Serial Harasser Fired Because Facebook

Yesterday evening when I came home, I saw on facebook that James Grace, artistic director of famed improv theater iO West, had been fired for sexual harassment.

This is incredible.

Just to give some context, this Buzzfeed article about the firing was posted at 5:30pm, February 19, 2016.

The facebook group in which the new allegations were posted was created on February 11, 2016. The new allegations against Grace were posted in said facebook group on February 19, 2016, at 11:09 AM and 3:33 PM respectively.

By 5:30 PM that same day, Grace was gone.

Holy sh**.

If this doesn't demonstrate the power of social media, I don't know what does. Perhaps I am overstating the cause/effect relationship here, but when the allegations against Grace (what a name, by the way) originally came out in 2007 and then again in January of this year, nothing happened.

I mean, nothing happened.

In the first instance, according to the former intern who accused Grace of harassment, iO West co-founder Charna Halpern brushed off the allegations and offered her free classes. In the second instance, Halpern denied the allegations and that she had any knowledge of them, making some unfortunate comments about sexual harassment and false accusations that are surely the stuff of a public relations nightmare.

In essence, Grace sexually harassed and assaulted an intern at iO West in 2007, then went on as the artistic director for NINE MORE YEARS, harassing and/or assaulting at least two other women in that time frame.

To put it in context, from 2007 (before facebook and other forms of social media became ubiquitous) to today:

9 years
6.5 hours

More context: As sexual harassment in the improv community has come to light, Grace was apparently part of efforts to encourage those affected to come forward and ask for help from the theater.

In fact, he was quoted in the original Buzzfeed article entitled "Standing Up To Sexual Harassment And Assault In L.A.’s Comedy Scene." Here's what he had to say:

[Initiatives taken by iO West to address sexual harassment] were directly inspired by what happened on Facebook, said James Grace, the theater’s artistic and managing director. “You have to make everyone feel safe to create and perform,” Grace said. “We’re really trying to make a real effort to reach out and actively make people feel more included.”

Furthermore, there is an email address listed on facebook for those who have experienced harassment in the iO West community to contact: james@ioimprov.com. The post dates from September 2015. Assuming this is the same James who also sexually harassed and assaulted women at iO West—

HOLY SH**

The same person who was harassing and assaulting students/interns at iO West was the same guy coming forward in the midst of all this controversy to talk about protecting and helping victims. No wonder those who were harassed didn't feel safe coming forward—the very person they were expected to approach was himself a serial harasser.

I should note here that those who posted their stories on facebook also went through official channels and urged other victims of Grace to do the same.

But it's hard to underestimate the effects of social media in this particular case, given the timeline involved. There's so much debate about the negative effects of social media, but things like facebook and Instagram can be incredibly powerful in outing and exposing systemic abuses in institutional contexts.

I have incredible respect for these women for going public.

For once, it seems, someone was right on the internet. Holy sh** indeed.

Football, Objectification and Empty Moralism - A Critique

I read an article recently that really bugged me (yeah, this happens a lot). I can't exactly articulate why, but that's what writing is for, so here we are. Welcome. There's coffee and cronuts in the back.

The writing in question is part of a series on Christ and football fittingly titled "Touchdown Jesus." This particular iteration is about 23 year-old NFL player Johnny Manziel, recently in the news for allegedly assaulting his ex-girlfriend—another incident in a brief yet troubled career.

The writer alleges that Manziel's downfall is directly linked to something called "the altar of icon." What is the altar of icon? As far as I can tell, the altar of icon is something sports fans do to athletes when they treat them like celebrities instead of ordinary human beings created in the image of God.

When we treat famous athletes like...famous athletes, we hold them to impossible standards, then grind them down when they fail to meet our unrealistic expectations for perfection and good living.

I think there's a word missing from Dunham's column: "Idolatry." Idolatry is Christian-speak for anything elevated above Christ or the gospel (Hence "Touchdown Jesus").

We (Christians, it's implied) worship the idol of sports celebrity at the altar of icon.

