By Vandee
Far be it for some clunky, worthless blogger – one who does little more than spew dross in the shady recesses of Blogspot – to assume he’s got all the answers. Truth is, my ignorance in all things proves overwhelming more often than not, but hopefully my desire to improve outweighs this. Please comment, criticize, deride as needed, or I’ll never learn.
Sufficiently self-deprecated, I’ll move on to the issue at hand:
Jian Ghomeshi – perennial queen of the Canadian indie homecoming dance – began the week with a Facebook artillery barrage aimed at himself. Long hours that I spent alternatively agreeing and disagreeing with the cohort-famous CBC Radio host while listening to his show “Q” did not prepare me for the 1,000 word Facebook post that was forwarded to me on Sunday.
Jian explained, with some level of detail, the atmosphere that currently surrounds him, and the nominal reasons for his dismissal from the CBC. He admits to being a BDSM aficionado, being non-monogamous, and continually stresses being above board when it comes to consent. He is not yet a criminal, and no charges have been laid against him. The rumor mill spins, but nothing especially damning has yet been substantiated.
Frankly, Jian’s account reads more like a Savage Love submission than something akin to the recent NFL scandals. His tone, and I suspect his aim, is to construct a defense perimeter around himself, as if checking the right boxes secures his position.
Jian’s (presumed) inner monologue:
“I’ve got consent from every woman I’ve been with, I engage in “alternative” sexual practices that no one has the right to criticize, and I’ve been fired on shaky grounds when no charges have been laid against me. Come at me, bro!”
Pretty good defensive walls – certainly, here is a man who knows how to tick the requisite boxes needed to pacify the Left.
My only response must then be: let’s wait till all of the facts come out. Most importantly – let’s get stories from the women. After all, who is Ghomeshi preemptively defending himself against? The CBC for sure, the pundits and bloggers no doubt, but ultimately, his fortifications must withstand a barrage from the women he has been seeing.
So, perhaps misguidedly, I took to Reddit:
Embedded in the Ghomeshi thread was the now well-trod link to an XOJane article. In this piece from 2013, a woman describes a date with a pseudonymmed Ghomeshi. Though she does not suggest that Ghomeshi engaged in illicit, illegal, or explicit sexually aggressive behavior, he comes off… well, I would describe the outlined behavior as douchy and presumptive.
Now, much as we’d like to see douchy, presumptive behaviour eliminated from the dating scene, the sad reality is that if this type of thing were grounds for dismissal from one’s employer, there’d be a lot of dudes out of work. The first question: if the XOJane account is accurate, can we describe Ghomeshi as a criminal or a serious liability to the CBC?
Taking a step back:
I had heard through various internet rumor mills, as well as some friends tied into the arts/media scene in insular Toronto, that Ghomeshi has a reputation as a philanderer. To be clear, I do not mean this as a negative slant against the guy, I’m merely saying that buddy has a reputation. Second question: does Ghomeshi’s seemingly long-standing reputation as a philanderer include descriptors like “douchy” or “presumptive”? If so, what must it be like to be a female staffer at CBC’s offices in Toronto, potentially subject to this behavior, and knowing that buddy has been the golden boy of Canadian radio for some time?
Now today:
I read that multiple women had, before Ghomeshi’s termination, gone to the Toronto Star with stories relating unwanted behavior of a sexual nature. One, rather extreme, example comes from a woman who claims “…she visited Ghomeshi at his Toronto home and alleges as soon as she walked into his house he suddenly struck her hard with his open hand, then continued to hit her and choked her.’ Another said: ‘He attacked me. Choked me. Hit me like I didn’t know men hit women. I submitted.” (http://op-talk.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/27/what-jian-ghomeshis-accusers-were-afraid-of/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0) .
Shit just got real.
I was shocked to read in the Vancouver Sun today, an opinion piece that discredits the claims of these women on the grounds of “why didn’t they go to the police?” Does this logic hold? I always assumed that confusion and stigma associated with being a victim – especially the victim of a beloved media personality – precludes one from the expectation of following the prescribed channels of justice. Basically, when a woman is victimized, any course of action seems justified (in this terrible blogger’s opinion).
So now I wait, reserving final judgement until all the facts come out; that said, I can foresee two outcomes:
One: the choking incident is substantiated. Even if this was a consensual act of BDSM (which it does not appear to be from the woman’s statement), a genuinely shaken/affected woman is enough to retroactively cancel the consent. I.e. if she feels she’s been abused, consent no longer functions as the Holy Grail litmus test for what is acceptable.
Two: all of the accusations are proven false – Ghomeshi has been the victim of a stodgy and unforgiving CBC, as well as a conspiracy of exes who desire revenge and notoriety. I hesitate to even write this as a possibility, since it would imply that the women coming forward are anything less than victims, which I feel is a right I do not have.
If scenario two unfolds, could the CBC still justify Jian’s termination? Buddy has a reputation as a philanderer and “douche”, and has a string of exes willing to cite the guy’s sexual history. They may not be victims (if scenario two proves true), but they are pissed off enough to plot revenge against the guy. If I’m an employer, and one of the most prominent faces of my company has a growing reputation as a philandering douche who plays fast and loose with his partners’ emotions, and even engages in this type of activity with members of my staff, firing the guy seems like a no-brainer.
Again, all of this is easy to say from the VanProver pulpit, but I think I’m getting close to the crux of the broader issue:
Many Ghomeshi fans have been quick to rush to his defence. Many are of the lefty set. Many, I’m sure, have marched in a feminist parade or some equivalent. False accusations are a real thing, so I won’t lash out at folks for supporting their boy, but if the claims against Ghomeshi are substantiated, everyone who rushed to unilateral defense of the guy will have some answering to do.
The New Equality demands a lot – especially for white alpha males like me who won the genetic and socioeconomic lottery at birth (not that Ghomeshi necessarily fits that mould). It seems to me that when a woman has been victimized – or rather, when a woman claims injustice – the accused is guilty until proven innocent. This is way it has to be: to counteract centuries of unapologetic male dominance and victim-blaming. We have to treat every accusation as a serious concern, worthy of thorough dissection. Rushing to the defense of the accused abuser could prove, in the end, to have been tragically misplaced. The closest thing one can come to “supporting” the accused would be to say something to the extent of “I’ll reserve judgement until the facts come out”. Maybe someday, decades from now, we’ll have developed the social protocol needed to treat these situations objectively, but for now, we must only rush to the support of the perceived victim.
Finally:
Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe I’m expecting too much from people, and from myself, but it seems to me that the best way to deal accusations like those facing Ghomeshi is not to tick “consent boxes” as a means to build a defense, but rather to hop right on the cross as fast as possible. This would have the accused making statements that sound roughly like this:
“I apologize in advance – it was never my intention to harm anyone in any way. I believe I acted with everyone’s best interest in mind, but I admit I am limited by my own experience. Please investigate every accusation that has been laid against me so we might get to the truth of the matter, because justice means more to me than my reputation, my job, or 50 million dollars-worth of taxpayer money.”
VanProver 