“Since then, I’ve become a hashtag.”
September 15, 2018 4:55 AM Subscribe
What Women Want From Jian Ghomeshi by Anne Thériault [Flare] “In the autumn of 2018, almost exactly four years after the allegations of sexual assault and abuse made against Jian Ghomeshi were published in the Toronto Star, we have finally reached the contrition stage of this particular narrative. In a lengthy essay for the New York Review of Books—accompanied by a Edvard Munch painting of a man deep in thought, entitled Melancholy—Ghomeshi takes 39 meandering paragraphs to say that he feels sorry; mostly for himself, but also a little bit for the women he hurt. Women, he explains, that he didn’t actually hurt in any of the specific, horrible ways that you’ve heard; mostly he hurt them by being thoughtless and a bit full of himself, which, he’s sure you’ll agree, is perfectly understandable given how famous and beloved he used to be. But anyway, enough about these women! What Jian really wants to know is, What it will take for you to finally stop hating Jian?”
• Reflections from a Hashtag by Jian Ghomeshi [The New York Review of Books]
• Reflections from a Hashtag by Jian Ghomeshi [The New York Review of Books]
“In October 2014, I was fired from my job at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation after allegations circulated online that I’d been abusive with an ex-girlfriend during sex. In the aftermath of my firing, and amid a media storm, several more people accused me of sexual misconduct. I faced criminal charges including hair-pulling, hitting during intimacy in one instance, and—the most serious allegation—nonconsensual choking while making out with a woman on a date in 2002. I pleaded not guilty. Several months later, after a very public trial, I was cleared on all counts. One of the charges was separated and later withdrawn with a peace bond—a pledge to be on good behavior for a year. There was no criminal trial. My acquittal left my accusers and many observers profoundly unhappy. There was a sentiment among them that, regardless of any legal exoneration, I was almost certainly a world-class prick, probably a sexual bully, and that I needed to be held to account beyond simply losing my career and reputation.”• Why Did the New York Review of Books Publish That Jian Ghomeshi Essay?: We asked the editor. [Slate]
“The reason I was interested in publishing it is precisely to help people think this sort of thing through. I am not talking about people who broke the law. I am not talking about rapists. I am talking about people who behaved badly sexually, abusing their power in one way or another, and then the question is how should that be sanctioned. Something like rape is a crime, and we know what happens in the case of crimes. There are trials and if you are held to be guilty or convicted and so on, there are rules about that. What is much murkier is when people are not found to have broken the law but have misbehaved in other ways nonetheless. How do you deal with such cases? Should that last forever? I’m no judge of the rights and wrongs of every allegation. How can I be? All I know is that in a court of law he was acquitted, and there is no proof he committed a crime. The exact nature of his behavior—how much consent was involved—I have no idea, nor is it really my concern. My concern is what happens to somebody who has not been found guilty in any criminal sense but who perhaps deserves social opprobrium, but how long should that last, what form it should take, etc.”• Accused Abuser Jian Ghomeshi Doesn’t Deserve Anyone’s Pity [Vice News]
“Here’s the thing: No one should feel bad for Ghomeshi. He is accused of being a serial abuser and has suffered severe social consequences because of it—but that’s pretty much the only kind of justice his alleged victims will ever experience. Beyond a reasonable doubt is an incredibly high standard of proof and in sex assault cases, where there is often only the testimony of the complainant to rely on, it’s notoriously hard to meet that threshold. So while in criminal terms, Ghomeshi is “innocent” the reality is, there just wasn’t enough evidence to convict him. Beyond that, most of the allegations against him were never tested in court. If the justice system worked differently, Ghomeshi may well be in jail right now. Instead, he’s writing cover stories for prestigious literary magazines. Pass the Kleenex.”
Yes, okay, I admit that "how do we deal with what are basically sexual crimes beyond the reach of the law" is an important question, and thinking it through is important. But you know who I'd like to read on that subject? People who do, eg, accountability processes, or who work with men who have committed sexual assault, or who do philosophy about reparations and amends...or even some guy who has an actual track record of going through an accountability process and changing his life after he assaulted someone. The person I don't really want to hear from on this important question? Jian Gomeshi.
Also: Okay, he's formally "innocent" and has served out his peace bond or whatever. My assumption is that he can get a job which will keep a roof over his head. He doesn't need to return to being famous.
This is true of all these men who've abused and harassed and who are now seeking second acts. To me it's a test of character - let's say that you're a guy who did in fact harass and abuse, but you were beyond the reach of the law. You've accepted that you abused your partners but you contend that this was because of character flaws that you are addressing or bad habits and a lack of understanding. I would expect that if you took what happened seriously you'd be pretty appalled at yourself and you'd change your life. If you were, eg, a big time comic who positioned himself (pretty badly IMO) as a feminist, maybe you would stop being a big time fauminist comic and do something else so that we didn't all have to look at your face. But if you none the less seek to return to fame and glory, I feel like you've just confirmed your true character as a self-centered and abusive person. It's not like any of these men are going to starve if they take jobs that don't involve being famous - they could easily lead quiet lives and focus on being better people.
posted by Frowner at 5:30 AM on September 15, 2018 [85 favorites]
Also: Okay, he's formally "innocent" and has served out his peace bond or whatever. My assumption is that he can get a job which will keep a roof over his head. He doesn't need to return to being famous.
This is true of all these men who've abused and harassed and who are now seeking second acts. To me it's a test of character - let's say that you're a guy who did in fact harass and abuse, but you were beyond the reach of the law. You've accepted that you abused your partners but you contend that this was because of character flaws that you are addressing or bad habits and a lack of understanding. I would expect that if you took what happened seriously you'd be pretty appalled at yourself and you'd change your life. If you were, eg, a big time comic who positioned himself (pretty badly IMO) as a feminist, maybe you would stop being a big time fauminist comic and do something else so that we didn't all have to look at your face. But if you none the less seek to return to fame and glory, I feel like you've just confirmed your true character as a self-centered and abusive person. It's not like any of these men are going to starve if they take jobs that don't involve being famous - they could easily lead quiet lives and focus on being better people.
posted by Frowner at 5:30 AM on September 15, 2018 [85 favorites]
The Slate interview is pretty great.
posted by tofu_crouton at 5:44 AM on September 15, 2018 [8 favorites]
posted by tofu_crouton at 5:44 AM on September 15, 2018 [8 favorites]
I'm just curious if there is a particular PR firm that is currently working with the #metoo'd men or if it a bunch of independent firms. There seems to be a real concerted and coordinated media push for declaring these men sufficiently punished.
from the very start of Slate piece:
" I met, through another editor, many months ago, Jian Ghomeshi, whom I hadn’t met before and who told me his story and said that he was interested in writing about it."
Who is this editor that is shopping Jian Ghomeshi around?
posted by srboisvert at 5:46 AM on September 15, 2018 [46 favorites]
from the very start of Slate piece:
" I met, through another editor, many months ago, Jian Ghomeshi, whom I hadn’t met before and who told me his story and said that he was interested in writing about it."
Who is this editor that is shopping Jian Ghomeshi around?
posted by srboisvert at 5:46 AM on September 15, 2018 [46 favorites]
Yeah, then he says, "The editor had … I don’t know how he knew Ghomeshi. I have no idea. " What was he going to say? That a PR firm contacted him? That they are buddies?
posted by tofu_crouton at 5:48 AM on September 15, 2018 [6 favorites]
posted by tofu_crouton at 5:48 AM on September 15, 2018 [6 favorites]
The Slate interview is like Mamet/Oleanna fan fiction. Smart man think women don't say what they want! Smart man think women change their mind!
posted by armacy at 5:52 AM on September 15, 2018 [11 favorites]
posted by armacy at 5:52 AM on September 15, 2018 [11 favorites]
One of my female friends quips that I should get some kind of public recognition as a #MeToo pioneer. There are lots of guys more hated than me now. But I was the guy everyone hated first.
Seriously? Shut up, Jian. You almost sound proud.
posted by aclevername at 5:59 AM on September 15, 2018 [51 favorites]
Seriously? Shut up, Jian. You almost sound proud.
posted by aclevername at 5:59 AM on September 15, 2018 [51 favorites]
"some of my best friends are females"
posted by howfar at 6:33 AM on September 15, 2018 [10 favorites]
posted by howfar at 6:33 AM on September 15, 2018 [10 favorites]
The Slate article shows the cover of the issue, and it seems like they’ve filled it with more of this trash? Not just one bad idea but a whole magazine full of them. I guess we can throw the whole thing in the trash with The New Yorker.
posted by Artw at 6:34 AM on September 15, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by Artw at 6:34 AM on September 15, 2018 [3 favorites]
The Cut: What I Know About Jian Ghomeshi
This piece - which, by the way, only exists because he chose to write it - is his chance to tell the story he wants us to believe. It’s his attempt to try to blind us into accepting his version of truth, without acknowledging the depth of the pain he’s caused. But we already know who Jian Ghomeshi is, and it’s not the man portrayed in The New York Review of Books. Make no mistake: This essay is not a reckoning. It’s just another charm offensive
posted by Artw at 6:35 AM on September 15, 2018 [30 favorites]
This piece - which, by the way, only exists because he chose to write it - is his chance to tell the story he wants us to believe. It’s his attempt to try to blind us into accepting his version of truth, without acknowledging the depth of the pain he’s caused. But we already know who Jian Ghomeshi is, and it’s not the man portrayed in The New York Review of Books. Make no mistake: This essay is not a reckoning. It’s just another charm offensive
posted by Artw at 6:35 AM on September 15, 2018 [30 favorites]
He doesn't need to return to being famous.
Or, rather, being a sexual abuser is now part (possibly the most dominant part) of his “brand.” He doesn’t get to be famous without people say “who’s that guy? Oh, yeah, an abuser.” This is one of the problems with fame — you don’t get to choose what you’re famous for, and better people than Ghomeshi have been indelibly marked for much less malignant acts. Why should he be special?
posted by GenjiandProust at 6:37 AM on September 15, 2018 [12 favorites]
Or, rather, being a sexual abuser is now part (possibly the most dominant part) of his “brand.” He doesn’t get to be famous without people say “who’s that guy? Oh, yeah, an abuser.” This is one of the problems with fame — you don’t get to choose what you’re famous for, and better people than Ghomeshi have been indelibly marked for much less malignant acts. Why should he be special?
posted by GenjiandProust at 6:37 AM on September 15, 2018 [12 favorites]
Looks like Harper's is really carving out a niche for itself.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 6:45 AM on September 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by the man of twists and turns at 6:45 AM on September 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
What it will take for you to finally stop hating Jian?
I don't hate him; we have established who he really is. He is a Jekyll and Hyde who had no talent, and made it very far with a false persona. He has proven himself to be untrustworthy, and I frankly do not care what he has to say.
You know, nothing will ever truly change if we drift back to old habits because predators can sit tight, make boyish "I'm sorry" faces, and then go back to getting rewarded, and then others see they can behave poorly and get away with it. There has to be real consequences, and for these men, having mainstream and public careers and platforms should be denied to them. They can get a real job elsewhere. If society chooses to remain spineless and unteachable, then they can't complain that the bullies are getting out of control.
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 6:49 AM on September 15, 2018 [21 favorites]
I don't hate him; we have established who he really is. He is a Jekyll and Hyde who had no talent, and made it very far with a false persona. He has proven himself to be untrustworthy, and I frankly do not care what he has to say.
You know, nothing will ever truly change if we drift back to old habits because predators can sit tight, make boyish "I'm sorry" faces, and then go back to getting rewarded, and then others see they can behave poorly and get away with it. There has to be real consequences, and for these men, having mainstream and public careers and platforms should be denied to them. They can get a real job elsewhere. If society chooses to remain spineless and unteachable, then they can't complain that the bullies are getting out of control.
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 6:49 AM on September 15, 2018 [21 favorites]
That Slate interview absolutely enraged me. I came here to post it but you beat me to it.
posted by tommasz at 6:53 AM on September 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by tommasz at 6:53 AM on September 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
Looks like what Ghomeshi wants more than anything is to be relevant. These articles appear designed to get people to keep hating him, because even being hated means he's still got a hold on your heart. Even The Cut's article plays into that; I bet it was also part of the PR campaign. What would hurt him more than anything is for people to stop talking about him, to be forgotten.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 7:04 AM on September 15, 2018 [15 favorites]
posted by I-Write-Essays at 7:04 AM on September 15, 2018 [15 favorites]
Don't forget that if you want to rile up potential supporters with hate in their hearts, a good way to do it is by creating a group of enemies to point them at. Having vocal anti-fans is an important part of the social media game.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 7:11 AM on September 15, 2018 [9 favorites]
posted by I-Write-Essays at 7:11 AM on September 15, 2018 [9 favorites]
My god, that Slate piece is almost worse than Ghomeshi's own piece -- not for the Slate writer, but the editor who greenlit the Ghomeshi piece. It's perhaps unfair, but I'm just going to go ahead and assume that guy has #metooed quite a lot of women in his day.