So who is responsible for Manziel's moral and spiritual breakdown? We are:

[. . . ] Objectifying athletes has terrible consequences. When we do it, we neglect the fact that they’ve been created in the image of God. We apply pressure with our scrutiny and a false sense of importance with our praise—and I do mean “praise.” We take men and make them icons, and we all feign surprise when those icons crumble to reveal the decaying remains of a person. It’s a predictable, broken dance, and it yields predictably broken people. (source)

I'm getting tired of moralizing, particularly Christian moralizing, that pretends to say something profound and spiritual yet says nothing at all. Maybe I've done too much moralizing in my lifetime and that's why it irritates me so much.

But I mean, what does this even mean? That by treating Manziel like a celebrity, we drove him into domestic violence and substance abuse? That fame always has a dark side? That something in the core of Manziel's being just couldn't handle being really, really good at something?

There are so many frames of reference we could use to try to understand Manziel's downfall, like mental health, substance abuse, the sports industry, the NFL and domestic violence, etc.

But this particular narrative manages to vaguely condemn the reader as a bad Christian while erasing the real victim:

The "altar of icon" did not hit Colleen Crowley so hard in the head that it ruptured her left eardrum. How hard do you have to hit someone to rupture their eardrum? This question makes me feel sick and sad, and not just for Manziel.

Dunham's "altar of icon" is ultimately just one more form of objectification (I objectify your objectification!)—one kind of story imposed on the tragedy of a real-life human being. It's a sanctified, Christianized objectification, vaguely condemning something that the reader would be hard-pressed to actually identify, let alone fix and change. It's the Christian version of "a string of misfortunes befell a promising young athlete."

And I can't imagine the reader going home and tearing down the altar of icon they have erected in Manziel's honor.

I can imagine condemning violence, not matter what form it takes. I can imagine holding people responsible for their actions. Once again, domestic violence and substance abuse and generally bad behavior is not something that happened to Manziel. Those are his actions, and he is responsible for them.

Isn't that part of what it means, after all, to be created in the image of God?

The INTP in the Workplace, Part 1

I've written about INTPs and dating, and INTPs and giving zero f***s, and INTPs and being an asshole, but this time around I would like to focus on INTPs in the workplace—where we can do all these things, but hopefully not at the same time. Though now that I think about it, that would make for a pretty entertaining web series.

This first post will focus on choosing a job that maximizes your strengths while minimizing your weaknesses (*cough* people skills *cough*).

So, to start: You are an INTP and you are looking for a job. What kind of job should you look for?

Choosing a job

I roll into the office at a leisurely 11:13AM and head straight for the coffee machine—two creams, three sugars, please.

After several minutes perusing my emails, the caffeine kicks in and I am awake at last. Time to get to work.

Several hours later, I emerge from the depths of concentration like a giant squid from "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea," stopping for a quick snack and extroverted-introvert time with my favorite work buddy, Bob.

And it's back to the drawing board—literally—my entire office is a giant whiteboard. This is where the magic happens. As I scribble my brilliant ideas on the wall, I hear a tentative knock on the door.

It is my boss, Steve.

"Hey. Just wanted to check in. How's the project going?"

I can sense that Steve is awed and intimidated by my genius. Luckily, Steve knows his place within the intellectual hierarchy and never dares to question my judgment.

"It's going great. I just need some more time."

"Of course, take all the time that you need."

Work is so much more pleasant now that we got rid of deadlines. I turn back to my whiteboard wall...

In My Dreams

Where was I? Oh yes. It might be helpful to map out some of the qualities that you want in a job—under what conditions do you work best? What does the environment look like? Do you need to be able to see daylight (e.g., don't go into post-production)? Interact with people only sometimes or not at all? Have access to free snacks?

These are all things to consider.

