• Welcome to The Anti-Misandry Blog within SethBlogs! Confused? Click here for The Anti-Misandry Blog Introduction. Intrigued/enraged? Click on the “Anti-Misandry” link in the CATEGORY section to the right of this post for further episodes.

    THE ANTI-MISANDRY BLOG: EPISODE VIII

    “I don’t know whether Jian Ghomeshi is guilty or not, and neither does anyone who wasn’t present if and when the alleged crimes occurred. If he is proven guilty, I will still be ashamed of how many Canadians have sacrificed a person’s right to a fair trial for the sake of proving their own feminist pedigree.”

    Modern feminists are infamous for bullying their adversaries with the false dichotomy, “You either agree with feminist theory or you’re a misogynist.” Popular screenwriter and pop feminist Joss Whedon, for instance, tells those weary of being identified as feminists, “There’s no fuzzy middle ground. You either believe that women are people or you don’t. It’s that simple.”

    http://www.themarysue.com/joss-whedon-tweets-about-anita-sarkeesian/

    The intimidation has worked. When interviewing feminists, the otherwise serious western media tend to disavow their traditional skepticism, criticism, or even cautiousness of agreement. After all, to imply a hint of incredulity regarding a shocking feminist statistic is (according to popular feminist rhetoric) to advocate for the very horrors their numbers claim to represent. I have ranted a few times in this series against feminist-fearing journalists for bobbing their heads in adulation as feminist advocates have made baffling, illogical, and sometimes offensive statements. Perhaps the worst and yet most charming patsy was Jian Ghomeshi. He never heard a feminist argument he couldn’t cheer on with the most soft and inviting questions for the inflammatory claims to land on.

    Ghomeshi’s style of “with us or against us” feminism is a bed that he must now lie in as allegations that he abuses women have provoked his former feminist friends to convict him without trial.

    At first, many fans of Ghomeshi irrationally defended him on social media (i.e. they proclaimed his innocence without having direct interaction with the facts in the case). Recently, Angelina Chapin, Blogs Editor for The Huffington Post Canada, has written an eloquent piece entitled, “The Jian Ghomeshi Story Turned Us Into Social Media Fools,” in which she argues persuasively why it was wrong for anyone not involved in the case to assume that Ghomeshi was in the right. She aptly quotes a psychologist, Ann Friedman, who points out that drawing conclusions in such social media wars tends to leave us supporting the perspective with which we most identify.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/angelina-chapin/jian-ghomeshi-social-media_b_6091358.html

    Chapin counts herself among the too-quick-to-defend-Ghomeshi (although, to be fair, she never argued that he was innocent). It’s a noble admission from Chapin that her initial public reaction to Ghomeshi’s firing was one of emotion over reason. The trouble is that this confessed conclusion jumper is only criticizing the side that has tweeted in defence of Mr. Ghomeshi. Far from adding that no one but the alleged victims have the right to assume his guilt, she goes on to say, “The Ghomeshi story has proved that we desperately need to have open dialogues about consent, sexual abuse and powerful figures.” So apparently, while she was wrong to assume his innocence initially, she’s now right to imply that he’s guilty. Ms. Chapin’s transition from irrationally defending to irrationally accusing is right on trend.

    I believe the general shift was provoked when Ghomeshi defenders asked why his accusers didn’t come forward at the time of the alleged assaults. It is a question that could be asked of delayed claims by victims in other crimes. After all, the longer one waits to tell the police of a crime, the more daunting it will be to prove, and so waiting not only hurts one’s own chances of finding justice, but also lessens one’s opportunity to protect future victims from the same trauma. Thus, given the counter-intuitive and problematic nature of delayed reporting, asking adults what caused them to wait may be useful to police in assessing the veracity of the complaints. However, if the crime is violent, and the alleged victim is female, feminists take this otherwise reasonable question as proof of misogyny.

    And so, upon hearing the blasphemous question, the feminist army’s ears’ perked up. Quickly, they announced that the “Why did you wait?” question was tantamount to blaming the victim and was further proof of our rape culture. This immediately terrified the press, and so the media commentators who might have been willing to stay neutral in this scandal cowered as they saw their political betters approaching.

    Both of the radio stations (CBC and CKNW) that I follow, for instance, began to interview “experts” (i.e. feminist advocates) regarding sexual violence against women: they asked the advocates to explain why Ghomeshi’s “victims” would have waited to come forward. Thus the stations were officially abdicating neutrality as they assumed in their questions that the alleged victims must have had good reasons for announcing themselves belatedly. If CKNW or CBC had asked, “In your judgement, why might these women have waited to come forward?” and then also interviewed an expert regarding false claims (perhaps asking, “In your judgment, what are the distinguishing symptoms in those rare cases where allegations have been proven to be false?”) the radio stations could have held onto their claims of objectivity. Instead, the broadcasters’ neutrality was now permanently in hiding.