Mostly by biting them.
posted by jacquilynne at 7:20 AM on September 15, 2018 [21 favorites]
Mostly by biting them.
posted by jacquilynne at 7:20 AM on September 15, 2018 [21 favorites]
I didn't realize NYR was in that kind of trouble.
I hope there is at least some way of keeping the archives accessible.
posted by jamjam at 7:22 AM on September 15, 2018 [4 favorites]
I hope there is at least some way of keeping the archives accessible.
posted by jamjam at 7:22 AM on September 15, 2018 [4 favorites]
I'm imagining a PR machine A-B testing each paragraph or sentence of the apology tour manifesto until they find one bland enough to work, to soothe, to successfully bullshit the unaware. And that's scary.
posted by puddledork at 7:44 AM on September 15, 2018 [15 favorites]
posted by puddledork at 7:44 AM on September 15, 2018 [15 favorites]
"Even people who are supportive sometimes have expectations of how I will act based on a singular, sexualized identity that was repeated in media stories."
Gee, and getting a taste of what life is like didn't even give him any empathy. I honestly hope he dies in a fire.
That said I have serious qualms about publicly shaming people on the internet, partially because there are permanent repercussions that can shade into the unfair and I don't think everyone is without ability to change. I don't think the shame deters other men, either, because every single one of them thinks *he* can get away with it, or it's somehow different for him.
But it's important for the shame to be taken away from women, where it has historically rested, and to warn them, and currently there are no other options and not even pale reflections of justice. There certainly was none here.
posted by liminal_shadows at 8:21 AM on September 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
Gee, and getting a taste of what life is like didn't even give him any empathy. I honestly hope he dies in a fire.
That said I have serious qualms about publicly shaming people on the internet, partially because there are permanent repercussions that can shade into the unfair and I don't think everyone is without ability to change. I don't think the shame deters other men, either, because every single one of them thinks *he* can get away with it, or it's somehow different for him.
But it's important for the shame to be taken away from women, where it has historically rested, and to warn them, and currently there are no other options and not even pale reflections of justice. There certainly was none here.
posted by liminal_shadows at 8:21 AM on September 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
So fuck this guy. And fuck Hockenberry too.
Is there a model of doing some sort of apology / reconciliation right? I'd like there to be some road to redemption but so far what we've seen this year is not it. A lot of men not really owning up to what they did or take responsibility, it's like they aren't even trying very hard. Has anyone tried hard and succeeded? I'd like to think it's possible, at least for men whose offenses are relatively limited. But so far all we've seen is self-pitying garbage that betrays that the offensive men haven't really understood anything.
posted by Nelson at 8:27 AM on September 15, 2018 [11 favorites]
Is there a model of doing some sort of apology / reconciliation right? I'd like there to be some road to redemption but so far what we've seen this year is not it. A lot of men not really owning up to what they did or take responsibility, it's like they aren't even trying very hard. Has anyone tried hard and succeeded? I'd like to think it's possible, at least for men whose offenses are relatively limited. But so far all we've seen is self-pitying garbage that betrays that the offensive men haven't really understood anything.
posted by Nelson at 8:27 AM on September 15, 2018 [11 favorites]
I am having a very hard time with the rage with the fact that he got away with assault, after such a mass of women reported what he's done. This is exactly why I've never reported rape, sexual assault, or work harassment, this and the fact that *I* couldn't deal with public notoriety as a victim.
I feel an incredible loathing for his weak, bullshit, whiny monologue and the fact that an editor actual fucking published this bullshit.
Life is hell.
posted by liminal_shadows at 8:30 AM on September 15, 2018 [22 favorites]
I feel an incredible loathing for his weak, bullshit, whiny monologue and the fact that an editor actual fucking published this bullshit.
Life is hell.
posted by liminal_shadows at 8:30 AM on September 15, 2018 [22 favorites]
No. Rapists and abusers should not be allowed to go back to their old careers. Because in a just world they would fucking go to jail.
posted by emjaybee at 8:31 AM on September 15, 2018 [29 favorites]
posted by emjaybee at 8:31 AM on September 15, 2018 [29 favorites]
There is no redempting yourself from rape. You should serve time, then live a private life bothering no other people. No one is owed fame or publicity.
posted by emjaybee at 8:33 AM on September 15, 2018 [17 favorites]
posted by emjaybee at 8:33 AM on September 15, 2018 [17 favorites]
All I need to know about Jian Ghomeshi I learned while following Moxy Fruvous around on tour for a while. Even after he'd met me for the fourth or fifth time, he'd still greet me by holding out his hand to shake and saying "Hi, I'm Jian".
The teenage girls who also came to the shows? He remembered all of their names after meeting them only once.
posted by Mr. Bad Example at 8:42 AM on September 15, 2018 [44 favorites]
The teenage girls who also came to the shows? He remembered all of their names after meeting them only once.
posted by Mr. Bad Example at 8:42 AM on September 15, 2018 [44 favorites]
I thought Ian Buruma was an interesting choice for the new NYRB editor but that Slate interview is an utter wreck.
posted by fallingbadgers at 8:58 AM on September 15, 2018 [4 favorites]
posted by fallingbadgers at 8:58 AM on September 15, 2018 [4 favorites]
at this point my expectation is that men attempting to "atone" for sexual exploitation of women are looking for attention and opportunities to re-offend. this is extra true if they write well about the feminisms - looking at you m, Hugo Schwyzer.
posted by bagel at 9:14 AM on September 15, 2018 [12 favorites]
posted by bagel at 9:14 AM on September 15, 2018 [12 favorites]
If the justice system worked differently, Ghomeshi may well be in jail right now.
What the writer meant was: Ghomeshi might well be in jail right now.
posted by zadcat at 9:41 AM on September 15, 2018 [5 favorites]
What the writer meant was: Ghomeshi might well be in jail right now.
posted by zadcat at 9:41 AM on September 15, 2018 [5 favorites]
When I saw that pull quote from the Slate article, I said to myself, "the editor who published that piece must be a man." Then I clicked the link to verify that assumption. Yup. Assumption verified. And then I was further enraged. I really didn't expect his answers to get worse, and so much worse at that.
I just can't believe that in this day and age that people (even if they don't believe in #MeToo) aren't conscious of it and their own reputations in regards to the "movement" (I wish there was a better term to describe this awakening). Okay, maybe not everybody, but people in positions of power in the media should well be aware of what they're saying, especially if they are representing a brand that is bigger than themselves.
I'm only sorry that I don't have a subscription to the magazine, so so that I could cancel it with a scathing letter to that editor and let him know I don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth, especially with regards to having no push back on publishing the article. Or tell him that if he didn't get any push back it's because his own staff is too terrified of him, and of losing their jobs to be honest with him, which is not the way a magazine should be run.
posted by sardonyx at 9:44 AM on September 15, 2018 [9 favorites]
I just can't believe that in this day and age that people (even if they don't believe in #MeToo) aren't conscious of it and their own reputations in regards to the "movement" (I wish there was a better term to describe this awakening). Okay, maybe not everybody, but people in positions of power in the media should well be aware of what they're saying, especially if they are representing a brand that is bigger than themselves.
I'm only sorry that I don't have a subscription to the magazine, so so that I could cancel it with a scathing letter to that editor and let him know I don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth, especially with regards to having no push back on publishing the article. Or tell him that if he didn't get any push back it's because his own staff is too terrified of him, and of losing their jobs to be honest with him, which is not the way a magazine should be run.
posted by sardonyx at 9:44 AM on September 15, 2018 [9 favorites]
Is there a model of doing some sort of apology / reconciliation right?
Not for this genre of harmful behavior, no, because if you can do that over and over to person after person you are by definition incapable of remorse.
I'd like there to be some road to redemption
I wouldn't. Not for this crap. The only decent action take-able by perpetrators of this kind of monstrousness is to do no further harm, and the only way to do that is to go away. I'm not saying you have to walk into the sea, but you do have to go permanently away and actively seek not to be seen by other people, ever, because you have proved yourself unfit for human consumption. Go away.
but so far what we've seen this year is not it.
We're not ever going to see this mythical it.
A lot of men not really owning up to what they did or take responsibility, it's like they aren't even trying very hard.
They can't try. They don't understand what trying even would be because they can't understand because their brains are broke.
Has anyone tried hard and succeeded?
Nope, see above.
I'd like to think it's possible,
It's not, see above
at least for men whose offenses are relatively limited.
Sure. But that's not this guy.
But so far all we've seen is self-pitying garbage that betrays that the offensive men haven't really understood anything.
Because they can't. See above.
posted by Don Pepino at 9:49 AM on September 15, 2018 [8 favorites]
Not for this genre of harmful behavior, no, because if you can do that over and over to person after person you are by definition incapable of remorse.
I'd like there to be some road to redemption
I wouldn't. Not for this crap. The only decent action take-able by perpetrators of this kind of monstrousness is to do no further harm, and the only way to do that is to go away. I'm not saying you have to walk into the sea, but you do have to go permanently away and actively seek not to be seen by other people, ever, because you have proved yourself unfit for human consumption. Go away.
but so far what we've seen this year is not it.
We're not ever going to see this mythical it.
A lot of men not really owning up to what they did or take responsibility, it's like they aren't even trying very hard.
They can't try. They don't understand what trying even would be because they can't understand because their brains are broke.
Has anyone tried hard and succeeded?
Nope, see above.
I'd like to think it's possible,
It's not, see above
at least for men whose offenses are relatively limited.
Sure. But that's not this guy.
But so far all we've seen is self-pitying garbage that betrays that the offensive men haven't really understood anything.
Because they can't. See above.
posted by Don Pepino at 9:49 AM on September 15, 2018 [8 favorites]
...no push back on publishing the article. Or tell him that if he didn't get any push back it's because his own staff is too terrified of him...
There is definitely something unsavory afoot at Slate. I listen to a bunch of the podcasts--Trumpcast was the gateway drug--and they are chockful of loudmouthed male hosts who talk over women all the time. Mike Pesca, for instance. Unbearable. Trumpcast, with the excellent VA Heffernan keeps me clicking, and they did a great thing on Watergate, and that's where Mallory Ortberg, now Daniel Mallory Ortberg ended up, so there are good things about it, but a really big lot of the rest of the site creeps me out. Something creepy about that corporate culture.
posted by Don Pepino at 9:59 AM on September 15, 2018 [3 favorites]
There is definitely something unsavory afoot at Slate. I listen to a bunch of the podcasts--Trumpcast was the gateway drug--and they are chockful of loudmouthed male hosts who talk over women all the time. Mike Pesca, for instance. Unbearable. Trumpcast, with the excellent VA Heffernan keeps me clicking, and they did a great thing on Watergate, and that's where Mallory Ortberg, now Daniel Mallory Ortberg ended up, so there are good things about it, but a really big lot of the rest of the site creeps me out. Something creepy about that corporate culture.
posted by Don Pepino at 9:59 AM on September 15, 2018 [3 favorites]
No word of a lie, my mum baked Jian a casserole when he was first let go. I talked her out of taking it over. Anyways, Toronto being a city of small towns, I knew him vaguely when Moxy Fruvous was in the busking stage, but I was awkward and unsexy, and I heard about him over and over via the whisper network.
And at those times although the same skin I’m in now crawled some, I was marinating in the culture that made that an expected experience. So I sympathized with my colleagues who had been interns, but I had no sense of what should happen instead.
Now, I feel like from my generational vantage point (late 40s), I put up with a lot under the assumption both that I deserved it on some level, or at least that my willingness to put up with shit would pay off, or that these were vestiges of an old system. And suddenly, #MeToo, I realized not only is this Not Okay, but that mediocre and predatory men have been placed in positions of prestige and power OVER great women not despite their behaviour but because the self-indulgent narcissism and arrogance is interpreted as talent. So fuck that, burn it down. He legitimately lost his job and hopefully his career. If you hit people without being sure they are okay with it, you suck. If you hit people you have power over like that, you should lose your position of power.
The old redemption path is a part of that sick system and should end. We do not have to solve this problem for predatory, or at the very nicest end, sexually inappropriate men at this time. There are other priorities.
Jian Ghomeshi is not owed a media career. He should go drive a truck until self-driving transport takes over or work in a warehouse or any number of other ordinary jobs and be grateful that he has his freedom, because in a more just society it’s possible he wouldn’t have that. It’s very disappointing he was given a platform, and I hope that platform also loses prestige and money.
posted by warriorqueen at 10:01 AM on September 15, 2018 [41 favorites]
And at those times although the same skin I’m in now crawled some, I was marinating in the culture that made that an expected experience. So I sympathized with my colleagues who had been interns, but I had no sense of what should happen instead.