Here are some environmental qualities on my YES and NO lists that I think other INTPs can relate to (credit to 16personalities.com for some of these ideas):

YES (+1)

Flat hierarchy
Brainstorming
Dynamic
Collaboration
Solitude
Physical space
Flexible hours
Time to think
Freedom of movement
Low maintenance coworkers
Fluid & efficient systems
Casual dress
Free snacks
Free food in general

NO (-1)

Office politics
Rigid hierarchy
Rigid schedule
Systems & processes rarely change
Bureaucracy
Customer service
Formal dress code
Micromanaging
Meetings
Multitasking
Mandatory socializing
Answering the phone
Cutthroat coworkers

I'm not saying the things on the second list are all deal-breakers—but if a majority of them are present at once, it's not likely that the INTP will last very long. Bureaucracy, formal dress code, meetings and multitasking? I give it six months, tops.

INTPs Need Structure

A word here on structure and accountability—

If you can, choose a work environment that will grant you a great deal of autonomy while not completely abandoning you to your own worst inclinations.

In my daydream, there were no deadlines, but in the real world, I need some kind of structure in order to get things done. So, for me:

Good:

Not being tied to my desk. Being free to walk around, take a break as needed, or even run out for some boba.

Bad:

A monthly conference call as my only accountability.

I'm sure there are INTPs out there who make wonderful entrepreneurs and who adore the independence and freedom of being self-employed.

Me? I cannot work from home. You know what happens when I work from home? Netflix. Netflix happens when I work from home, or Hulu if there's a new episode of "Crazy Ex-Girlfriend."

Are INTPs lazy?

INTPs have a reputation for laziness, which is ironic, because when we find something that we actually give a f*** about, there is no power in the 'verse that can stop us.

An INTP who is passionate about something is a force to be reckoned with. Conversely, I've found that it is extremely difficult if not impossible to give a f*** about something that I don't give a f*** about—not tradition, not custom, not culture, not religion, not this-is-the-way-we-do-things-around-here, not even my own self-interest can save me.

That being said, can a specific type of work environment nurture and inspire passion within the INTP? Yes. Definitely. INTPs are not limited to any specific industry or field—they can flourish in the arts or the sciences, engineering or interior design. I believe it's the nature of the workplace that matters.

It's less the "what," more the who, where, and why—in my opinion.

Brainstorming the ideal job

So, I would say, choose your work environment with care, young INTP. And you will succeed.

Next, we'll talk about the INTP and workplace conflict. It could be a long post. Stay tuned.

How to Manage an INTP

10 Literary Alternatives to "Netflix and Chill"

*SPOILERS*

Wait, who am I kidding? No one reads anymore. Proceed.

1. The Catcher in the Rye and hire a prostitute just to talk

2. Middlemarch and marry the wrong person

"But...but marrying you would make me so happy. That won't do." 

3. Lolita and rape your prepubescent stepdaughter

4. Catch-22 and for a brief moment believe that your dead friend's prostitute girlfriend wants to have sex with you before realizing that, no, she is still trying to kill you

5. Much Ado About Nothing and publicly shame and humiliate your fiancee at your wedding because you have been tricked into believing she is cheating on you by a man referred to as "the bastard prince"

"You whore!" Awkward.

6. The Great Gatsby and idolize the man in love with your married cousin who throws extravagant parties and always calls you "Old Sport"

7. 'Tis Pity She's a Whore and skewer your sister/lover's heart with a dagger before parading it around at her husband's birthday feast

Best-worst last line in the history of English literature

8. The Scarlet Letter and secretly father an illegitimate child, leaving your partner to take the fall

9. Jane Eyre and torture the man you love, who is also your boss, by consenting to marry him then leaving him after you discover he has stowed his mentally insane wife in the attic—that's right, he's already married!

Actually, Penguin Classics, Jane describes herself as plain and unattractive. Get it together.

10. The Odyssey and lynch the 12 unfaithful maids who fraternized with your wife's 108 suitors while you were away on business

A romance.

Flippant Thoughts on Forgiveness / Pain, Part 4

I recently applied for a writing joh. When they asked for a writing sample, I realized all my writing exists at an intensity level of roughly +487,000,000.

