Why did it take the CBC more than 10 years to cut Ghomeshi loose?

156 posts / 0 new
Last post
Tehanu

From the Salon article above (written by a guy) which apparently is the issue:

Quote:
The Ghomeshi syndrome: Delusional creeps, from Clarence Thomas to Gamergate

Behind the Canadian radio host's downfall lies a strange and dangerous male pathology: Clueless dude disorder

... It’s the obtuseness and self-delusion at work — what I earlier called the pathological cluelessness — that links the Ghomeshi case to Gamergate and Elliot Rodger and Clarence Thomas. I remember a female friend telling me that even though she completely believed Anita Hill’s testimony she felt sorry for Thomas, a man so awkward in his own skin that his best effort at flirting with an attractive woman was to describe bestiality porn and discover a pubic hair on his Coke. Ever since the big Senate showdown between Thomas and Hill 23 years ago – an epoch-shaping event that put sexual harassment on the cultural-political map — journalists and historians have generally taken the line that one of them had to be lying. I don’t see it that way: Like Ghomeshi, the eminent jurist convinced himself he had done nothing wrong.

See, this sort of thing really pisses me off. It's not a totally bad article overall, but clueless dude disorder? Obtuseness and self-delusion? Pathological cluelessness? Powerful men convincing themself they had done nothing wrong? Oh, please.

"Sorry, didn't mean to sexually harass you. I'm a clueless dude." - Clarence Thomas

"Oops, did I punch and choke and rape you? Pathological cluelessness." - Jian Ghomeshi 

"Gosh, guess I terrified you away from the internet. My bad, I've got clueless dude disorder." - Gamers

"Silly me for going on a shooting spree because women didn't fall at my feet to sleep with me. Just a bit obtuse and self-delusional." -- Elliott Rogers

Not only does it take away any implication of responsibility that men have to, oh, not harass, stalk, rape, beat or kill women, but it's also frankly insulting to men.

And pretty horrific for women. Someone who harasses, stalks, rapes, beats or kills a woman is clueless. Nice way to frame it.

And if dudes are clueless, what's the corollary? Oh, right, we (a.k.a. feminists) have to do yet more heavy lifting to educate them in the fog of their ignorance, while they're busy attacking us. Thanks muchly.

Sigh.

NS NS's picture

Ive read some of his stuff before. I think he's an excellent writer. Does he let them off the hook? Maybe.

voice of the damned

Eastnoir wrote:

would this mess have happened or gone on for so long in a true publically funded, publically mandated, public broadcaster?

Have you been following the BBC scandals in the UK? Those date all the way back to the pre-Thatcherite 1960s.

eastnoireast

voice of the damned wrote:

Eastnoir wrote:

would this mess have happened or gone on for so long in a true publically funded, publically mandated, public broadcaster?

Have you been following the BBC scandals in the UK? Those date all the way back to the pre-Thatcherite 1960s.

i haven't been, just heard them referenced.  bbc is a bigger beast, in a different culture, but for sure obvious parallels.  

it's not that i think that institutions like the old cbc were magically free of abuse, it just seems that it (might) manifest differently, or it might not have the force behind it that happened with the faux-hip/young/socialmedia/profit-driven/corporate co-dependence that was q.  the train might have been going slower, easier to toss the engineer off the trestle, less people harmed as it went along.  i don't know.   there's something there i can't quite get a lock on.

-

@ nr - that obviously wasn't an excuse, (or an attempt at an excuse), so save your dissapointedness.

@ tehanu - yes.  i mean, the role of mental illness/learning disorders/societal programming/etc - those can all be factors in why people do shit - but to see it presented as, like, THE reason, and couched in such benign, sympathy-inducing terms like "clueless" - uhgh.  i winced at the byline, and you nailed it.

-

NorthReport

Q’s media panel finds one subject hard to broach

Whether the three-journalist panel will ever discuss the Jian Ghomeshi scandal in the studio where he was king is an open question.

Early in the week, panel member Judy Rebick floated the idea of a discussion on the Ghomeshi situation to Q producers. “But the indication from them was they are not prepared,” said Toronto Star publisher John Cruickshank, who sits on the panel with Rebick, co-founder of rabble.ca, and Jonathan Kay, who is taking over as editor-in-chief of The Walrus after a decade as the managing editor for comment at the National Post.

Cruickshank and Kay note that the panel could raise some critical questions that have not yet been fully answered.

