that, you know, there seems to be a kind of a growing consciousness around this, that people are starting to get the idea that cyberstalking is wrong, that cyberbullying is wrong - a lot more stories about this. So what is it that you say that we're thinking about all wrong? How do we need to think about this differently in your opinion?
HESS: I think the main thing is that people need to understand that the Internet is as real as real life. I hesitate to use the term real life to even apply to this space that we are all walking in. And that's something that even as people can sort of understand that they spend really their whole days and their lives online, when it comes to abuse and violence against women and other marginalized communities, they often tell us to laugh it off or say that police resources should be used for crimes that occur, you know, in the meat space, if you will. So that's really the sort of paradigm shift that I think needs to happen in order to make sure that there are resources applied to investigating and prosecuting those crimes.
MARTIN: And why do you think so because there are people who would say really what you need to focus on are physical interactions, that if something happens, it's kind of - just ignore it, laugh at it - ignore it or just don't read the comments or whatever. Why do you feel that this needs to be elevated to the level of, like, a physical threat or something that takes place in your physical space?
HESS: Well, threats of physical violence, whether they are carried out in person or online are already illegal. They - it's a criminal act, but the problem is that there is not a lot of movement to even investigate these crimes. So, for example, when someone this summer threatened to rape and kill me, when I interfaced with the police about it - first of all, they had no idea what Twitter was, which was the platform where the threats came over.
So it was very difficult to even sort of try to convince this person that it was - that this is a space that I use for my professional life, that I use for my personal life and it's a service that I need to use. And the other thing is that because a lot of police don't have a very intimate understanding of the Internet and how it works, there's a tendency to ignore it, to not investigate it. And if they don't investigate it, it really becomes impossible to prove, you know, how direct the threat is, how close this person actually lives to me. The person who threatened me claimed that they lived close to me, but it's difficult to prove without the police looking into it.
MARTIN: Actually looking into it. But...
HESS: And it's also impossible to prove a pattern of harassment, which is also criminal.
MARTIN: Let's hear from the other guests on this as well. So, Bridget, how do you sort out when to engage and when not to engage? And is there a way in which you think you would like us to look at this question?
JOHNSON: Right. I categorize the harassers into two categories. You have the insulters, which I've already talked about, and those are those people who just kind of follow and call people names. Then the second group is people who have made criminal suggestions or threats. The people making rape threats are not just being rude. They have a criminal mentality. The Internet has given people a new way to act out. You know, for example, if somebody was previously into child porn, they'd have to surreptitiously meet somebody to get some photos or a VHS or something.
Now it's very easy for them to act out on that fantasy. So those making rape threats, you can believe that they've thought about wanting to do that. The Internet gives them a new way to virtually violate somebody. And what police need to be concerned about is the escalation. Are these people going to get to the point where the virtual fantasy is just not good enough and they act it out in real life? It might not be with the columnist or blogger that they're harassing, but it could be another woman who is more vulnerable.
MARTIN: It's hard to know, though, because, again, as Amanda pointed out at the beginning, there's so little research on this, it's hard to know what is a sort of a fantasy that acts out. But, I mean, you know, Amanda makes the point, though, that if this affects - the way she says - she describes it, that these messages are an assault on women's careers and their psychological bandwidth and their freedom to engage. It's like if you are censoring yourself because you don't want to invite the harassment, then - but I don't know. I don't know. Mikki Kendall, what do you think about this?
KENDALL: Well, so let's back this up for a second and talk about the fact that just because someone says it online, it doesn't mean they can't find you offline, right? Even if I personally don't use Foursquare or one of the other locator services, if my friend who's with me says on Twitter or anywhere else, hey, I'm at so and so with @Karnythia, and they talk about the restaurant name, then obviously you can find me. I write fiction as well.
Sometimes I do conventions. You can find me at a convention. You can find my name on the websites for those conventions. So I think it's really disingenuous to think that just because it's said online, it can't be taken to offline. We are all relatively easy to find if we're writing in public in the first place.
MARTIN: Do you feel, Mikki Kendall, that there is a - that your male colleagues understand the world that you're in when you talk about these issues? Do you feel that there's kind of a shared understanding of how this...
KENDALL: I think some of them do. I think it depends - you know, I don't think it's gender-based. I think if you are talking about, say, certain categories of black men or trans men or disabled male men in particular, they are also getting some of this harassment. You also see men who try to speak up for women get a lot of this hate and harassment. There are guys who - and I love them for it - will sit on Twitter when they have time and sort of wrangle my mentions to distract the trolls, to distract the threats. And one of the things that you'll see is that they'll then develop their own cadre of haters because somehow the fact that they're defending a woman means that they are worthless as well.
MARTIN: Let me give Amanda the final thought here since you were the person who kind of aggregated all this and put this all together. Is there something - is there one thing you'd like to take away - us to take away from this conversation?
HESS: I think whether or not a threat escalates into an actual physical confrontation, the sheer volume and accumulation of these threats has the effect of intimidating women from using the Internet. And I think, you know, it's a really sad state where some people are saying, well, if you're not literally raped then everything is fine. I think we as a society should have a bit of a higher bar than that for, you know, taking action to make sure that women have equal opportunities in our society.
MARTIN: Amanda Hess is a freelance writer. Her piece "Why Women Aren't Welcome on the Internet" is the cover story of Pacific Standard magazine. She was with us from KPCC in Pasadena. Bridget Johnson is the Washington, D.C. editor for PJ Media, with us in our Washington, D.C. studios once again. Mikki Kendall is a writer and media critic with HoodFeminism.com, with us from NPR member station WBEZ, which is in Chicago. Thank you all so much for joining us.
JOHNSON: Thanks, Michel.
KENDALL: Thank you very much.
HESS: Thank you.