Here at the blog, it's all pain and suffering, all the time.

So, instead of titling this "Pain, Part 4," I'm calling it "Flippant Thoughts on Forgiveness." Let's dive headfirst into the shallow end, shall we?

Moo... Photo by bertknot

Forgiveness is hard, particularly when you can barely identify the source of the pain, particularly when you can't even bring yourself to write the words, "I'm hurt" or much, much worse, "I'm still hurt."

That's not how it's supposed to work, is it? I'm not supposed to still be hurt. Forgive and forget. Deal with it and move on. Positive mantra about moving confidently into the future. Hoorah.

This is the pain that never ends, it just goes on and on my friend...

I've found, unfortunately, that ignoring unresolved pain is a lot like ignoring all that C-4 you have buried in the backyard (analogy credit to labullets). It will explode in your face. You will wonder what happened. And then you'll be like, "Oh yeah, remember that time I buried all that C-4 in the backyard? Guess it wasn't as stable as I thought."

My buried pain usually turns into anger.

But why? Why am I so angry?

I'm standing outside the dorms on the second floor landing, watching his light blue pickup pull away from the office, and suddenly, I'm filled with uncontrollable rage. I kick at everything in sight, including a bright orange safety cone. Writing this, I still wonder if it is my fault. If I am a bomb waiting to explode.

I've written before about a traumatic experience that left with me with the kind of pain that doesn't get better. About how I blamed myself for hurting the person who had hurt me.

I actually apologized to him years later for using him as an emotional punching bag. At the time, it felt good to realize and acknowledge what I had done, to have a ready-made slot that I could comfortably slide the experience into, neat and snug.

I can see now how I reframed the experience, making him the victim, myself the perpetrator. I had blamed him unfairly for causing my pain. I projected my pain onto him. I hated him instead of hating my dad. I was angry at him without justification. I refused to forgive him—worse, I didn't want to.

I could label it, "That time I took all my worst inclinations out on an innocent person because I'm broken" and move on.

Telling the Truth

Except, that wasn't exactly the truth. But it made me feel better. I didn't have to alter any of my pre-existing ideas, particularly the one where there was something deeply and indelibly wrong with me.

I mean, what was the alternative? I needed someone or something to blame, and the only person available was me. Because the alternative was too dark to consider:

That what he had done to me was wrong.

That what he had done to me was wrong, though well-intentioned.

That what he had done to me was akin to spiritual, emotional "rape." 

That what he had done to me perpetuated for years the very shame that he sought to heal. 

And in the aftermath, I was left alone, emotionally shattered and unable to breathe.

This is what makes me feel a little sick to my stomach, now that years have passed. It's one thing to drag out someone's deepest shame by force—it's another to blame them for feeling wounded and angry after the fact.

You Need Witnesses

There's that famous passage in Matthew 18 about confronting someone who has sinned. About going back, again and again, trying to reason with the person, trying to get them to see your point of view.

This passage is often used to shame Christians who don't follow this exact procedure in every and any conflict with another believer, such as Christians who complain about Mark Driscoll on the internet, as if the correct thing to do were to show up on his doorstep tomorrow with a Bible and a stack of good intentions. 

But considering it now, I wonder about the part where you bring a friend or two with you as witness.

Because what if the other person refuses to see your point of view or denies that anything happened? ("No! I did not steal your oxen. These are my oxen. I've owned them for years, years I tell you!").

If this happens, you need other people who will stand with you in your truth, who will bear witness to your grievance: 

Yes, you were abused.

Yes, what happened was wrong. 

Yes, that is Buttercup and she is your cow.

Yes, I believe you. 

Yes, you are not imagining things. You are not crazy. 

You can't forgive someone for something that never happened—

I can't forgive him or anyone else if I don't acknowledge and accept the truth of what happened. And I need someone else to bear witness to that truth, someone else who can drown out the accusing voices that tell me that I'm crazy, I'm imagining things, I'm too sensitive, I'm making it all up to get attention, a unicorn gored me and I'm filing a formal complaint.