“I think if the media panel is brought back, then it should deal with (the Ghomeshi situation),” Cruickshank said. “At this point, I think the panel would be reflecting on the transparency of CBC corporate, because I don’t think anybody is satisfied that they’ve really put forward the whole story.”

Leaked internal memos have given the public some insight — including that the “graphic evidence” that sparked Ghomeshi’s termination was first seen the Thursday before his firing — but top CBC executives have so far been largely silent and declined interview requests. The first public statement from CBC president Hubert Lacroix was released Friday and shared little new information.

“This scandal won’t end with Jian,” Kay said. “I believe CBC execs may lose their jobs if it turns out, as alleged, that this was brought to their attention in 2010.”

The media panel may return next week or the following week, Kay said, but he is not certain.

 

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/11/01/qs_media_panel_finds_one_subj...

NorthReport

Jian Ghomeshi memoir describes obsession with David Bowie and a youth punctured by racism

As I read about his interests in the book, I was struck by how petty they seemed. Granted, he was a teenager at the time, but there was still a contradiction between the themes he explored in 1982 and the often clever essays on important issues that opened his show.

I should have figured out that this was because Ghomeshi didn't write most of those monologues. But like many Q listeners, I never dreamed that a broadcaster of his stature would rely on producers to craft what sounded like his take on the world.

The Globe even reported that Q's guest hosts in the summer were banned from delivering opening essays, which weren't even written by Ghomeshi in the first place. If true, it demonstrates astonishing hubris on the part of the host of the show.


http://www.straight.com/news/762121/jian-ghomeshi-memoir-describes-obses...

NS NS's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

Eastnoir wrote:

would this mess have happened or gone on for so long in a true publically funded, publically mandated, public broadcaster?

Have you been following the BBC scandals in the UK? Those date all the way back to the pre-Thatcherite 1960s.

I agree with Eastnoir. The CBC is public in name only. The BBC is also much the same though (tho its funded due to licencing fees). Voice of the damned, have you been following the BBC since the financial meltdown? Owen Jones and other commentators/researchers have pointed out that there before/current austerity and war with Iraq the corporation has had almost no voices from trade unions/anti war and that most of the their journos have the same interests as the City/bankers and Downing Street.

Since PM Blair the BBC has continued to go downhill. During the Saville scandal, Murdoch and other private newspapers/broadcasters also piled to keep it in line.

CBC has to changed like Eastnoir said, should have journos/coverage that holds power to account and be transparent. Media orgs can take a page from The Intercept how they disclosed the a complaint by a female staff about journalist Matt Taibbi that led them to part ways.

 

NorthReport

Michael Enright: The Ghomeshi revelations and the CBC workplace

Every family, if that's what we are, has somewhere in its ranks a dysfunctional member who can cause much pain and heartache.
    
Not to mention embarrassment and even fear.
    
Much of these recent days have been passed in trying to come to grips with that pain and that fear. It is a fatiguing endeavour.
    
I'm tired. Everybody around here, is tired.
     
I'm tired of people asking, why don't these women say who they are. Why don't they identify themselves. I'm tired of the relentless and shocking revelations hour after hour.
     
I'm tired of people asking what is going on at CBC. 
    
And I'm especially tired of looking into the anxious faces of young women in this place and not knowing what to say to them.
    
As a father of sons, I have insisted that they understand that violence against women, that hitting a woman, is violence against us all, literally a crime against humanity, that which makes us fully human.
    
In this month, officially designated as Woman Abuse Awareness Month, there is both time to reflect and opportunity to act.
    
We have got to get a conversation going, a national conversation about violence against women.
    
For us, in this building, it has begun.

http://www.cbc.ca/thesundayedition/essays/2014/11/02/michael-enright-the...

NorthReport

Jian Ghomeshi’s unplanned dinner with Star writer Kevin Donovan

A strange twist of fate saw the Star's investigation team leader seated beside the former Q host at a Toronto film festival dinner in September. Things got awkward.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/11/02/jian_ghomeshis_unplanned_dinn...

NorthReport

Don’t expect a quick and easy end to the Jian Ghomeshi case

http://metronews.ca/voices/urban-compass-halifax/1201379/dont-expect-a-q...

jas

Tehanu wrote:

And if dudes are clueless, what's the corollary? Oh, right, we (a.k.a. feminists) have to do yet more heavy lifting to educate them in the fog of their ignorance, while they're busy attacking us. Thanks muchly.