Now, I feel like from my generational vantage point (late 40s), I put up with a lot under the assumption both that I deserved it on some level, or at least that my willingness to put up with shit would pay off, or that these were vestiges of an old system. And suddenly, #MeToo, I realized not only is this Not Okay, but that mediocre and predatory men have been placed in positions of prestige and power OVER great women not despite their behaviour but because the self-indulgent narcissism and arrogance is interpreted as talent. So fuck that, burn it down. He legitimately lost his job and hopefully his career. If you hit people without being sure they are okay with it, you suck. If you hit people you have power over like that, you should lose your position of power.
The old redemption path is a part of that sick system and should end. We do not have to solve this problem for predatory, or at the very nicest end, sexually inappropriate men at this time. There are other priorities.
Jian Ghomeshi is not owed a media career. He should go drive a truck until self-driving transport takes over or work in a warehouse or any number of other ordinary jobs and be grateful that he has his freedom, because in a more just society it’s possible he wouldn’t have that. It’s very disappointing he was given a platform, and I hope that platform also loses prestige and money.
posted by warriorqueen at 10:01 AM on September 15, 2018 [41 favorites]
It's not surprising to me that there are scads of people out there shopping these men around because these men have an effect on their livelihood. If you're a publicist or editor or promoter or talent agent or entertainment PR or makeup artist or script editor or...or...or... and your career depends on the largess of the entertainment machine and the entertainment and power machines of our world are loaded with power-abusing fuckups shielded by the patriarchy? Well, then. When the world starts taking down your golden cows, you are in real trouble. For these men who are finally getting some retribution for their abuses of power and privilege they are looking around at the cadre of supporters and enablers who are their paid friends and saying, "What can I do?" Those paid friends need to save face by continuing to support and enable and also...need the money.
The rest of us, we don't get any money off of these guys and the thrill of a hilarious standup set or listening to a well-turned phrase or enjoying a blockbuster movie is completely trashed when we realize that they've taken our money and adulation and spun it into sexual power over non-consenting women, children, teens, underlings. Gross! Put your dick away and shut up! Quit sucking up the air in the room with your wheedling.
What's sad is how many men seem to identify enough with these men to feel personally put out by other people rejecting those men. I liked Louis C.K.'s work. I liked it a lot! For a minute, I felt defensive and then realized how much bullshit just left the room allowing for a wider field of comics, a more responsible group of adults to flourish, a better world to exist. I won't give that up. I'm not going back.
posted by amanda at 10:03 AM on September 15, 2018 [26 favorites]
The rest of us, we don't get any money off of these guys and the thrill of a hilarious standup set or listening to a well-turned phrase or enjoying a blockbuster movie is completely trashed when we realize that they've taken our money and adulation and spun it into sexual power over non-consenting women, children, teens, underlings. Gross! Put your dick away and shut up! Quit sucking up the air in the room with your wheedling.
What's sad is how many men seem to identify enough with these men to feel personally put out by other people rejecting those men. I liked Louis C.K.'s work. I liked it a lot! For a minute, I felt defensive and then realized how much bullshit just left the room allowing for a wider field of comics, a more responsible group of adults to flourish, a better world to exist. I won't give that up. I'm not going back.
posted by amanda at 10:03 AM on September 15, 2018 [26 favorites]
Is there a model of doing some sort of apology / reconciliation right? ... Not for this genre of harmful behavior, no
Yeah, I agree. I was wrong trying to bring my question up in the context of someone so repeatedly violent and sexually abusive like Ghomeshi. I am interested in the question of redemption for men guilty of lesser offenses against women, but this thread is not the place for that discussion.
posted by Nelson at 10:13 AM on September 15, 2018 [4 favorites]
Yeah, I agree. I was wrong trying to bring my question up in the context of someone so repeatedly violent and sexually abusive like Ghomeshi. I am interested in the question of redemption for men guilty of lesser offenses against women, but this thread is not the place for that discussion.
posted by Nelson at 10:13 AM on September 15, 2018 [4 favorites]
There is definitely something unsavory afoot at Slate. I listen to a bunch of the podcasts--Trumpcast was the gateway drug--and they are chockful of loudmouthed male hosts who talk over women all the time. Mike Pesca, for instance. Unbearable. Trumpcast, with the excellent VA Heffernan keeps me clicking, and they did a great thing on Watergate, and that's where Mallory Ortberg, now Daniel Mallory Ortberg ended up, so there are good things about it, but a really big lot of the rest of the site creeps me out. Something creepy about that corporate culture.
posted by Don Pepino at 9:59 AM on September 15 [1 favorite +] [!]
I didn't mean Slate. I meant the Slate interview with the editor of the New York Review of Books. That's the ass that says he didn't get push back from his staff for publishing the Ghomeshi piece (which I refuse to click on or read, because that man and that publication don't deserve my time or my clicks.)
I'm not a regular reader of Slate so I can't comment on its general tone or attitude, but in this particular circumstance, I have to say the magazine and the writer, Isaac Chotiner, did important work, exposing New York Review of Books editor Ian Buruma as somebody who needs to be watched with deep suspicion and the most skeptical of side-eyes. Giving Ghomeshi a platform was bad enough, but "justifying" the reasons why he did so in such a crass and disrespectful manner was shocking. Now, at least with his opinions on the record, women know exactly what to expect if they ever want to write for the magazine. They'll be able to see that they have essentially no opportunity (see the discussion about the percentage of women writers the magazine publishes) and they'll also have evidence in front of them that their opinions about sensitive matters are likely to be disrespected. They'll also have proof that the magazine will place the good of a person like Ghomeshi above their own well being.
Sadly, that essentially means yet another avenue will be closed to them as they try to progress in their careers, and as depressing as that is, it's better to have the true picture in front of them from the start. That way, if they still want to pursue a professional relationship with the New York Times Review of Books, they'll better be able to prepare for the battles they are sure to face. Of course they shouldn't have to do this, especially in the workplace, but as we all know, there's a wide gulf between the way things should be and the way they are.
posted by sardonyx at 10:34 AM on September 15, 2018 [19 favorites]
posted by Don Pepino at 9:59 AM on September 15 [1 favorite +] [!]
I didn't mean Slate. I meant the Slate interview with the editor of the New York Review of Books. That's the ass that says he didn't get push back from his staff for publishing the Ghomeshi piece (which I refuse to click on or read, because that man and that publication don't deserve my time or my clicks.)
I'm not a regular reader of Slate so I can't comment on its general tone or attitude, but in this particular circumstance, I have to say the magazine and the writer, Isaac Chotiner, did important work, exposing New York Review of Books editor Ian Buruma as somebody who needs to be watched with deep suspicion and the most skeptical of side-eyes. Giving Ghomeshi a platform was bad enough, but "justifying" the reasons why he did so in such a crass and disrespectful manner was shocking. Now, at least with his opinions on the record, women know exactly what to expect if they ever want to write for the magazine. They'll be able to see that they have essentially no opportunity (see the discussion about the percentage of women writers the magazine publishes) and they'll also have evidence in front of them that their opinions about sensitive matters are likely to be disrespected. They'll also have proof that the magazine will place the good of a person like Ghomeshi above their own well being.
Sadly, that essentially means yet another avenue will be closed to them as they try to progress in their careers, and as depressing as that is, it's better to have the true picture in front of them from the start. That way, if they still want to pursue a professional relationship with the New York Times Review of Books, they'll better be able to prepare for the battles they are sure to face. Of course they shouldn't have to do this, especially in the workplace, but as we all know, there's a wide gulf between the way things should be and the way they are.
posted by sardonyx at 10:34 AM on September 15, 2018 [19 favorites]
From that Hockenberry article:
At some points in the essay, he takes responsibility for bad behavior toward female colleagues, some of whom he propositioned. At others he explains it away, ascribing it to out-of-fashion Byronic romanticism.
Well, that's one way to describe sexual harassment. Or was he referring to sexual assault?
Is there a model of doing some sort of apology / reconciliation right?
I don't know but if there is, I'm pretty sure it doesn't involve inventing ridiculous euphemisms for one's bad behavior. (Which, in fairness, was the point of that article.)
posted by bunbury at 10:35 AM on September 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
At some points in the essay, he takes responsibility for bad behavior toward female colleagues, some of whom he propositioned. At others he explains it away, ascribing it to out-of-fashion Byronic romanticism.
Well, that's one way to describe sexual harassment. Or was he referring to sexual assault?
Is there a model of doing some sort of apology / reconciliation right?
I don't know but if there is, I'm pretty sure it doesn't involve inventing ridiculous euphemisms for one's bad behavior. (Which, in fairness, was the point of that article.)
posted by bunbury at 10:35 AM on September 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
The Slate article shows the cover of the issue, and it seems like they’ve filled it with more of this trash? Not just one bad idea but a whole magazine full of them. I guess we can throw the whole thing in the trash with The New Yorker.
Wait, why are we throwing The New Yorker in the trash and not The NYRB?
posted by oneirodynia at 10:42 AM on September 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
Wait, why are we throwing The New Yorker in the trash and not The NYRB?
posted by oneirodynia at 10:42 AM on September 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
I think that both the NYer and the NYRB are going in the trash; the NYer because of trying to host Steven Bannon at their festival.
I think these terrible men should all be deplatformed, but I wouldn't be as angry if all of their appearances involved them being interviewed by Isaac Chotiner. (Or any of the millions of women who would do an even better job.)
posted by tofu_crouton at 10:48 AM on September 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
I think these terrible men should all be deplatformed, but I wouldn't be as angry if all of their appearances involved them being interviewed by Isaac Chotiner. (Or any of the millions of women who would do an even better job.)
posted by tofu_crouton at 10:48 AM on September 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
Wait, why are we throwing The New Yorker in the trash and not The NYRB?
Offering a platform to Steve Bannon is what did it for me, YMMV.
posted by adamgreenfield at 10:50 AM on September 15, 2018
Offering a platform to Steve Bannon is what did it for me, YMMV.
posted by adamgreenfield at 10:50 AM on September 15, 2018
The NYRB has never seemed like a publication that had anything to offer me: it's always been about old white guys (and the occasional token old white woman) being nostalgic for the days before identity politics ruined Big Ideas. The New Yorker, for all its faults, is a much more relevant publication as far as I'm concerned.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:55 AM on September 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:55 AM on September 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
Ah, okay I was wondering in terms of this post. I thought I had missed something here.
posted by oneirodynia at 10:55 AM on September 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by oneirodynia at 10:55 AM on September 15, 2018 [1 favorite]
Run a platform for garbage go in the garbage.
posted by Artw at 11:31 AM on September 15, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by Artw at 11:31 AM on September 15, 2018 [3 favorites]
You realize, right, that the New Yorker is the place where Ronan Farrow has been publishing all his exposés?
posted by neroli at 11:57 AM on September 15, 2018 [16 favorites]
posted by neroli at 11:57 AM on September 15, 2018 [16 favorites]
He is a Jekyll and Hyde who had no talent, and made it very far with a false persona.
Ghomeshi's talent or lack thereof, I think, is immaterial and really should be treated as such. (And here I am talking about it.) We should avoid constructs that imply a trade off between capability and behavior that is out of bounds.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:59 AM on September 15, 2018 [21 favorites]
Ghomeshi's talent or lack thereof, I think, is immaterial and really should be treated as such. (And here I am talking about it.) We should avoid constructs that imply a trade off between capability and behavior that is out of bounds.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:59 AM on September 15, 2018 [21 favorites]
You realize, right, that the New Yorker is the place where Ronan Farrow has been publishing all his exposés?
Here's hoping he can find a home other than the Bannon interview rag.
posted by Artw at 12:00 PM on September 15, 2018 [4 favorites]
Here's hoping he can find a home other than the Bannon interview rag.
posted by Artw at 12:00 PM on September 15, 2018 [4 favorites]
Here's hoping he can find a home other than the Bannon interview rag.
Gonna stan now. staff collectively rallied against David Remnick's choice, Remnick's backed down in response, and then staff members endorsed him as a good editor who made a bad choice. That is a healthy publication culture.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:08 PM on September 15, 2018 [29 favorites]
Gonna stan now.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:08 PM on September 15, 2018 [29 favorites]
My concern is what happens to somebody who has not been found guilty in any criminal sense but who perhaps deserves social opprobrium, but how long should that last, what form it should take, etc.”
There's a simple answer for that: until women can actually feel safe around the abusers. As in, it's not a matter of retributiom or punishment, but safety. And until he shows some signs of actual recrimination or reform, as far as im concerned he's still a threat.
Eeally, it's like asking "how long should a cannister of toxic waste have a warning label?" The answer is, as long as it's toxic.
The fact that so many people dont get that is infuriating.
What's sad is how many men seem to identify enough with these men to feel personally put out by other people rejecting those men.
The "haven't they been punished enough?" narrative I'm seeing flooding the comment sections seems deliberately promoted to encourage a "slap on the wrist, now back to normal" response. I cant help but think it's mainly pushed by guys who are afraid of being called to account for their actions.
posted by happyroach at 12:14 PM on September 15, 2018 [18 favorites]
There's a simple answer for that: until women can actually feel safe around the abusers. As in, it's not a matter of retributiom or punishment, but safety. And until he shows some signs of actual recrimination or reform, as far as im concerned he's still a threat.