I've become convinced that forgiveness cannot happen without truth. Healing cannot happen without truth. You don't need the person who hurt you to say, "I was wrong. Please forgive me" but you do need someone in your life to say, "Yeah, I totally get it."

This happened for me last year. And in that moment, I could finally breathe.

Two Sides to Every Story

Like every other kid who grew up in evangelical Christianity, I loved the Focus on the Family radio drama Adventures in Odyssey, an inventive and often hilarious program that taught lessons about such diverse topics as, "Handling the power of media responsibly" and "Dealing with an alcoholic parent."

I can still remember the episode entitled Two Sides to Every Story. A brother and sister are home alone when, in a series of mishaps, their TV catches on fire. Each sibling tells his/her side of the story—each painting his/her own actions in the most saintly light possible, while basically blaming the other for the catastrophe.

My childhood, right here

The episode dramatizes the brother's story, then the sister's story, then what really happened. The lesson of the episode: "Considering another person's point of view."

 It's a good lesson.

I was reminded of this principle when I saw Franklin Graham's response to Naghmeh Abedini and her revelation that her husband, recently released hostage Saeed Abedini, has abused her throughout the marriage (I say "has abused," because the implication is that his abusive behavior is ongoing).

He says,

Other than God, no one knows the details and the truth of what has happened between Saeed and Naghmeh except them. There’s an old saying that there are at least two sides to every story. I can tell one thing for sure—not everything that has been reported in the media is true.

Oh. Okay.

According to Graham, there are certain truths that are simply unknowable—it's a classic, he said, she said, would-you-do-it-if-Jesus-were-in-the-room type of situation.

Unlike God, we were never in the room when Saeed abused his wife, so we can never say for certain that he did—and should therefore withhold judgment.

Graham, however, fails at his own test. Let's break it down, shall we?

"There's an old saying" (older than God?) - Start with a cliche

"...that there are at least two sides to every story." - Transition into irrelevant but profound sounding idiom

"I can tell one thing for sure—" - Wait a minute—you know the truth? You just said it was unknowable. What happened to "Other than God"? Are you God?

"...not everything that has been reported in the media is true" - Aggressive use of the passive voice that sounds like a denial, but actually comes out as an admission: "not everything" means some of it is true, but you refuse to reveal what exactly. Why? What do you have against truth, Franklin Graham, especially since you are apparently in a special position to know it.

The original idiom and the Adventures in Odyssey episode of the same title both teach that there are two sides to every story, and that the truth lies somewhere in between.

However, when it comes to facts, there is only one side to the story. I'm going to put it in the active voice, because I can:

He abused her.
He did not abuse her.

It's that simple. They can't both be true. Abusers and those who defend them use confusing language to divert attention from this True/False binary. It's either/or, not both/and.

Potentially, Graham actually means:

• He abused her, but it wasn't that bad.
• He abused her, but there were extenuating circumstances that either justify or excuse his actions. 
• He abused her, but she deserved it. 
• He abused her, but only emotionally and mentally, not physically. 
• He abused her, but he suffered too, so it's all good.

Alternatively, he is indirectly asserting that:

• He did not abuse her, therefore she is lying.

But he never comes right and out and says that. Because that would make his meaning clear. And nothing is worse than the precise and transparent use of the English language.

Graham asks us to withhold judgment (what with the whole not being God thing), but he himself passes judgment—he goes from "no one knows . . . the truth" to "I can tell one thing for sure—not everything that has been reported in the media is true" or in other words, I know the truth, but I'm not going to say it here.

There's this false sense of balance in "There are two sides to every story," as if you are setting yourself up as the impartial judge waiting to hear both sides of a case. When in reality, Graham means that there is one side to the story, and that is his side, Saeed's side, the abuser's side.

It would be so much more honest to say some version of, "She's a lying, crazy b***."

Now that's a story I've definitely heard before.