There's the benign version of the clueless dude as well, a pop cultural fabrication intended to be humorous and endearing. The bumbling, slightly dumb simpleton who can't keep up with the "complexity" of women and changing times, so just goes along with things until he can get to his man cave and watch hockey or football. But I think that's a cover for resistance to change and, as we can see in so many cases, masks a psychological complexity that men don't want to admit to.

But yes, violent and hateful attitudes toward women is not clueless dude syndrome; it's disturbed, fucked-up pervasive creep syndrome, currently infecting many areas of life, including work, home, public life, cultural activities, literature, porn, advertising, news, pop culture, universities, the military, sporting events, war zones ... The work of examining this falls to men. But women have to start fighting back or men won't do this work.

NorthReport

Q Guests Come Out Against Ghomeshi Via Growing Petition Supporting The Women

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/10/31/ghomeshi-petition-q-guests_n_608...

MegB

jas wrote:

Tehanu wrote:

And if dudes are clueless, what's the corollary? Oh, right, we (a.k.a. feminists) have to do yet more heavy lifting to educate them in the fog of their ignorance, while they're busy attacking us. Thanks muchly.

There's the benign version of the clueless dude as well, a pop cultural fabrication intended to be humorous and endearing. The bumbling, slightly dumb simpleton who can't keep up with the "complexity" of women and changing times, so just goes along with things until he can get to his man cave and watch hockey or football. But I think that's a cover for resistance to change and, as we can see in so many cases, masks a psychological complexity that men don't want to admit to.

But yes, violent and hateful attitudes toward women is not clueless dude syndrome; it's disturbed, fucked-up pervasive creep syndrome, currently infecting many areas of life, including work, home, public life, cultural activities, literature, porn, advertising, news, pop culture, universities, the military, sporting events, war zones ... The work of examining this falls to men. But women have to start fighting back or men won't do this work.

I agree. There is no clueless dude syndrome here. This narcissistic pathology is well-planned, well thought out and exercised in a way that is predatory and unconcerned with the needs of others. Men who behave this way are smart, entitled, in positions of power and influence, and have no concept of the word "no" applying to their god-like selves. You don't get to be in their positions by being clueless and socially inept. That's a facade that's invented purely to excuse violent and misogynistic behavior.

Bacchus

I think the term is at best, willfully ignorant

eastnoireast

Q Guests Come Out Against Ghomeshi Via Growing Petition Supporting The Women

-

a signature to try and wash oneself clean is easy.   anti-gomeshi is the bandwagon now.

we may not have much money, but many of these people, and others, do.

what would it take to double the funding for all canadian women's shelters and support structures?  anyone have a number?

probably a pretty achievable goal, given the poverty they now operate in. 

starting with the signators, the cbc, the giller, and everyone else who directly benefited from their association with the abuser.

-

 

NorthReport

Ghomeshi used CBC-owned phone for texts that led to firing, source says

Toronto police will not say if investigators are now in possession of the smart phone.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/11/03/ghomeshi_used_cbcowned_pho...

Unionist

NorthReport wrote:

Ghomeshi used CBC-owned phone for texts that led to firing, source says

Toronto police will not say if investigators are now in possession of the smart phone.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/11/03/ghomeshi_used_cbcowned_pho...

Oh great:

Quote:
“The contents of that phone belong to the CBC — it’s the CBC’s property,” said a source familiar with‎ the situation.

So much for the privacy of the women who exchanged texts with Ghomeshi, or were just on the receiving end. They can rely on the good graces of the CBC as to how that information is used.

The system is broken.

 

Bacchus

Thats par for the course. Several of my clients supply cell phones to their staff but it belongs to them

NorthReport

This obviously has been covered up for a long time and the reason for the thread title.

We can expect a lot of ass covering at the CBC.

When something you believe in, let's you down, the best thing to do is first of all take a deep breathe, and be open to the fact that there are serious problems afoot. 

I used to be a big fan of the CBC, but that changed quite a while ago. 

They need to clean house, but will they? I have my doubts. 

 

CBC management ignored warnings in Jian Ghomeshi affair: Editorial

CBC management says problems with Jian Ghomeshi became clear only on Oct. 23, but the alarms about the host’s conduct towards women had been sounding for a long time.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2014/11/03/cbc_management_igno...