    Of course, given the initially aggressive defence from some of Ghomeshi’s fans, I understand why victims’ advocates may have felt compelled to defend delayed victim reporting by pointing out that accusing a celebrity of sexual assault may come with special challenges (especially given that we currently live a Troll’s paradise that may devour such accusers). But they could have said something to the effect of, “Please be careful of assuming facts about these alleged victims. In our experience, many victims are terrified to come forward when attacked, so the delay in their accusations is not necessarily evidence that they are not telling the truth.” Sadly, the victims’ advocates knew that such circumspection was unnecessary: after all, they recognized that no member of the media was going to raise a single eyebrow against their political claims.

    For instance, on CBC Vancouver’s Early Edition, Dayla Israel, Manager of Victim Services for WAVAW (Women Against Violence Against Women) told host Rick Cluff that only “.8%” of claims of sexual assault lead to convictions. Cluff sounded appropriately baffled by the shocking number.

    “Point eight?” he said.

    Were he interviewing a person representing any other issue, he would likely have asked for details of how such startling numbers were derived. But Cluff was speaking to a feminist advocate so he did not question her.

    Meanwhile, when the same advocate said that false claims of violence occur in under 1% of cases (the feminist implication being that they’re so rare that they’re not worth considering), Cluff was again deferential (just as his former colleague Ghomeshi had been many times before him) and did not ask, “But how can we ever know what percentage of allegations are false? Instead, do you mean less than 1% of allegations are proven to be false?”

    http://www.cbc.ca/earlyedition/podcast/2014/10/30/dalya-israel-from-wavaw/

    Almost as significantly, Cluff did not point out the conspicuous feminist double standard in how Israel was interpreting her data.  Consider the two cases:

    CASE A:

    PREMISE: A low percentage of accused men are proven to be guilty (of a crime).

    CONCLUSION: Therefore, not enough men are being prosecuted.

    CASE B:

    PREMISE: A low percentage of accused women are proven to be guilty (of false accusations).

    CONCLUSION: Therefore, not enough women are being believed.

    In the latter case (against women), the results that have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt are depicted as identifying the maximum possible number of wrongdoers, whereas in the former case (against men), the results that are proven beyond the same reasonable doubt are implied to represent well below the minimum number of wrongdoers.

    Thus, when statistics seem to support feminist theory, feminists portray them as bottled truth, but when the stats don’t fit their narrative, they reference them as proof of a biased system against women. It’s possible, of course, that they’re right that the system has significant internal biases against female victims of crime, but evidence is required beyond these one-sided interpretations of data. And the only way to push feminists into a neutral corner is if the media occasionally challenges their statements.

    Instead, most media treat social justice agencies as truth beacons. The consequence is the same as it would be for an unchallenged politician. As with political parties, non-profit agencies have missions, which they’re naturally disposed to prop up by tweaking the data and information to best fit their narrative. That’s an unfortunate necessity of modern non-profit warfare, which can only be minimized with checks and balances such as skepticism from the press.

    Meanwhile, with the critical press away from its desk, social media has continued to build its case against Ghomeshi. A petition, calling on former Q guests to “support the women,” (i.e. presume Ghomeshi’s guilt) has been signed by a variety of celebrities, including Shawn Majumder (of This Hour Has 22 Minutes), who stated: “I have considered [Ghomeshi] a pal. However these allegations and even more, how he tried to use a statement to shame anyone in coming to speak the truth about his actions makes me lose all respect for him. I support every woman who has been dealt a blow. From him or anyone.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/10/31/ghomeshi-petition-q-guests_n_6083008.html

    Feminist and Canadian superstar author Margaret Atwood has also decided to lend her reputation to the modern-day McCarthyism. It’s baffling to see such a high-minded person add herself to the list of those unwilling to wait for Ghomeshi to be charged with, let alone convicted of, a crime before proclaiming his guilt.

    Even more unnerving, several so-called friends of Ghomeshi have also helped themselves to a pre-trial guilty verdict. His former Moxy Fruvous bandmates stated: “As former colleagues of Jian (our last show was in 2000), we are sickened and saddened by this week’s news. We had no inkling that Jian engaged in this type of behaviour… We abhor the idea of a sexual relationship of any sort being entered into without full consent from both parties and condemn violence against women in any form.”

    
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/10/31/moxy-fruvous-jian-ghomeshi_n_6084860.html

    While they don’t directly state that he’s guilty, they clearly imply so with their language regarding “this type of behaviour,” followed by a description of the illegal behaviour to which they’re heroically opposed.

    Most egregiously, Owen Pallett, who claims to be a friend of Ghomeshi’s, said: “I was challenged by a friend to say something about the recent allegations against Jian Ghomeshi. Jian is my friend. I have appeared twice on Q. But there is no grey area here. Three women have been beaten by Jian Ghomeshi.”

    https://www.facebook.com/owenpalletteternal/posts/1491910081073780

    This post was made after only three anonymous accusations had been announced, and from it we can deduce that either (A) Pallett already had evidence that his alleged friend was guilty of criminal violence before these accusations came out, but didn’t do anything about it; or (B) he’s merrily convicting his friend of a crime without a trial. With friends like that, who needs a lynch mob?