Eeally, it's like asking "how long should a cannister of toxic waste have a warning label?" The answer is, as long as it's toxic.
The fact that so many people dont get that is infuriating.
What's sad is how many men seem to identify enough with these men to feel personally put out by other people rejecting those men.
The "haven't they been punished enough?" narrative I'm seeing flooding the comment sections seems deliberately promoted to encourage a "slap on the wrist, now back to normal" response. I cant help but think it's mainly pushed by guys who are afraid of being called to account for their actions.
posted by happyroach at 12:14 PM on September 15, 2018 [18 favorites]
Is there a model of doing some sort of apology / reconciliation right?
The example I have seen cited is Dan Harmon's to Megan Gaenz, which he made on the Harmontown podcast.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:16 PM on September 15, 2018 [8 favorites]
The example I have seen cited is Dan Harmon's to Megan Gaenz, which he made on the Harmontown podcast.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:16 PM on September 15, 2018 [8 favorites]
That is a healthy publication culture.
Well, this is a big old derail here and I won’t return to it, but his response was more in the order of “actually interviewing Bannon is a good idea, I’m backing down right now but you guys are all wrong, i’ll do it in the magazine some time instead.”
Hence, in the garbage with it till they fire him, because fuck that. But your mileage may vary.
posted by Artw at 12:17 PM on September 15, 2018
Well, this is a big old derail here and I won’t return to it, but his response was more in the order of “actually interviewing Bannon is a good idea, I’m backing down right now but you guys are all wrong, i’ll do it in the magazine some time instead.”
Hence, in the garbage with it till they fire him, because fuck that. But your mileage may vary.
posted by Artw at 12:17 PM on September 15, 2018
Is there a model of doing some sort of apology / reconciliation right? I'd like there to be some road to redemption but so far what we've seen this year is not it.
I asked this somewhere else around here and Dan Harmon's apology to Megan Ganz is the only example anyone came up with. And frankly, while that was good, I'm still waiting to see if he fucks up again.
posted by jenfullmoon at 12:18 PM on September 15, 2018 [13 favorites]
I asked this somewhere else around here and Dan Harmon's apology to Megan Ganz is the only example anyone came up with. And frankly, while that was good, I'm still waiting to see if he fucks up again.
posted by jenfullmoon at 12:18 PM on September 15, 2018 [13 favorites]
MetaFilter: frankly, while that was good, I'm still waiting to see if he fucks up again.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:46 PM on September 15, 2018 [9 favorites]
posted by Going To Maine at 12:46 PM on September 15, 2018 [9 favorites]
If I knew a fellow who had committed serial sexual harassment or assault who wanted to demonstrate that he deserved to be treated like a regular person rather than an abuser*, I would look for many of the following:
1. Sincere apology delivered in a way that was okay with the victim, whether that was verbal or a letter, whether it was in person or not, etc.
1.5. Material amends if requested by the victim.
2. Being open about what he did and not denying or minimizing it. If he has complicated feelings or believes that there was some kind of mistake or misunderstanding, those conversations are for a therapist or his closest friends, not the world.
3. Therapy which at least in part focuses on what he did and the beliefs/experiences that led to it. Therapy is expensive, but I'd expect that most people would at least seek out sliding scale therapists or free support groups.
4. A reading, listening or viewing list of materials, mostly by women if the perpetrator is straight, about gender and masculinity and about sexual assault.
5. A social amends plan - recurring donations to a group that works against sexual assault, for instance. Volunteering to do something that benefits the group harmed - not volunteering to comfort victims, but raising funds for an organization that works against sexual assault, or working for a woman candidate's campaign if she has explicit policies that benefit women. Basically, I would expect that the person would, regularly and for a long time, commit to some action which benefits the same type of people he harmed.
I've known two men who basically did these things after committing [different kinds of sexual harassment]. It's worth noting that the harmful things they did seemed out of character for them and there seemed to be, in one case, a genuine and serious misunderstanding. I've known several other men who just split town or changed social circles rather than confront what they'd done.
My point being that "people think you're a rapist and that makes you sad" is not "making up for what you did". Apologizing, telling the truth, creating a plan to understand and change your behavior and creating a plan to make amends to society as a whole** are basically the very least you can do.
If you really hurt and traumatized someone you should feel bad. It should trouble you deeply and lead you to take action. That's the sign of someone with a good character.
*By people who had not been injured by him; in casual social interactions; or in public settings. People who have been injured never have to make nice.
**Because although the primary injury is the the victim, you're also injuring society by creating a climate of fear, bitterness and depression among women and by showing men that sexual crimes are normal.
posted by Frowner at 1:38 PM on September 15, 2018 [36 favorites]
1. Sincere apology delivered in a way that was okay with the victim, whether that was verbal or a letter, whether it was in person or not, etc.
1.5. Material amends if requested by the victim.
2. Being open about what he did and not denying or minimizing it. If he has complicated feelings or believes that there was some kind of mistake or misunderstanding, those conversations are for a therapist or his closest friends, not the world.
3. Therapy which at least in part focuses on what he did and the beliefs/experiences that led to it. Therapy is expensive, but I'd expect that most people would at least seek out sliding scale therapists or free support groups.
4. A reading, listening or viewing list of materials, mostly by women if the perpetrator is straight, about gender and masculinity and about sexual assault.
5. A social amends plan - recurring donations to a group that works against sexual assault, for instance. Volunteering to do something that benefits the group harmed - not volunteering to comfort victims, but raising funds for an organization that works against sexual assault, or working for a woman candidate's campaign if she has explicit policies that benefit women. Basically, I would expect that the person would, regularly and for a long time, commit to some action which benefits the same type of people he harmed.
I've known two men who basically did these things after committing [different kinds of sexual harassment]. It's worth noting that the harmful things they did seemed out of character for them and there seemed to be, in one case, a genuine and serious misunderstanding. I've known several other men who just split town or changed social circles rather than confront what they'd done.
My point being that "people think you're a rapist and that makes you sad" is not "making up for what you did". Apologizing, telling the truth, creating a plan to understand and change your behavior and creating a plan to make amends to society as a whole** are basically the very least you can do.
If you really hurt and traumatized someone you should feel bad. It should trouble you deeply and lead you to take action. That's the sign of someone with a good character.
*By people who had not been injured by him; in casual social interactions; or in public settings. People who have been injured never have to make nice.
**Because although the primary injury is the the victim, you're also injuring society by creating a climate of fear, bitterness and depression among women and by showing men that sexual crimes are normal.
posted by Frowner at 1:38 PM on September 15, 2018 [36 favorites]
Ghomeshi: Before 2014, it was unimaginable to me that I would become a poster boy for men who are assholes.
If there was Google Translate for "serial abuser to English," this would read:
"Before 2014, I knew I could get away with it, over and over again. Now, women who have literally nothing to gain - and lots to lose - from coming forward are doing it for not other reason than wanting to make sure I can't sucker punch or choke them out with impunity, and they're warning other women about me. I'm still struggling with how I will find a way to function as a predator in this new reality. But believe me - I'm working on it."
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 2:01 PM on September 15, 2018 [31 favorites]
If there was Google Translate for "serial abuser to English," this would read:
"Before 2014, I knew I could get away with it, over and over again. Now, women who have literally nothing to gain - and lots to lose - from coming forward are doing it for not other reason than wanting to make sure I can't sucker punch or choke them out with impunity, and they're warning other women about me. I'm still struggling with how I will find a way to function as a predator in this new reality. But believe me - I'm working on it."
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 2:01 PM on September 15, 2018 [31 favorites]
I think a “full and frank admission” is important, since the community has an interest in knowing if there was a pattern of behavior or not. I’m a lot more open to “rehabilitation” for someone who had a lapse of judgement that violated boundaries as a “one time thing” as opposed to someone with a history of harassing/assaulting multiple people.
The danger would be the risk of rubbernecking and further trauma to the victims/targets, so I don’t know.
posted by GenjiandProust at 2:05 PM on September 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
The danger would be the risk of rubbernecking and further trauma to the victims/targets, so I don’t know.
posted by GenjiandProust at 2:05 PM on September 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
Oh, and I don’t think there’s any time when “rehabilitation” becomes “everyone forgets.” Like being a junky, being an abuser is something you might be in recovery from, it’s not something you get over. If you didn’t do too much damage, people might let you back in, but they will always keep an eye on their medicine chest when you are around, and that’s not on them.
posted by GenjiandProust at 2:14 PM on September 15, 2018 [12 favorites]
posted by GenjiandProust at 2:14 PM on September 15, 2018 [12 favorites]
I've been waiting for him to rear his serial abuser head in what seems to be the latest of a parade of mea culpas by serial abusers. I can hear the whining exasperation in the sad sack meetings I imagine them having with each other in dank basements: What more do they want from us? I want them to shut up and stop attention seeking. We owe them nothing. They owe us good behaviour and silence.
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 2:49 PM on September 15, 2018 [6 favorites]
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 2:49 PM on September 15, 2018 [6 favorites]
I feel very smug about never having given a flying fuck about NYRB now.
posted by The Ardship of Cambry at 2:56 PM on September 15, 2018
posted by The Ardship of Cambry at 2:56 PM on September 15, 2018
God, I hate this guy.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 3:10 PM on September 15, 2018 [7 favorites]
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 3:10 PM on September 15, 2018 [7 favorites]
I have to say the magazine and the writer, Isaac Chotiner, did important work, exposing New York Review of Books editor Ian Buruma as somebody who needs to be watched with deep suspicion and the most skeptical of side-eyes.
Yes. Chotiner pushed back hard and called Buruma on everything and by the time I had read to the end of that Slate interview, I could almost hear the sound the bullets Buruma was sweating made as they ricocheted off the floor. I want to sic Chotiner on every Republican politician in the U.S.
posted by orange swan at 4:18 PM on September 15, 2018 [18 favorites]
Yes. Chotiner pushed back hard and called Buruma on everything and by the time I had read to the end of that Slate interview, I could almost hear the sound the bullets Buruma was sweating made as they ricocheted off the floor. I want to sic Chotiner on every Republican politician in the U.S.
posted by orange swan at 4:18 PM on September 15, 2018 [18 favorites]
I found the interview much more obnoxious than the piece (not, it must be said, because of the interviewer, who did an exceptional job), because Ghomeshi wrote exactly what I would expect of him, in exactly the same way as one would expect, but the editor! "He wasn't accused of rape" -- this is true, because we don't have that as a charge, we have sexual assault, which he was accused of. He hadn't heard of Ghomeshi before -- but he never did any research! He clearly just took Ghomeshi and his supporter's words for everything. He clearly has no idea what a peace bond means.
I assume the editor is shocked by the backlash, because this interview is just terrible for him -- on Ghomeshi, on VIDA, on all levels -- and it seemed very off the cuff from him.
posted by jeather at 4:48 PM on September 15, 2018 [16 favorites]
I assume the editor is shocked by the backlash, because this interview is just terrible for him -- on Ghomeshi, on VIDA, on all levels -- and it seemed very off the cuff from him.
posted by jeather at 4:48 PM on September 15, 2018 [16 favorites]
Reflections from a Hashtag Douchebag by Jian Ghomeshi
Fixed.
posted by New Frontier at 7:20 PM on September 15, 2018 [5 favorites]
Fixed.
posted by New Frontier at 7:20 PM on September 15, 2018 [5 favorites]
re: the redemption obsession and how to get oneself repackaged and repurchased by a crafty consumer:
it would have to start with wondering "what would someone who had beaten me viciously and damagingly, for fun, sadistically, through no fault of my own, have to do and say in order for me to consider forgiving him?"
rather than with wondering "if I, which is me, did something bad but definitely vague and unspecified, how could I make other people (who are not me and whose thoughts I never speculate honestly about) not be mad anymore?"
but, as I guess I have taken to saying, some people instinctively imagine themselves as the fist and not the face. they cannot do otherwise, they don't try and they won't try. and these are the people who feverishly pet and fret at the redemption knot. it's a compulsion in them.
posted by queenofbithynia at 8:12 PM on September 15, 2018 [21 favorites]
it would have to start with wondering "what would someone who had beaten me viciously and damagingly, for fun, sadistically, through no fault of my own, have to do and say in order for me to consider forgiving him?"
rather than with wondering "if I, which is me, did something bad but definitely vague and unspecified, how could I make other people (who are not me and whose thoughts I never speculate honestly about) not be mad anymore?"
but, as I guess I have taken to saying, some people instinctively imagine themselves as the fist and not the face. they cannot do otherwise, they don't try and they won't try. and these are the people who feverishly pet and fret at the redemption knot. it's a compulsion in them.
posted by queenofbithynia at 8:12 PM on September 15, 2018 [21 favorites]
Is there a model of doing some sort of apology / reconciliation right? I'd like there to be some road to redemption but so far what we've seen this year is not it. A lot of men not really owning up to what they did or take responsibility, it's like they aren't even trying very hard. Has anyone tried hard and succeeded? I'd like to think it's possible, at least for men whose offenses are relatively limited. But so far all we've seen is self-pitying garbage that betrays that the offensive men haven't really understood anything.