NorthReport

5 myths about sexual violence

Issue is widely misunderstood, says chair of Ontario Coalition for Rape Crisis Centres

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/5-myths-about-sexual-violence-1.2822198

NorthReport

The changing face of our news media

How a mere blogger broke the Ghomeshi story wide open

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2014/11/03/how-a-mere-blogger-broke-the-ghomeshi...

NorthReport
NorthReport

I Knew About Jian Ghomeshi

So did a lot of people in our Toronto scene. We never said anything. Are we complicit in his alleged abuse?

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/11/jian_ghomeshi_all...

Unionist

Bacchus wrote:

Thats par for the course. Several of my clients supply cell phones to their staff but it belongs to them

"It" belongs to them... what? The emails, texts, audio? I don't think so - not without some pretty explicit prior warning and consent of the employee. That's the part I quoted from the article - the "contents".

NorthReport
Bacchus

All of that Unionist, all of it. And its detailed when they get the cellphone offer.

 

They also monitor and record anything done with you company laptop or while o the company internet network

Unionist

Bacchus wrote:

All of that Unionist, all of it. And its detailed when they get the cellphone offer.

 

They also monitor and record anything done with you company laptop or while o the company internet network

And when Ghomeshi exchanges texts with a woman on that cellphone - the woman's texts (sent and received) belong to the CBC? Because the CBC owns the metal and plastic on which they were transmitted?

If I believed that (which of course I don't), the system would be far more broken than it obviously is. It's bad enough when victims of abuse are too bullied and intimidated and unconfident in the system to speak out. It would be worse, I think, if their identities and abuse are already being revealed, without their knowing about or consenting to it.

 

Bacchus

Didnt say it was right or wrong but it is the way it is.

 

Ive seen them terminated people and take the phone. Ive also seen them allow a ex-employee to keep the phone, after they wiped it and unlocked it

 

Same with the laptops

jjuares

Bacchus wrote:

Didnt say it was right or wrong but it is the way it is.

 

Ive seen them terminated people and take the phone. Ive also seen them allow a ex-employee to keep the phone, after they wiped it and unlocked it

 

Same with the laptops


I have seen this process. The focus is on "use" rather than ownership. The employer has supplied and own the tools. They get to see what is on it and can use it for dismissal. Some day I wouldn't be surprised to see a court challenge putting some limits on the employer in the name of privacy.

jas

Unionist wrote:

And when Ghomeshi exchanges texts with a woman on that cellphone - the woman's texts (sent and received) belong to the CBC? Because the CBC owns the metal and plastic on which they were transmitted?

I would think it would be like using your work e-mail. I don't know if you could call it ownership, but the company certainly has access to any e-mail coming through that server.

NorthReport
NS NS's picture

Mr. Brown is reporting that "Jian said CBC gave him option to walk away quietly AFTER he showed proof he injured a woman. They haven't denied it"

Furthermore, that the internal investigation is "cover up" and "whitewash".

http://canadalandshow.com/article/cbcs-ghomeshi-investigation-cover-it-begins

 

wage zombie

Unionist wrote:

And when Ghomeshi exchanges texts with a woman on that cellphone - the woman's texts (sent and received) belong to the CBC? Because the CBC owns the metal and plastic on which they were transmitted?

If I believed that (which of course I don't), the system would be far more broken than it obviously is.

Yes.  Yes yes yes.  The system is far more broken than it appears.  Of course that data belongs to the CBC.  That's how everything is set up these days.

NorthReport

Jian Ghomeshi: How he got away with it

Jian Ghomeshi’s behaviour was an open secret, going back to his university days. Not that anyone took action. In fact, the CBC made him a star.

There were occasional attempts to deal through official channels. And there was a widely shared view that management were unwilling, or simply incapable, of reining in the man who had become the face of CBC Radio. One former Q staffer saw the problem as systemic: “This whole economy at CBC is screwed up and this guy took advantage of it. People are on contract; they don’t have secure jobs and even those who do are led to feel lucky they do.”

In time, the line between Ghomeshi’s public-broadcaster job and personal brand blurred. Q became Q with Jian Ghomeshi, and Ghomeshi became more and more the show. In 2010, he arranged it so that when he took summers off the show’s name would revert to Q in the Summer. Staff who didn’t tweet about him being named one of Hello! magazine’s “Most Beautiful Stars” in Canada were admonished. He took note of staffers who didn’t attend his book launch. And he made full use of the connections he made via Q, says one producer. His second book, now cancelled, was said to be about anxiety. In Q interviews he’d insert questions about success, anxiety, and how to deal with fame, which became regular themes on the show.