    Finally, Ruth Spencer, who says she’s a former girlfriend of Ghomeshi, has also announced that he’s guilty, because, although he never assaulted her during their relationship, he had some strange behaviours, which she’s now decided are proof that he was “grooming [her] for the same violence he inflicted on other women.”

    
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/01/jian-ghomeshi-i-dated-him

    According to Spencer, for instance, Ghomeshi had anxiety issues, so voila, let’s grab onto the trope of the socially awkward (and/or mentally ill) male as a symptom that he’s a violent sociopath, and we have ourselves a bigger Twitter following than ever before!

    I have no idea whether Ghomeshi is guilty or not, and neither does anyone who wasn’t present if and when the alleged crimes occurred. If he is proven guilty, I will still be ashamed of how many Canadians have sacrificed a person’s right to a fair trial for the sake of proving their own feminist pedigree. Ghomeshi, the feminist whom they thought they knew on Q, would have been proud.

    Jian Ghomeshi may turn out to have been the vicious abuser Margaret Atwood has already decided he is, but that will not retroactively justify this attack on his right to reasonable doubt. To paraphrase Mr. Whedon, There’s no fuzzy middle ground here. You either believe that everyone has the right to a fair trial or you don’t. It’s that simple.

    NOTE: For a case and point of Ghomesian Feminism in further action, see: GHOMESHI’S FEMINISM – A CASE STUDY.

    Posted by SethBlog @ 6:06 PM

  • 13 Responses

    WP_Modern_Notepad
    • Yo Says:

      Blah, blah, blah. Don’t need to wait for a court of law to understand that someone is an asshole.

      What is it with bro culture narcissism and 1500 word essays.

    • Rachel Says:

      Agreed! Why so many people are so enthusiastically voicing their uninformed opinions on this situation is beyond me. How can you pick a side without any facts? Will be interesting to see how this one turns out.

      Have you seen this story?
      http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/baltimore-ravens-cheerleader-molly-shattuck-accused-raping-teen-boy-article-1.2000050
      The comments on the article are what really disturbed me. Surely if it were a 47 year old man sexually pursuing a 15 year old girl, people would want his head. But because it’s a teenage boy and an older woman, he’s “lucky”? Sure, it’s common for teens to fantasize about being with an older partner, but it’s up to adults to know better. There is an age of consent for a reason – kids, regardless of gender, are impressionable!

    • SethBlog Says:

      Thanks Rachel. Yeah, opinions before facts seems to be the order of the day. I suspect social media is exacerbating this phenomenon.

      And, then in the story you mention, the quick-draw and vile-opinion givers again baffle me. Comment sections of such articles are a dangerous place for the thoughtful to tread. 🙂

    • SethBlog Says:

      Thanks Yo. You might also enjoy long walks on the beach, witch hunting, and McCarthyism in your spare time. 😉

      As I think my essay clearly indicates, I did not defend Mr. Ghomeshi, my alleged “bro.” Instead, I defended his Canadian human right to a fair trial, which I believe all of us should have, whether you have deemed us jerks or not.

    • Natalie Says:

      Precisely.

    • oy! Says:

      What is it with auto-feminism and unsupported 140-character statements?

    • SethBlog Says:

      Thank you, Natalie, for your precise agreement. 🙂

      Oy, thank you for your entertaining and illuminating reversal of Yo’s commentary.

    • Janice Fiamengo Says:

      Thank you, Seth, for this meticulously defended argument. You have articulated persuasively just what I’ve been feeling about the Ghomeshi case–but hadn’t thought through as eloquently as you. This piece should be required reading for mainstream journalists of all stripes.

    • SethBlog Says:

      Thank you, Janice! That’s a very generous response, especially given your superior oration on this topic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjwK6conuiY.

      As for the notion of mainstream journalists viewing this piece, I am delighted by the idea. Although, to be fair, I’m arguing for a dispassionate objectivity that I believe they’re already trained in – they just don’t necessarily follow it especially when feminist arguments or other unassailable ideological perspectives visit them. 😉

    • Carly Simms Says:

      The Ruth Spencer article is just an attempt at slander and publicity for it’s author. She obviously is short on intelligence and talent to write with such immaturity and deliberate presumption of the guilt of a man whom she says treated her only with respect and kindness over their 6 month relationship. I would not be suprised to see both Ruth and her employer sued by Mr Ghomeshi once he is found not guilty.

    • SethBlog Says:

      Thanks Carly. Yes, that was a shocking leap of accusation that she made. And I think she was comfortable doing it because our media culture is permissive of assumptions for guilt before proof.

    • Carly Simms Says:

      Ruth Spencer is a closet lesbian, man hating femminist nazi! She threw Ghomeshi under the bus and used her position as Editor with the Guardian to Slander him on the internet. How is this guy supposed to get a fair trial now?

    • SethBlog Says:

      Not sure of the relevance of her alleged status as “a closet lesbian.” From my uneducated, faraway vantage point, the trial seemed fair, so hopefully that’s good news for our society. I suppose the unfair journalism could still affect the judge’s final decision.

    Leave a Comment

    Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.

Subscribe to Sethblogs

Enter your favourite email address here and sethblogs will alert you whenever Seth blogs.