It wasn't an apology. It was wallowing and self-pity. Drawing attention to yourself in a loftily pretentious platform can never be construed as a "sorry" because you are telling people that you have a high regard for yourself, and your actions tell people otherwise. Ego and contrition are incompatible.
I don't believe in "sorry" as it is a cheap and meaningless word. Sorry can only be expressed through actions and spinning a narrative where the logical conclusion is to regain a public career isn't it.
I find it funny that many of the men of the #MeToo hit list were vicious in their vendettas against women who stood up to them, as in scuttled their careers, slandered them, and even blacklisted them. They did not let "bygones be bygones" (and in these cases, the women had nothing to apologize for). This is still a very sexist and manipulative assumption that sooner or later, women have to forgive.
No, they don't. They can let go and move on with their altered lives, but they do not have to forgive. Why do we always want to redeem people who harm other people and shoo away people who need rehabilitation? You have to own your dark side. You have to acknowledge that it is a weakness and a real and genuine defect that you took advantage of on your climb to the top. Sometimes, you are the villain, and when you understand that you are a villain, and a very bad person who cannot be trusted because your traits are actually sinister, duplicitous, manipulative, and conniving, that's when you realize your place is at the bottom and you have to start all over again the way your victims had to when you destroyed their lives.
And if you did all these horrible things when you were at the top of a public forum, you don't go back to that public forum. You find your place elsewhere. If you are truly contrite, you never go back to the places and habits that fed your cruelty. You do not deserve it, and you are certainly not owed it.
Because sometimes the damage done is too severe and traumatic. The fact that he was given a platform despite all the warning signs tells me the person who greenlit this drivel has no comprehension of predatory terrorism.
Why aren't we resurrecting the careers of the women who were abused? Why do we always go help predators?
I won't.
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 8:14 PM on September 15, 2018 [32 favorites]
It wasn't an apology. It was wallowing and self-pity. Drawing attention to yourself in a loftily pretentious platform can never be construed as a "sorry" because you are telling people that you have a high regard for yourself, and your actions tell people otherwise. Ego and contrition are incompatible.
I don't believe in "sorry" as it is a cheap and meaningless word. Sorry can only be expressed through actions and spinning a narrative where the logical conclusion is to regain a public career isn't it.
I find it funny that many of the men of the #MeToo hit list were vicious in their vendettas against women who stood up to them, as in scuttled their careers, slandered them, and even blacklisted them. They did not let "bygones be bygones" (and in these cases, the women had nothing to apologize for). This is still a very sexist and manipulative assumption that sooner or later, women have to forgive.
No, they don't. They can let go and move on with their altered lives, but they do not have to forgive. Why do we always want to redeem people who harm other people and shoo away people who need rehabilitation? You have to own your dark side. You have to acknowledge that it is a weakness and a real and genuine defect that you took advantage of on your climb to the top. Sometimes, you are the villain, and when you understand that you are a villain, and a very bad person who cannot be trusted because your traits are actually sinister, duplicitous, manipulative, and conniving, that's when you realize your place is at the bottom and you have to start all over again the way your victims had to when you destroyed their lives.
And if you did all these horrible things when you were at the top of a public forum, you don't go back to that public forum. You find your place elsewhere. If you are truly contrite, you never go back to the places and habits that fed your cruelty. You do not deserve it, and you are certainly not owed it.
Because sometimes the damage done is too severe and traumatic. The fact that he was given a platform despite all the warning signs tells me the person who greenlit this drivel has no comprehension of predatory terrorism.
Why aren't we resurrecting the careers of the women who were abused? Why do we always go help predators?
I won't.
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 8:14 PM on September 15, 2018 [32 favorites]
Thank you for posting this Fizz, and thank you for those additional links Alexandra Kitty.
posted by Secret Sparrow at 8:58 PM on September 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by Secret Sparrow at 8:58 PM on September 15, 2018 [2 favorites]
Someone in a twitter thread about Ghomeshi linked to this 2002 Guardian article by that NYRB editor (Buruma), where he says about possession of child porn, "cracking down on people whose only offence is to possess images whose obscenity has to be defined by police officers seems a bad idea. It won't make the fantasies go away, and it is an attack on our civil liberties. People should not be free to abuse minors, but they should be at liberty to abuse themselves"
which, ugh, of course this asshole sees nothing wrong with publishing Ghomeshi.
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 12:43 AM on September 16, 2018 [18 favorites]
which, ugh, of course this asshole sees nothing wrong with publishing Ghomeshi.
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 12:43 AM on September 16, 2018 [18 favorites]
“Since then, I’ve become a hashtag.”
#fuckingasshole
posted by mazola at 8:45 AM on September 16, 2018 [2 favorites]
#fuckingasshole
posted by mazola at 8:45 AM on September 16, 2018 [2 favorites]
This has all been very strange and uncomfortable for me because thirty years ago my ex-wife was good friends with Jian and most of the guys that would form Moxy, and after. There are personal boundaries and just not being a jerk that constrain what I can say.
I will say that Jian is the only one of those friends who I immediately disliked. He struck me as smug, boastful, self-involved and, I dunno, someone untrustworthy. Mike and Murray seemed like pretty great guys, but not Jian.
So when this stuff came out, it didn’t surprise me, though I'd not heard the stories. From what I've heard, they date back to York, which was that period. Which leads me to want to ask some questions that I'm no longer in a position to ask. I mean, my ex and I were heavily involved in rape crisis work at that time, and Jian knew that. They talked about it. Twenty-eight years ago, I was very publicly pushing the doctrine of the necessity of direct, explicit consent (which was more controversial then than it is now).
Which is all to say that, with Jian's ostentatious activism dating back before university, if I was aware of all the subtle, difficult issues surrounding sexual assault and consent, he sure as hell was, or should have been. So he personally rubbed me the wrong way and I know enough about him that he couldn't have been well-intentioned but bumbling -- a line of bullshit, regardless, but egregiously so in his case, in my opinion.
But more than that, anybody who thinks they are "woke" and a good person would know that this NYRB piece is insulting, hurtful, narcissistic,and counterproductive to the cause of eliminating violence against women, which -- let's be very clear -- is about a million times more important than any other consideration.
I regularly self-interrogate about my past actions. Present actions, too, of course, but I hold myself accountable for things I've said and done either because I didn’t understand what I understand now, or just because I indulged my worst inclinations when I did or should have known better.
In MetaTalk earlier this, someone alluded to an occasion around 2005 when I wrote vile, misogynist things about Ann Coulter and attempted to justify it. I missed that thread at the time and only saw it recently, but I regretted that I wasn't able to step forward and say that although the commenter was being circumspect, he was referring to me. Because I do think about that incident, from thirteen years ago, all the time. I remind myself of my past transgressions because I want to have enough self-awareness not to commit the same (or other, similar) wrongs again. I want to always remind myself that although I am well-intentioned and try very hard to do right, I'm capable of doing things I should have known were wrong. I will always be capable of bad mistakes, I will always have to keep working at being a better person.
Which is all to say -- if someone were to dig into my past and find something repugnant, I'd like to think that I'd understand that making it about me, either now or later in a bid for redemption, would just demonstrate that I really didn't get it at all, that I've learned nothing.
No celebrity is owed the public's good will or continued celebrity. On a much smaller scale, I've been strongly taking feminist positions in public on MetaFilter for fourteen years. If I've been a hypocrite -- and I have -- I don't have any "right" to be forgiven or my mistakes forgotten. If other people are generous to me in that way, that's fine. I have no right to expect it, to disingenuously abstract it into a thinkpiece, or, in general, to presume it's really about me. I still can't bring myself to care whether I was hateful to Ann Coulter, but I surely was indirectly hateful to the women here who were subjected to my misogynist comments. That's the bottom line.
The range of behaviors among these men is quite large. I don't disagree that at one extreme you'll find things that are more notable because the man is a celebrity than anything else. I don't think this is true of Jian. But even if it were, so what? I have a zero-tolerance policy, including for those I know and for myself, and on the scale of things I worry about in terms of "what is just?", public redemption and resumption of a public career is so unimportant that it doesn't register. That any of these guys expect this at all is not only repulsive, but it unambiguously proves they are very far from earning it.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 12:49 PM on September 16, 2018 [15 favorites]
I will say that Jian is the only one of those friends who I immediately disliked. He struck me as smug, boastful, self-involved and, I dunno, someone untrustworthy. Mike and Murray seemed like pretty great guys, but not Jian.
So when this stuff came out, it didn’t surprise me, though I'd not heard the stories. From what I've heard, they date back to York, which was that period. Which leads me to want to ask some questions that I'm no longer in a position to ask. I mean, my ex and I were heavily involved in rape crisis work at that time, and Jian knew that. They talked about it. Twenty-eight years ago, I was very publicly pushing the doctrine of the necessity of direct, explicit consent (which was more controversial then than it is now).
Which is all to say that, with Jian's ostentatious activism dating back before university, if I was aware of all the subtle, difficult issues surrounding sexual assault and consent, he sure as hell was, or should have been. So he personally rubbed me the wrong way and I know enough about him that he couldn't have been well-intentioned but bumbling -- a line of bullshit, regardless, but egregiously so in his case, in my opinion.
But more than that, anybody who thinks they are "woke" and a good person would know that this NYRB piece is insulting, hurtful, narcissistic,and counterproductive to the cause of eliminating violence against women, which -- let's be very clear -- is about a million times more important than any other consideration.
I regularly self-interrogate about my past actions. Present actions, too, of course, but I hold myself accountable for things I've said and done either because I didn’t understand what I understand now, or just because I indulged my worst inclinations when I did or should have known better.
In MetaTalk earlier this, someone alluded to an occasion around 2005 when I wrote vile, misogynist things about Ann Coulter and attempted to justify it. I missed that thread at the time and only saw it recently, but I regretted that I wasn't able to step forward and say that although the commenter was being circumspect, he was referring to me. Because I do think about that incident, from thirteen years ago, all the time. I remind myself of my past transgressions because I want to have enough self-awareness not to commit the same (or other, similar) wrongs again. I want to always remind myself that although I am well-intentioned and try very hard to do right, I'm capable of doing things I should have known were wrong. I will always be capable of bad mistakes, I will always have to keep working at being a better person.
Which is all to say -- if someone were to dig into my past and find something repugnant, I'd like to think that I'd understand that making it about me, either now or later in a bid for redemption, would just demonstrate that I really didn't get it at all, that I've learned nothing.
No celebrity is owed the public's good will or continued celebrity. On a much smaller scale, I've been strongly taking feminist positions in public on MetaFilter for fourteen years. If I've been a hypocrite -- and I have -- I don't have any "right" to be forgiven or my mistakes forgotten. If other people are generous to me in that way, that's fine. I have no right to expect it, to disingenuously abstract it into a thinkpiece, or, in general, to presume it's really about me. I still can't bring myself to care whether I was hateful to Ann Coulter, but I surely was indirectly hateful to the women here who were subjected to my misogynist comments. That's the bottom line.
The range of behaviors among these men is quite large. I don't disagree that at one extreme you'll find things that are more notable because the man is a celebrity than anything else. I don't think this is true of Jian. But even if it were, so what? I have a zero-tolerance policy, including for those I know and for myself, and on the scale of things I worry about in terms of "what is just?", public redemption and resumption of a public career is so unimportant that it doesn't register. That any of these guys expect this at all is not only repulsive, but it unambiguously proves they are very far from earning it.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 12:49 PM on September 16, 2018 [15 favorites]
A good heuristic is, if you have to ask, then clearly you’re not there yet.
posted by herda05 at 2:11 PM on September 16, 2018 [3 favorites]
posted by herda05 at 2:11 PM on September 16, 2018 [3 favorites]
Ghomeshi's talent or lack thereof, I think, is immaterial and really should be treated as such. (And here I am talking about it.) We should avoid constructs that imply a trade off between capability and behavior that is out of bounds.
No, it is very material. It is a red flag that most people miss. When someone has nothing to offer but makes it further than those who do, you have to question why, because it hints at a certain kind of predatory cunning that knows how to bypass and circumvent critical checks and balances in a place that is vulnerable to being hijacked and rigged.
You cannot always use intellectual logic to ignore the signs emotional logic detects.
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 4:56 AM on September 17, 2018 [6 favorites]
No, it is very material. It is a red flag that most people miss. When someone has nothing to offer but makes it further than those who do, you have to question why, because it hints at a certain kind of predatory cunning that knows how to bypass and circumvent critical checks and balances in a place that is vulnerable to being hijacked and rigged.
You cannot always use intellectual logic to ignore the signs emotional logic detects.