The platform the show had created for him —and his on-air persona as an impossibly sensitive, progressive feminist—helped draw women to him. He often searched for messages about him posted on Twitter or Facebook by women, and if the women were attractive, alleges one former staffer, he’d contact them directly. “He was soliciting nonstop. It was his playground.”

There was even a degree of flirting with famous and attractive women on-air, says one producer. “I was always shocked that there were no complaining letters. I guess people saw that as a charming dynamic.”

It was also not uncommon for Ghomeshi to ask guests for their email. “But that’s all you’d see—you wouldn’t see what was next.”

Many of the allegations made against Ghomeshi are twinned to industry events burnishing the Ghomeshi brand—the Banff television festival in 2003, show tapings, music or CBC events, signings to promote his memoir, 1982. A CBC producer in Montreal with aspirations of working on Q met Ghomeshi at one of his book signings. He expressed interest, and she said she told him: “I want to work for you, not date you.” The woman, who still works in the media but not at CBC, chose not to complain. “I felt like Jian was CBC god,” she told the Toronto Star. She received an invitation to a job interview from Ghomeshi’s executive producer shortly thereafter. She was surprised to find Ghomeshi present at the interview. She didn’t get the job.

His ego often overshadowed the show. When Q scored the Canadian exclusive with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in September, Ghomeshi seemed slighted when Assange greeted him with “Good to be with you, Q.” He interrupted the conversation to correct him: “Thank you—oh, thank you for calling me Q. I’m Jian. But you can also call me the name of the show.”

 

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/jian-ghomeshi-how-he-got-away-with-it/

NDPP

Jian Gomeshi Helped Create York University's Radical Student Activism With Charm, Ambition and Vows to End Sexism

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/11/07/jian-ghomeshi-helped-create-york...

"In the spring of 1990 when a 22 year old Jian Ghomeshi put his name on the ballot for York University student president, he promised that one of his top priorities woud be battling sexism.

'I have to admit that women's issues are something I've been involved in for awhile,' the political science major told the Excalibur..."

 

NorthReport

CBC News Network bars journalist over Mansbridge-Ghomeshi comparison

The CBC journalist Linden MacIntyre has been barred from appearing on CBC News Network this week after executives there objected to a comment he made during an interview with The Globe and Mail in which he compared the workplace behaviour of Peter Mansbridge to that of Jian Ghomeshi.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/television/journalist-barred-from-cb...

NorthReport

Superb article

Linden MacIntyre is right to link Mansbridge and Gzowski to the Ghomeshi scandal

But how did Ghomeshi become Ghomeshi? How was he able to get away with what he did for decades? Is the CBC culpable at all?

I will admit that I'm loathe to criticize our public broadcaster publicly. The CBC has been the soundtrack to my life since I was a child. My father listened every morning and now so do I. The funding cuts that are ongoing are appalling and disheartening. The work the CBC has done over the years is incredibly important and continues to be. We need them. But that doesn't mean I won't -- and that others should not -- be critical when it comes to what sounds like an ongoing problem.

Journalism is an industry rife with misogyny. Its history is one of a boys club -- and those boys got away with a lot as result.

Even Mansbridge and Gzowski.

Both men are surrounded by rumours of womanizing and narcissistic behaviour which, no, is not the same as beating, choking, and sexually assaulting women, but it does exist on a continuum of sorts. As does the CBC's still-vested interest in protecting its stars.

MacIntyre was not accusing Mansbridge and Gzowksi of abuse -- he was pointing towards that continuum, that tradition:

Because Ghomeshi has always been arrogant, he's always been obnoxious -- in the sort of the passive way, where he's always been so vulnerable: 'You can't hurt Jian,' even though he hurts other people. And his tantrums and his workplace relationships: 'Well, he's very rigorous, he's a perfectionist, you know?' So he is allowed to bully and abuse people. You know, that's the way it works, that’s what you put up with, whether it's Mansbridge, Gzowski, whatever. They were not like shrinking violets, either. So along comes Ghomeshi: 'Oh, yeah, he's in the tradition of that.' But somewhere along the way, it crosses a line. It does cross a line.

I would imagine that, as far as workplace-equality goes, the CBC is actually more accountable than many other news organizations. They are unionized, for one, and they are publicly funded. But look at what's happened and imagine, then, what could have -- and likely -- has gone on in other news rooms and media institutions for years.

The "boys club" tradition that has existed in journalism since its birth is slowly being hacked away at, but unless we are willing to look at the culture of sexism and misogyny as part of a continuum that has been supported by bosses and executives -- as well as other journalists and producers -- we will never be able to fully confront the culture that allowed for Ghomeshi’s abuse and the ongoing issues in the industry.


http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/feminist-current/2014/11/linden-macintyr...

NorthReport

Gee, I wonder where Neil Macdonald works, eh!

Neil Macdonald: Linden MacIntyre Is 'Self-Righteous' And Wrong About CBC

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/11/23/neil-macdonald-linden-macintyre-...

Basement Dweller

After what I saw and heard in Journalism School, I'm not at all surprised about any of this. There was rampant narcissism and highly sexualized behaviour. A lot of it, including beauty contests (male and female) and naked parties, was organized by both male and female students. No, i didn't participate in any of that. I was a bit older, in a LTR, and living off campus, thankfully.

It's only going to get worse in the media industry.

edit: Actually, "beauty contests" was a little too generous. The questions to every student in the program was which male and female students would you most like to ... and you wrote it on a ballot. That was over 15 years ago btw.

Pondering

To answer the question in the thread title, because no women were willing to report him officially.

NorthReport

The CBC would come across in a much better light if they would stop trying to defend the infensible.

There obviously is an unhealthy culture for women there, having said that the CBC is far from alone in this matter.

The CBC however is our national public broadcaster so perhaps we can expect high or higher standards, eh!

It is an extremely difficult situation for women to be in.

Bringing it to the attention of your supervisor sounds pretty official to me. 

 

 

NorthReport

How Cosby and Ghomeshi-gate snowballed: From a cone of silence to a chorus of women speaking out about sexual assault

Popular definitions of rape and sexual assault -- and the way we talk about them -- have finally started to change

 From a cone of silence to a chorus of women speaking out about sexual assaultJian Ghomeshi, Bill Cosby (Credit: AP/Ryan Emberley/Brad Barket/Photo montage by Salon)

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/25/how_cosby_and_ghomeshi_gate_snowballed_f...

Pondering

NorthReport wrote:
Bringing it to the attention of your supervisor sounds pretty official to me.

Me too but it's the same everywhere including on Parliament Hill and in businesses and universities everywhere.

Women get asked what they want to have happen and are offered inappropriate solutions such as arbitration.

Tehanu

Pondering wrote:

NorthReport wrote:
Bringing it to the attention of your supervisor sounds pretty official to me.

Me too but it's the same everywhere including on Parliament Hill and in businesses and universities everywhere.

Women get asked what they want to have happen and are offered inappropriate solutions such as arbitration.

Wow. Can't speak for Parliament (and for the record I think Trudeau handled that very badly, and I say that in a non-partisan way), but I am very familiar with universities. And let me tell you, with the average age, and transitioning into independent living, it's a vulnerable population, so folks in my area who work with students see a lot of sexual assault and harassment survivors. Arbitration is an inappropriate solution? If you're referring to a form of mediation, you're so, so very wrong. I acknowledge that there's plenty of work to be done in universities as everywhere else (including on prevention education), but I strongly object to blanket assumptions about alternative approaches such as conflict mediation/alternative dispute resolution/arbitration.

You want to know what most of the survivors I've worked with want? To feel safe and in control of whether or not they have any future interaction with the perpetrator, for the perpetrator to understand and acknowledge the hurt that they have caused, and to be sure that the perpetrator doesn't do it again, to the survivor or to anyone else.

Some form of arbitration can actually be a far more empowering and productive option for the survivor than banging their heads against the brick wall of a judicial process, either within the institution, or through a criminal proceeding. Mediation or arbitration also doesn't have to be face to face if the survivor doesn't feel comfortable with that. Mediation can result in some or all of the following:

- Demonstrated understanding on the part of the perpetrator of what the impact has been on the survivor. 

- Agreed-on restitution, including educational tasks, apologies, acknowledgement of harm.

- A focus on the safety and well-being of the victim, such as the perpetrator moving (e.g. if in residence), or agreeing to no contact.

- Perpetrator behaviour change, including outlining what steps they will take to ensure no recurrence.