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 4:56 AM on September 17, 2018 [6 favorites]
I thought Ian Buruma was an interesting choice for the new NYRB editor but that Slate interview is an utter wreck.
Though it's come to seem increasingly parochial and irrelevant—Bookforum is pretty consistently more interesting and Stig Abell has made TLS a whole new magazine in a good way—I've read the NYRB with profit for decades. I wasn't a fan of Buruma's work, exactly, but I kept an eye out for his byline and I usually learned something from it. But this farce of picking predators and giving them an opportunity to rhapsodize over their victimhood for kicks and clicks is some Breitbart-level dickery. And if the choice to give Ghomeshi the NYRB imprimatur isn't enough shame on the magazine, the mendacity and incoherence of Ghomeshi's piece and Buruma's interview is extra. Laura Miller gets that right. Buruma's quaking equivocations over the piece published in his own magazine sounds like every crank's "I'm just asking questions!" and remarks like
The Buruma charade is just dull, barely competent PR for a predator. Hockenberry's piece, OTOH, has complete insanity going for it. What a master class in utter self-absorption.
posted by octobersurprise at 10:10 AM on September 17, 2018 [1 favorite]
Though it's come to seem increasingly parochial and irrelevant—Bookforum is pretty consistently more interesting and Stig Abell has made TLS a whole new magazine in a good way—I've read the NYRB with profit for decades. I wasn't a fan of Buruma's work, exactly, but I kept an eye out for his byline and I usually learned something from it. But this farce of picking predators and giving them an opportunity to rhapsodize over their victimhood for kicks and clicks is some Breitbart-level dickery. And if the choice to give Ghomeshi the NYRB imprimatur isn't enough shame on the magazine, the mendacity and incoherence of Ghomeshi's piece and Buruma's interview is extra. Laura Miller gets that right. Buruma's quaking equivocations over the piece published in his own magazine sounds like every crank's "I'm just asking questions!" and remarks like
The exact nature of his behavior—how much consent was involved—I have no idea, nor is it really my concern. My concern is what happens to somebody who has not been found guilty in any criminal sense but who perhaps deserves social opprobrium, but how long should that last, what form it should take, etc.are so transparently motivated by concern about nothing more than the feelings of old men.
The Buruma charade is just dull, barely competent PR for a predator. Hockenberry's piece, OTOH, has complete insanity going for it. What a master class in utter self-absorption.
posted by octobersurprise at 10:10 AM on September 17, 2018 [1 favorite]
That way, if they still want to pursue a professional relationship with the New York Times Review of Books,
Just to clarify something, the New York Review of Books is a different entity from the New York Times Book Review. The bad actor in this story is the New York Review of Books, so don't cancel your NYT subscription (over this, anyway.)
posted by zeusianfog at 11:15 AM on September 17, 2018 [1 favorite]
Just to clarify something, the New York Review of Books is a different entity from the New York Times Book Review. The bad actor in this story is the New York Review of Books, so don't cancel your NYT subscription (over this, anyway.)
posted by zeusianfog at 11:15 AM on September 17, 2018 [1 favorite]
How the Hollywood Redemption Machine Works, According to BoJack Horseman
posted by kliuless at 2:56 PM on September 17, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by kliuless at 2:56 PM on September 17, 2018 [2 favorites]
KatyKatiKate has a little bit to say about this in a piece titled "This Is What Triggered Looks Like".
You think that a year of eating your meals alone is sufficient to demonstrate that you have earned a spot back in the lineup? I ate a year of meals alone and I never got a spot in the lineup, and I was in the same fucking room you were in when you did the thing to me that eats me up, the thing that you're apparently immune from, the thing that makes you feel pretty good, actually, when you think about it, which you do, from time to time. For fun.posted by hanov3r at 3:39 PM on September 17, 2018 [7 favorites]
So, like, Harper's is apparently dead to many after running the Roiphe piece.
And the Atlantic is dismissed over the prospect of hiring Kevin Williamson.
And the idea that Remnick wanted to interview Bannon is enough for some in this thread to boycott The New Yorker, and nevermind their role in publishing Farrow in the same year.
And now Buruma publishes this obviously odious and bullshit piece by JG in NYROB, and we're ditching it, too?
Does this not strike anyone else as excessive? I get sending a message, absolutely, and that we all pick and choose our battles, sure, because everything is problematic somewhere, but given the other stellar work underwritten and supported by these publications over many, many decades -- and the general dearth of other, equivalent publications -- do we really want to be saying (for example) "nope, into the shitcan with you, New Yorker, because you almost interviewed Bannon!"
posted by uberchet at 3:50 PM on September 17, 2018 [4 favorites]
And the Atlantic is dismissed over the prospect of hiring Kevin Williamson.
And the idea that Remnick wanted to interview Bannon is enough for some in this thread to boycott The New Yorker, and nevermind their role in publishing Farrow in the same year.
And now Buruma publishes this obviously odious and bullshit piece by JG in NYROB, and we're ditching it, too?
Does this not strike anyone else as excessive? I get sending a message, absolutely, and that we all pick and choose our battles, sure, because everything is problematic somewhere, but given the other stellar work underwritten and supported by these publications over many, many decades -- and the general dearth of other, equivalent publications -- do we really want to be saying (for example) "nope, into the shitcan with you, New Yorker, because you almost interviewed Bannon!"
posted by uberchet at 3:50 PM on September 17, 2018 [4 favorites]
Is there a model of doing some sort of apology / reconciliation right? I'd like there to be some road to redemption but so far what we've seen this year is not it.
That is going to depend on your definition of redemption, I think. If you mean "things for the abuser get to return to what they were", no, there shouldn't be. But, if you mean "the abused get some closure and the abuser actively stops being a bad guy", sure. My favorite one, shared in the CK thread, includes this:
That is going to depend on your definition of redemption, I think. If you mean "things for the abuser get to return to what they were", no, there shouldn't be. But, if you mean "the abused get some closure and the abuser actively stops being a bad guy", sure. My favorite one, shared in the CK thread, includes this:
Step 8: Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.posted by hanov3r at 3:53 PM on September 17, 2018 [3 favorites]
Step 9: Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
Step 10: Continued to take personal inventory, and when we were wrong, promptly admitted it.
Hockenberry's NPR reporting in 1986-1990, in particular HEAT, meant so much to me as a disabled person. I eagerly read his memoir. But then I got to his account of sneaking back in to an ex-girlfriend's apartment. He hears her come in with a date, and Hockenberry decides that rather than face up to the embarrassment, he hides under the bed overnight, evaluating the quality of their sex.
Grotesque doesn't begin to cover it. (He proudly tells the story 12:05 to 20:51 text and video at C-Span's archive.)
Slate's Mike Pesca (a former NPR reporter) punctures the pomposity of Hockenberry's Harper's essay.
posted by Jesse the K at 4:06 PM on September 17, 2018 [2 favorites]
Grotesque doesn't begin to cover it. (He proudly tells the story 12:05 to 20:51 text and video at C-Span's archive.)
Slate's Mike Pesca (a former NPR reporter) punctures the pomposity of Hockenberry's Harper's essay.
The essay is, in a word, ridiculous. It misses the point, as much as any attempt at rehabilitation ever could, and therefore achieves the opposite of its intention. It is a cri de coeur of heartlessness. It is a think piece by a man who is baffled as to what issue he needs to think about. It is logorrhea as apologia. It is the most embarrassing work I have ever read written by someone whose work I once respected.Romance is what's missing, Hock? I think not.
posted by Jesse the K at 4:06 PM on September 17, 2018 [2 favorites]
Does this not strike anyone else as excessive?
uberchet, don't forget The New York Times, The Washington Post and NPR as sources that are routinely called garbage with exhortations to cancel your subscription!
posted by ActingTheGoat at 4:20 PM on September 17, 2018 [2 favorites]
uberchet, don't forget The New York Times, The Washington Post and NPR as sources that are routinely called garbage with exhortations to cancel your subscription!
posted by ActingTheGoat at 4:20 PM on September 17, 2018 [2 favorites]
Does this not strike anyone else as excessive?
I was never a consumer of most of the publications you list, as I'm Canadian. But I can say that for myself I try to spend my money on publications that aren't edited by assholes, and I'm thinking NYRB doesn't make that cut for me. I can't read everything, after all, so I try to find sources that are of high quality AND aren't crap for women (women who work there, or women who are the subject of the reporting). Or, as in the case of Ghomeshi's former CBC radio show, Q, has addressed the concerns and moved on.
This has served me rather well, so I have no regrets. In the Ghomeshi case, for example, it led me to follow the Canadaland podcast. The founder of Canadaland was the first reporter I am aware of to break the Ghomeshi story, and the other material I have heard there broadened by horizons to include a lot of reporting on First Nations issues and small town media buy outs that I would not have heard about otherwise. So for me it was a win/win!
Interestingly, Canadaland's Jesse Brown has fact checked Ghomeshi's piece and published the result today.
posted by chapps at 5:11 PM on September 17, 2018 [16 favorites]
I was never a consumer of most of the publications you list, as I'm Canadian. But I can say that for myself I try to spend my money on publications that aren't edited by assholes, and I'm thinking NYRB doesn't make that cut for me. I can't read everything, after all, so I try to find sources that are of high quality AND aren't crap for women (women who work there, or women who are the subject of the reporting). Or, as in the case of Ghomeshi's former CBC radio show, Q, has addressed the concerns and moved on.
This has served me rather well, so I have no regrets. In the Ghomeshi case, for example, it led me to follow the Canadaland podcast. The founder of Canadaland was the first reporter I am aware of to break the Ghomeshi story, and the other material I have heard there broadened by horizons to include a lot of reporting on First Nations issues and small town media buy outs that I would not have heard about otherwise. So for me it was a win/win!
Interestingly, Canadaland's Jesse Brown has fact checked Ghomeshi's piece and published the result today.
posted by chapps at 5:11 PM on September 17, 2018 [16 favorites]
Jian Ghomeshi, John Hockenberry, and the Laws of Patriarchal Physics By Jia Tolentino
The worst thing about this accursed genre of personal essay—“My Year of Being Held Responsible for My Own Behavior”—may be that it consists, almost necessarily, of terrible writing.posted by one teak forest at 5:50 PM on September 17, 2018 [3 favorites]
But I can say that for myself I try to spend my money on publications that aren't edited by assholes, and I'm thinking NYRB doesn't make that cut for me.But surely a publication with decades of good work behind it is not the same as the editor of the time, no?
In the US, it's hard to find a better set of publications than Harper's, the Atlantic, and the New Yorker. Their collective resume is unmatched, really, and that was true even before the modern era, when we are drastically short of periodicals dedicated to quality writing in both fiction and nonfiction (and poetry!).
It seems to me that, with that kind of weight behind them and the absence of real alternatives, it ought to take more than a single dumb move, or even a single bad editor, to toss them into the shitcan forever. If they go under, they won't come back.
posted by uberchet at 8:08 PM on September 17, 2018 [1 favorite]
Then maybe they should fire their assholes before they go under?
It's not like people can't go back to buying those magazines instantly if the situation they don't like changes.
posted by jacquilynne at 8:36 PM on September 17, 2018 [9 favorites]
It's not like people can't go back to buying those magazines instantly if the situation they don't like changes.
posted by jacquilynne at 8:36 PM on September 17, 2018 [9 favorites]
The Atlantic’s transphobic shite can fuck off as well.
(And don’t think I don’t see how many terf weirdos you employ, The Guardian, though at least Julie Burchill has fucked off to some Brexit rag)
posted by Artw at 8:48 PM on September 17, 2018 [3 favorites]
(And don’t think I don’t see how many terf weirdos you employ, The Guardian, though at least Julie Burchill has fucked off to some Brexit rag)
posted by Artw at 8:48 PM on September 17, 2018 [3 favorites]
Jian has yet to eat humble pie in any form... when/if he ever gets around to it, I hope he gags on it.
Hard.
No one owes Jian, or anyone else, the spotlight in any form - no idea who thought it would be clever to let him waste ink/bytes in a publication, online or otherwise.
posted by NorthernAutumn at 8:54 PM on September 17, 2018
Hard.
No one owes Jian, or anyone else, the spotlight in any form - no idea who thought it would be clever to let him waste ink/bytes in a publication, online or otherwise.
posted by NorthernAutumn at 8:54 PM on September 17, 2018
Does this not strike anyone else as excessive?