The key thing about a good mediation/arbitration approach is that it is not set up to be adverserial, so tends to result in significantly better outcomes for the survivor and the perpetrator both. It also doesn't require an admission or finding of guilt, which is one of the stumbling blocks of the judicial system, but rather focusses on the impact and consequences of what happened. It's not focussed on punishment, it's focussed on solutions.

It's not always going to work, and it does require expertise -- including and especially careful attention to power dynamics and personal and emotional safety -- but in my experience it can be a hell of a lot better than entangling the survivor in a complex, victim-blaming judiciary. And given the difficulty of proving most sexual assault cases beyond a reasonable doubt, it can certainly result in a much more constructive alternative to what is currently the norm.

Oh, and women getting asked what they want to have happen is absolutely a good approach when supporting a survivor. The more agency she can regain the better. Notably absent in some of the high profile cases we've seen recently.

 

Pondering

Tehanu wrote:
Can't speak for Parliament (and for the record I think Trudeau handled that very badly, and I say that in a non-partisan way)

I hope you are not going to say the part about suspending the MPs. That was his responsibilty as leader of the Liberal party to the Liberal party. NDP MPs can't be in charge of what happens to Liberal MPs.

What is your non-partisan opinion of how the NDP has handled the situation since October 29th?

Tehanu wrote:
but I am very familiar with universities. And let me tell you, with the average age, and transitioning into independent living, it's a vulnerable population, so folks in my area who work with students see a lot of sexual assault and harassment survivors. 

Quote:
http://www.ourwindsor.ca/news-story/5148303-canadian-post-secondary-scho...

A three-month-long Toronto Star investigation has found that only nine of 78 Canadian universities have created a special sexual assault policy, considered a necessary step in dealing with the problem of sexual violence on Canadian campuses. The Star also surveyed 24 colleges in Ontario and found none had a special policy.

Among universities yet to adopt a special policy are the big three in Toronto — the University of Toronto, Ryerson University and York University, though York has promised a draft policy next year and U of T is studying the issue. Also lacking a special policy are Queen’s, the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, and McGill in Montreal. (McGill is also looking into the issue.)

...

The university you have experience with seems to be the exception. I was thinking of that article when I posted and a few others I will put at the end of the post.

Tehanu wrote:
It's not always going to work, and it does require expertise including careful attention to power dynamics, but in my experience it is a hell of a lot better than entangling the survivor in a complex, victim-blaming judiciary.

I didn't suggest that as the alternative.

Tehanu wrote:
but I strongly object to blanket assumptions about alternative approaches such as conflict mediation/alternative dispute resolution/arbitration.

I agree that was a too broad condemnation but I was thinking of the more serious cases of sexual assault.

Tehanu wrote:
You want to know what most of the survivors I've worked with want? To feel safe and in control of whether or not they have any future interaction with the perpetrator, for the perpetrator to understand and acknowledge the hurt that they have caused, and to be sure that the perpetrator doesn't do it again, to the survivor or to anyone else.

Just because a sexual predator says he won't do it again doesn't mean he actually won't do it again.

Tehanu wrote:
- A focus on the safety and well-being of the victim, such as the perpetrator moving (e.g. if in residence), or agreeing to no contact.

That's good.

Tehanu wrote:
The key thing about a good mediation/arbitration approach is that it is not set up to be adverserial, so tends to result in significantly better outcomes for the survivor and the perpetrator both.

Maybe so but it also suggests sexual assault isn't really a serious crime.

Quote:
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/5152429-student-s-story-spurred-commit...

The man Sarah says raped her months earlier in the basement of his parent's home in the spring of her third university year. The fellow student she claims threatened to take photos of her half-dressed and tell everyone at school she was a "slut."

"On the first day of class I just started crying," she said in an interview. "I cried in front of all my university peers and I just couldn't control it."

Sarah, 23, who asked that the Star not publish her real name, said she pleaded with her program chair at Lakehead University to help her choose classes where her alleged rapist was not registered. It was the summer of 2012, leading up to her final year at school....

When Sarah contacted her program chair two years ago to request help with her schedule, she told him in an email that she had been assaulted by a classmate. "My main concern is making the classroom environment as safe a place as possible so I may be successful with my education," she wrote.