The performative dismissal of every media outlet as awful and worth universal shunning has always seemed like an unwillingness to acknowledge the difficulty of living in a fallen world surrounded by imperfect people. The fact that we can pretty much consume all of this content without paying for it has only made the entire complaint weirder. Were you really paying for the NYRB? Or did you just read the articles sometimes? (It’s also hilarious that the WSJ which often has amazing reporting, seems to be spared much of the grief because it’s taken as given that its editorial page is hateful and we can rarely get past the paywall.)
posted by Going To Maine at 10:35 PM on September 17, 2018 [8 favorites]
The performative dismissal of every media outlet as awful and worth universal shunning has always seemed like an unwillingness to acknowledge the difficulty of living in a fallen world surrounded by imperfect people. The fact that we can pretty much consume all of this content without paying for it has only made the entire complaint weirder. Were you really paying for the NYRB? Or did you just read the articles sometimes? (It’s also hilarious that the WSJ which often has amazing reporting, seems to be spared much of the grief because it’s taken as given that its editorial page is hateful and we can rarely get past the paywall.)
posted by Going To Maine at 10:35 PM on September 17, 2018 [8 favorites]
I think I should add here -for clarity- that I assume the other part of the angry “I’m unsubscribing!” statements is that it provides some catharsis in a world where you can’t control that much of the discourse, and that single act is the most direct harm you can cause; I’m guessing that a large majority of “I’m unsubscribing!” statements are wholly performative but still serve as a slightly useful note for the publications to help them be better. (A real note, perhaps, is to actually unsubscribe.) And I’ve certainly read comments from journalists expressing sincere hatred of different publications, so it’s not like the press is a unified group in love with the editorial choices of those who employ them. Heck, the first I saw of this particularly story was Nicole Cliffe’s tweets, as she is sourced up within the news magazine industry. Magazine staff do not love magazine editors.)
posted by Going To Maine at 11:41 PM on September 17, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by Going To Maine at 11:41 PM on September 17, 2018 [1 favorite]
Uberchet... I'm not suggesting a boycott, personally. Just suggesting that looking elsewhere was a positive solution for me.
I was appalled by the interview with the NYRB editor about the Ghomeshi article... Not only due to sexism he displayed, which was awful, but it was obvious that not even the minimal editorial standards were met. He couldn't remember the article he was being interviewed about. He had his facts wrong about the case described in the article, claimed Ghomeshi 'had not been charged with rape', for example. Rape isn't a charge in Canada ..it's called sexual assault here, and yes, he was charged with multiple counts, (acquitted on some and settled the last, thus avoiding trial. ) The editor simply didn't care enough to bother looking into the facts. That's pathetic and I have little confidence in his work as a result.
So no, I don't think one should write off good submissions, or a proud history, etc. But I think that interview should raise doubts about quality under his watch and I think it's the editor's behaviour putting the publication at risk.
posted by chapps at 12:18 AM on September 18, 2018 [4 favorites]
I was appalled by the interview with the NYRB editor about the Ghomeshi article... Not only due to sexism he displayed, which was awful, but it was obvious that not even the minimal editorial standards were met. He couldn't remember the article he was being interviewed about. He had his facts wrong about the case described in the article, claimed Ghomeshi 'had not been charged with rape', for example. Rape isn't a charge in Canada ..it's called sexual assault here, and yes, he was charged with multiple counts, (acquitted on some and settled the last, thus avoiding trial. ) The editor simply didn't care enough to bother looking into the facts. That's pathetic and I have little confidence in his work as a result.
So no, I don't think one should write off good submissions, or a proud history, etc. But I think that interview should raise doubts about quality under his watch and I think it's the editor's behaviour putting the publication at risk.
posted by chapps at 12:18 AM on September 18, 2018 [4 favorites]
Does this not strike anyone else as excessive?
As far as spurning publications go, for me it's a matter of degree and utility. Remnick made an extraordinary error of judgement—and revealed his own blind spots—but given his willingness to listen to his critics and considering the level of stellar work The New Yorker generally does, I'm not going to deny myself it. (Tho I think it's fair to keep the episode in mind.) Buruma, OTOH, is giving a sexual predator the protection and approval of a magazine that, while distinguished, really doesn't provide a whole lot that other publications don't provide equally as well or better. Not gonna say that I'll never buy another NYRB issue, but if this is a sign of things to come, then I'm going to be a lot less eager to include them when I'm making my stack of lit journals.
As for The Atlantic and Harper's, I rarely look at them anyway unless my attention is called to some particular piece and I can't remember the last time I bought an issue of either. In both cases, the issue here isn't just the bad takes they like to run, it's that they publish too little that I feel like I need to know in the first place.
posted by octobersurprise at 6:47 AM on September 18, 2018 [1 favorite]
As far as spurning publications go, for me it's a matter of degree and utility. Remnick made an extraordinary error of judgement—and revealed his own blind spots—but given his willingness to listen to his critics and considering the level of stellar work The New Yorker generally does, I'm not going to deny myself it. (Tho I think it's fair to keep the episode in mind.) Buruma, OTOH, is giving a sexual predator the protection and approval of a magazine that, while distinguished, really doesn't provide a whole lot that other publications don't provide equally as well or better. Not gonna say that I'll never buy another NYRB issue, but if this is a sign of things to come, then I'm going to be a lot less eager to include them when I'm making my stack of lit journals.
As for The Atlantic and Harper's, I rarely look at them anyway unless my attention is called to some particular piece and I can't remember the last time I bought an issue of either. In both cases, the issue here isn't just the bad takes they like to run, it's that they publish too little that I feel like I need to know in the first place.
posted by octobersurprise at 6:47 AM on September 18, 2018 [1 favorite]
That fact checking of Ghomeshi's piece is fantastic. It makes me think of one way the press could more responsibly publish the inevitable attempts at apology and comeback some men are attempting. Don't just let them write their words and publish them; engage with those words, check them, challenge them.
I wonder if the NYRB even has a history of fact checking. I think of it as a highly reputable publication (other than this fucked up issue), but they are largely opinion pieces and knowledge synthesis disguised as book reviews. It seems reasonable that those essays should be fact checked but it's a bit different from investigative journalism.
posted by Nelson at 6:56 AM on September 18, 2018 [5 favorites]
I wonder if the NYRB even has a history of fact checking. I think of it as a highly reputable publication (other than this fucked up issue), but they are largely opinion pieces and knowledge synthesis disguised as book reviews. It seems reasonable that those essays should be fact checked but it's a bit different from investigative journalism.
posted by Nelson at 6:56 AM on September 18, 2018 [5 favorites]
It seems to me that, with that kind of weight behind them and the absence of real alternatives, it ought to take more than a single dumb move, or even a single bad editor, to toss them into the shitcan forever.
Can we stop with the euphemisms? These articles are not "dumb moves", they were attempts to give voice to the idea that the real victims of #MeToo were the men caught up in it. If you are so worried about the future of these publications, perhaps you should instead be asking them to knock off the contrarianism, rather than demanding we turn a blind eye.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:31 AM on September 18, 2018 [10 favorites]
Can we stop with the euphemisms? These articles are not "dumb moves", they were attempts to give voice to the idea that the real victims of #MeToo were the men caught up in it. If you are so worried about the future of these publications, perhaps you should instead be asking them to knock off the contrarianism, rather than demanding we turn a blind eye.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:31 AM on September 18, 2018 [10 favorites]
it's hard to find a better set of publications than Harper's, the Atlantic, and the New Yorker.
It's very very easy to find something better than The Atlantic. They endorsed Clinton, so I subscribed for a trial year and promptly discovered that they remain the same PJO'Rourkeville they've been for my entire life, so I let the subscription lapse. Harper's I tossed after their little experiment with doxing. The New Yorker seems to be pretty awesome just now so I'll probably re-up that after I grind through my unread backlog, and I'll go back to Harper's if they ever fire their current dingbat.
posted by Don Pepino at 10:13 AM on September 18, 2018 [6 favorites]
It's very very easy to find something better than The Atlantic. They endorsed Clinton, so I subscribed for a trial year and promptly discovered that they remain the same PJO'Rourkeville they've been for my entire life, so I let the subscription lapse. Harper's I tossed after their little experiment with doxing. The New Yorker seems to be pretty awesome just now so I'll probably re-up that after I grind through my unread backlog, and I'll go back to Harper's if they ever fire their current dingbat.
posted by Don Pepino at 10:13 AM on September 18, 2018 [6 favorites]
Does this not strike anyone else as excessive?
From my perspective, all of the publications you mention have done more harm than good in my lifetime. Trump is a direct result of the failure of the prestige media to behave responsibly. So no, I see it as overdue.
posted by PMdixon at 10:36 AM on September 18, 2018 [2 favorites]
From my perspective, all of the publications you mention have done more harm than good in my lifetime. Trump is a direct result of the failure of the prestige media to behave responsibly. So no, I see it as overdue.
posted by PMdixon at 10:36 AM on September 18, 2018 [2 favorites]
I'll go back to Harper's if they ever fire their current dingbat
Bad news there. The dingbattery at Harper's encompasses its current publisher & owner, Rick MacArthur. He ddid an interview on CBC with Anna Maria Tremonti. I haven't listened to it myself (for fear of grinding my teeth into powder out of frustration) but there is a written write-up of the interview on Jezebel. Long story short, Rick MacArthur fucking sucks.
posted by mhum at 2:31 PM on September 18, 2018 [8 favorites]
Bad news there. The dingbattery at Harper's encompasses its current publisher & owner, Rick MacArthur. He ddid an interview on CBC with Anna Maria Tremonti. I haven't listened to it myself (for fear of grinding my teeth into powder out of frustration) but there is a written write-up of the interview on Jezebel. Long story short, Rick MacArthur fucking sucks.
posted by mhum at 2:31 PM on September 18, 2018 [8 favorites]
Yeah the CBC interview made me pull over this morning lest my rage cause an accident. “It’s just harrassment, just think of these poor men’s careers!!” I know so. many. women in magazine media whose careers have suffered or just because mediocre men were getting free passes but because of the physical and emotional toll of harassment. Jesus. Tough shit if you can’t get a new BigMediaJob, go work in communications or retrain like half the women you harassed did.
Instead this guy is like “men are being treated like they have to go to a Soviet re-education centre.” What???? Really? Because they can’t be found guilty of harassment and have to suffer long-term hits to prestigious careers? I mean really.
It was a very horrifying interview.
posted by warriorqueen at 5:59 PM on September 18, 2018 [8 favorites]
Instead this guy is like “men are being treated like they have to go to a Soviet re-education centre.” What???? Really? Because they can’t be found guilty of harassment and have to suffer long-term hits to prestigious careers? I mean really.
It was a very horrifying interview.
posted by warriorqueen at 5:59 PM on September 18, 2018 [8 favorites]
, it ought to take more than a single dumb move, or even a single bad editor, to toss them into the shitcan forever.
and indeed it has.
anyone who takes an occasional break from heaping adjectives on those publications and actually reads them on the regular knows full well it's been many decades since anybody could pretend that their promotion and publication and praise of bigots and dismissal or suppression of women and minorities could be measured in single-digit instances. decades since the good writers they still do publish in varying proportions could be reason enough to tolerate and forgive the rest as the price of entry.
"single dumb
"single bad"
who do you imagine is fooled by this fantasy? non-readers of these mags might be, but non-readers who make noise about not reading are no threat to the thing they never read, so why play to them?
Does this not strike anyone else as excessive?
Does the current swell of media support for and deference offered to rapists and abusers by your favored publications not strike you as excessive? Does it not enrage and terrify you more, much more, infinitely more, than the idea that somebody somewhere isn't reading The Atlantic anymore?
but given the other stellar work underwritten and supported by these publications over many, many decades -- and the general dearth of other, equivalent publications -- do we really want to be saying (for example) "nope, into the shitcan with you, New Yorker,
Given the stellar work produced by women and the manifest humanity possessed by women, both proven over many, many, many, many centuries -- and the general insular circular boys' clubby mutually backscratching woman-excluding woman-hating abuser-sustaining status-quo embracing nature of the media leadership choking the value out of the publications you like so much -- do we really want to be saying (for example) "nope, into the shitcan with you, women who could write for (and edit) the NYRB, women who could write for (and edit)The Atlantic, women who could write for (and edit) Harpers; we need the space for some assholes who think you're nothing but meat and have done some crimes to prove it"? Do we, "we", really want to be saying (for example) Hey, female intellectuals of three generations, you could write and edit this publication out of the sad hole it's in, but we'd rather have (for example) Ian Buruma and Jian Ghomeshi than anyone intelligent or decent so we're going to drive it lower and lower until it's so stained and ugly you wouldn't touch it if we begged you?"
no. It should be a rhetorical question but I can see that it isn't. so, the answer's "no." We don't want to be saying that.
posted by queenofbithynia at 7:51 PM on September 18, 2018 [15 favorites]
and indeed it has.
anyone who takes an occasional break from heaping adjectives on those publications and actually reads them on the regular knows full well it's been many decades since anybody could pretend that their promotion and publication and praise of bigots and dismissal or suppression of women and minorities could be measured in single-digit instances. decades since the good writers they still do publish in varying proportions could be reason enough to tolerate and forgive the rest as the price of entry.
"single dumb
"single bad"
who do you imagine is fooled by this fantasy? non-readers of these mags might be, but non-readers who make noise about not reading are no threat to the thing they never read, so why play to them?
Does this not strike anyone else as excessive?