She said she was told by the chair that helping her with a class schedule would violate her alleged rapist's privacy rights. And that nothing could be done unless she made it a "legal battle." He suggested she use a security escort around campus, she recalls

Quote:
http://sacha.ca/fact-sheets/statistics

  • Four out of five female undergraduates surveyed at Canadian universities said they had been victims of violence in a dating relationship.
  • 29% reported incidents of sexual assault. (W. DeKeseredy and K.Kelly, The Incidence and Prevalence of Woman Abuse in Canadian University and College Dating Relationships: Results from a National Survey, 1993.)

 

 

 

Aristotleded24

MegB wrote:

jas wrote:

Tehanu wrote:

And if dudes are clueless, what's the corollary? Oh, right, we (a.k.a. feminists) have to do yet more heavy lifting to educate them in the fog of their ignorance, while they're busy attacking us. Thanks muchly.

There's the benign version of the clueless dude as well, a pop cultural fabrication intended to be humorous and endearing. The bumbling, slightly dumb simpleton who can't keep up with the "complexity" of women and changing times, so just goes along with things until he can get to his man cave and watch hockey or football. But I think that's a cover for resistance to change and, as we can see in so many cases, masks a psychological complexity that men don't want to admit to.

But yes, violent and hateful attitudes toward women is not clueless dude syndrome; it's disturbed, fucked-up pervasive creep syndrome, currently infecting many areas of life, including work, home, public life, cultural activities, literature, porn, advertising, news, pop culture, universities, the military, sporting events, war zones ... The work of examining this falls to men. But women have to start fighting back or men won't do this work.

I agree. There is no clueless dude syndrome here. This narcissistic pathology is well-planned, well thought out and exercised in a way that is predatory and unconcerned with the needs of others. Men who behave this way are smart, entitled, in positions of power and influence, and have no concept of the word "no" applying to their god-like selves. You don't get to be in their positions by being clueless and socially inept. That's a facade that's invented purely to excuse violent and misogynistic behavior.

All I can add to this commentary is that there's a [url=http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2014/03/socially-awkward-isnt-an-excuse/]d... between behavour that is clueless and behaviour that is pathological:[/url]

Quote:
Here’s the thing about the socially awkward: they don’t want to trip over people’s boundaries. You can almost always track the exact moment they realize that they’ve done something wrong by the way they desperately try to backtrack, apologize and generally try to reassure the other person that they didn’t mean to and they’re so embarrassed and are kind of freaking out and, and, and…

You know what you don’t see? You don’t see them justifying their behavior. Or turning it around and making it about the person whose boundaries they just blew past.  They don’t rely on social pressure – either through making a scene or through other people justifying their actions for them – to make the other person submit to their demands. They don’t argue that the other person is obligated to forgive him, to give him a second chance or otherwise pretend that the awkwardness just didn’t happen. Creepers and predators rely on other people insisting that their social awkwardness is a mistake because it gives them cover. When the “socially awkward” exception is in play, other people are less likely to call him out on his creepy behavior .2 It becomes a way of isolating somebody from potential allies and tricking others – people who might otherwise object to his bad behavior and assist his target – into being complicit in his actions. The Awkward Excemption teaches other people to tolerate, even expect creepy behavior… and to forgive it because hey, “he means well.” It gives the creeper cover and allows him to continue being part of the community; he’s not “Johnny the creepy predator”, he’s “Johnny the decent guy, a little weird sometimes but harmless.”

...

And not only does it end up continuing the idea that being socially awkward is inherently creepy – and thus alienating good people who just need to work on their social skills – excusing the behavior makes it harder for the socially awkward to not be creepy by accident. See, the socially awkward want to improve. They aren’t interested in getting people to tolerate their fuck-ups, they want to not fuck up in the first place. Part of why being awkward isn’t an excuse is because, frankly, sometimes the only way you realize a line was there in the first place is because you tripped over it and landed on your face. Fucking up is part of how we learn; we know not to make the mistake again in the future and – more importantly – learn how to respond when we screw up.

Being awkward isn’t a permanent condition; it’s something you can overcome with education and practice. But getting a pass on creepy behavior doesn’t help you learn, and it’s not on other people to teach you.

onlinediscountanvils
NorthReport

Canadaland has a story entitled

CBC's Payback

How Mansbridge's people tried to kill Linden MacIntyre's last story

Lynn B

CBC is getting into troble over this lack of self critisism.

NorthReport

This is how Liberals operate folks.

CBC payback: how Mansbridge's people tried to kill Linden MacIntyre's last story


http://canadalandshow.com/article/cbc-payback-how-mansbridges-people-tri...

Pages