Does the current swell of media support for and deference offered to rapists and abusers by your favored publications not strike you as excessive? Does it not enrage and terrify you more, much more, infinitely more, than the idea that somebody somewhere isn't reading The Atlantic anymore?
but given the other stellar work underwritten and supported by these publications over many, many decades -- and the general dearth of other, equivalent publications -- do we really want to be saying (for example) "nope, into the shitcan with you, New Yorker,
Given the stellar work produced by women and the manifest humanity possessed by women, both proven over many, many, many, many centuries -- and the general insular circular boys' clubby mutually backscratching woman-excluding woman-hating abuser-sustaining status-quo embracing nature of the media leadership choking the value out of the publications you like so much -- do we really want to be saying (for example) "nope, into the shitcan with you, women who could write for (and edit) the NYRB, women who could write for (and edit)The Atlantic, women who could write for (and edit) Harpers; we need the space for some assholes who think you're nothing but meat and have done some crimes to prove it"? Do we, "we", really want to be saying (for example) Hey, female intellectuals of three generations, you could write and edit this publication out of the sad hole it's in, but we'd rather have (for example) Ian Buruma and Jian Ghomeshi than anyone intelligent or decent so we're going to drive it lower and lower until it's so stained and ugly you wouldn't touch it if we begged you?"
no. It should be a rhetorical question but I can see that it isn't. so, the answer's "no." We don't want to be saying that.
posted by queenofbithynia at 7:51 PM on September 18, 2018 [15 favorites]
Thanks, mhum. I didn't even have to listen to him, just read enough of the intro from the transcript to get the gist.
"The October issue of Harper's magazine includes a personal essay by John Hockenberry a former US public radio host who faced allegations of sexual harassment. In a moment, we will hear from Harper's president and publisher, Rick MacArthur, about why he thinks it was important to publish that piece and his thoughts"
OKAY COOL, "his thoughts," BAAAAAAAAAAAACK BUUUUUTTON!
posted by Don Pepino at 4:44 AM on September 19, 2018
"The October issue of Harper's magazine includes a personal essay by John Hockenberry a former US public radio host who faced allegations of sexual harassment. In a moment, we will hear from Harper's president and publisher, Rick MacArthur, about why he thinks it was important to publish that piece and his thoughts"
OKAY COOL, "his thoughts," BAAAAAAAAAAAACK BUUUUUTTON!
posted by Don Pepino at 4:44 AM on September 19, 2018
Mod note: A few deleted. If you want to discuss with people here, then discuss reasonably; don't comment to say that you stopped reading what [other member] wrote. You can easily not read comments in the thread by not spending time in the thread. And to everyone, let's please back off making things personal. Thanks.
posted by taz (staff) at 6:40 AM on September 19, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by taz (staff) at 6:40 AM on September 19, 2018 [1 favorite]
Canadian MP Laurin Liu weighs in.
I liked this take:
What’s more, Buruma noted that it was an “interesting story,” and argued that Ghomeshi presented a “fresh” perspective – even though many women have heard it all before, in different forms, throughout our lives.
posted by chapps at 7:38 AM on September 19, 2018 [5 favorites]
I liked this take:
What’s more, Buruma noted that it was an “interesting story,” and argued that Ghomeshi presented a “fresh” perspective – even though many women have heard it all before, in different forms, throughout our lives.
posted by chapps at 7:38 AM on September 19, 2018 [5 favorites]
CJR: On The Confessions Of Fallen Men, Nausicaa Renner
The credibility granted to male voices seems, in these essays, to have extended to the editing process, allowing Hockenberry to veer into a critique of modern romance, and Ghomeshi to ask for congratulations for not picking a woman up—a feat of self restraint. Better, reported versions of their accounts would have taken up these moments of self-pity to examine the state of masculinity today—rather than reinforce ahistorical views of courtship and fame, respectively. “Who cares what I think? Possibly no one,” Hockenberry writes in a revealing moment, showing for once the driving force of male insecurity. Hockenberry is granted column space for vagueness at the expense of women’s specific grievances. “The inchoate anger of #MeToo was suddenly given license to target me,” he writes. “Given license by whom?” I might have commented, had I been editing his piece, hoping that a grammatical examination would spark a deeper understanding. Who or what is the mysterious force giving license to anger? Perhaps I would have suggested a rewrite: “The #MeToo movement has given women I treated poorly the license and support to speak up.”posted by the man of twists and turns at 7:42 AM on September 19, 2018 [5 favorites]
From Laurin Liu's essay:
As Moira Donegan pointed out, the irony of sexual harassment is that it causes women to “spend hours dissecting the psychology of the kind of men who do not think about [their victims’] interiority much at all.”
Yes, exactly exactly exactly. Exactly why "his thoughts" set my hair alight. I'm raised up on the thoughts of Roth and Mailer and whoeverall all my life but the literary lions can't take a minute or six in 2018 to listen to my thoughts? No? I'm just a mystifying font of inchoate notions not worth tangling with? Well, then fine! I don't need their skankity interiority in my morning cornflakes one more millisecond or ever again. Harper's can pound sand for all eternity.
posted by Don Pepino at 8:48 AM on September 19, 2018 [7 favorites]
As Moira Donegan pointed out, the irony of sexual harassment is that it causes women to “spend hours dissecting the psychology of the kind of men who do not think about [their victims’] interiority much at all.”
Yes, exactly exactly exactly. Exactly why "his thoughts" set my hair alight. I'm raised up on the thoughts of Roth and Mailer and whoeverall all my life but the literary lions can't take a minute or six in 2018 to listen to my thoughts? No? I'm just a mystifying font of inchoate notions not worth tangling with? Well, then fine! I don't need their skankity interiority in my morning cornflakes one more millisecond or ever again. Harper's can pound sand for all eternity.
posted by Don Pepino at 8:48 AM on September 19, 2018 [7 favorites]
According to Nicole Cliffe, Buruma is no longer at the NYRB.
posted by zombieflanders at 10:13 AM on September 19, 2018 [11 favorites]
posted by zombieflanders at 10:13 AM on September 19, 2018 [11 favorites]
Garrison Keillor Is Also Preparing His Comeback
from the grave?
posted by GuyZero at 11:10 AM on September 19, 2018
from the grave?
posted by GuyZero at 11:10 AM on September 19, 2018
Garrison Keillor is surprisingly still alive. He'd been planning his retirement for awhile and was on the way out when multiple stories broke about inappropriate relationships and behavior with colleagues and he got fired in disgrace. He's mostly denied any wrongdoing, and Artw's link gives his reason for performing again as “No reason to stop having fun.”
In other words, folksy 76 year old white guy isn't the kindly storyteller and mediocre singer he pretends to be, but rather is an entitled jerk. Kinda hoping that entitlement blows up in his face and he has a humiliating failure on tour.
posted by Nelson at 11:27 AM on September 19, 2018 [4 favorites]
In other words, folksy 76 year old white guy isn't the kindly storyteller and mediocre singer he pretends to be, but rather is an entitled jerk. Kinda hoping that entitlement blows up in his face and he has a humiliating failure on tour.
posted by Nelson at 11:27 AM on September 19, 2018 [4 favorites]
The Cut has a story on Buruma's departure, but no real meat other than the confirmation of his exit.
Owing more to time than politics, I don't regularly read NYRB, so I was surprised to learn that Buruma was really only its second editor.
The founders Robert Silvers and Barbara Epstein edited it together until Epstein died in 2006; Silvers did the job alone until his death in 2017.
Buruma is the first nonfounder editor in its 55 year history, and was only on the job a little more than a year. Clearly this was not a great hire for them. I hope they do better.
posted by uberchet at 11:39 AM on September 19, 2018 [1 favorite]
Owing more to time than politics, I don't regularly read NYRB, so I was surprised to learn that Buruma was really only its second editor.
The founders Robert Silvers and Barbara Epstein edited it together until Epstein died in 2006; Silvers did the job alone until his death in 2017.
Buruma is the first nonfounder editor in its 55 year history, and was only on the job a little more than a year. Clearly this was not a great hire for them. I hope they do better.
posted by uberchet at 11:39 AM on September 19, 2018 [1 favorite]
New York Review of Books Editor Is Out Amid Uproar Over #MeToo Essay
I was resigned to not expect this so soon or even at all. Good work NYRB. Don't know how true this is, but I tend to suspect that the book publishing arm of the NYRB is more profitable than the magazine these days. I wonder if that weighed on the decision.
posted by octobersurprise at 11:43 AM on September 19, 2018 [4 favorites]
I was resigned to not expect this so soon or even at all. Good work NYRB. Don't know how true this is, but I tend to suspect that the book publishing arm of the NYRB is more profitable than the magazine these days. I wonder if that weighed on the decision.
posted by octobersurprise at 11:43 AM on September 19, 2018 [4 favorites]
The Times piece has this bit:
posted by uberchet at 11:53 AM on September 19, 2018 [1 favorite]
Mr. Buruma, who was born in Netherlands, took over at The New York Review of Books just after Labor Day last year, following the death of its longtime editor, Robert Silvers, who founded the magazine in 1963 with Barbara Epstein. Mr. Buruma, had contributed to the magazine as a writer since 1985, and he was close to Mr. Silvers and Ms. Epstein.Emphasis added.
After taking the top job, Mr. Buruma described Mr. Silvers’s tenure as “a monarchy,” and said he would make it “a slightly more democratic operation.” He later continued: “Certainly I think I’ll be more collaborative. One great strength of The Review at the moment is that it has a number of very, very bright young editors who know more about certain things than I do.”
posted by uberchet at 11:53 AM on September 19, 2018 [1 favorite]
I wasn't aware that this is yet to appear on the newstands and that this is part of an issue with a cover titled "The Fall of Men".
Ugh, this makes me want to set things on fire.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 11:55 AM on September 19, 2018 [1 favorite]
Ugh, this makes me want to set things on fire.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 11:55 AM on September 19, 2018 [1 favorite]
this is part of an issue with a cover titled "The Fall of Men."
There's an irony for you.
posted by octobersurprise at 12:14 PM on September 19, 2018 [5 favorites]
There's an irony for you.
posted by octobersurprise at 12:14 PM on September 19, 2018 [5 favorites]
I figured Baruma would be fired. His decision to publish Ghomeshi's essay was so indefensible that even he couldn't justify it at all.
Now, NYRB, let's see you do more along the same lines. Hire a progressive editor, don't publish "The Fall of Men" issue in print, and run some sort of mea culpa piece.
posted by orange swan at 12:42 PM on September 19, 2018 [7 favorites]
Now, NYRB, let's see you do more along the same lines. Hire a progressive editor, don't publish "The Fall of Men" issue in print, and run some sort of mea culpa piece.
posted by orange swan at 12:42 PM on September 19, 2018 [7 favorites]
I figured Baruma would be fired. His decision to publish Ghomeshi's essay was so indefensible that even he couldn't justify it at all.
He is out...
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 3:02 PM on September 19, 2018 [1 favorite]
He is out...
posted by Alexandra Kitty at 3:02 PM on September 19, 2018 [1 favorite]
From Huffington Post, some pushback against MacArthur's assertion that the entire editorial staff was behind him re: the Hockenberry piece, "Ex-Harper’s Editor Says Staff Was ‘Sidelined’ During Hockenberry, Roiphe Pieces":
Fun fact: John "Rick" MacArthur is the grandson of John D. MacArthur of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, prominent NPR underwriters and the source of the MacArthur Genius Grant.
posted by mhum at 4:01 PM on September 19, 2018 [2 favorites]
Hasan Altaf, who left Harper’s last month to join The Paris Review, says the magazine’s editorial staff was “sidelined and dismissed” during the development of the Hockenberry piece and journalist Katie Roiphe’s controversial March cover story, which contended that “Twitter feminism is bad for women.”As I mentioned above, unlike Ian Buruma, there's no one above Rick MacArthur at Harper's since he straight-up owns it, so I guess they're stuck with him.
“No one in editorial was in support of the Hockenberry article,” Altaf said. “No one I spoke to was on board or in support or happy about it in any way.”
“Similarly,” he added, “nobody on the editorial staff was in support of the Katie Roiphe article.”
Fun fact: John "Rick" MacArthur is the grandson of John D. MacArthur of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, prominent NPR underwriters and the source of the MacArthur Genius Grant.
posted by mhum at 4:01 PM on September 19, 2018 [2 favorites]
This broke while I was travelling. I'm a long time NYRB subscriber though admittedly have been reading fewer of the articles the last couple years; I have read (and enjoyed) a couple of Ian Buruma's books. Reading the Chotiner interview it was 13th chime of a clock wrong ("received with utter incredulity as regarded itself, but threw a doubt on all the assurances that had preceded it"). Kind of glad it was at least semi-resolved by firing Buruma before I've even seen the print issue.
Jeet Heer retweeted a comment that he made when Buruma was hired that he liked Buruma but hoped it worked out--apparently having no editorial experience isn't great preparation for being an editor, though obviously there are deeper problems. People who try to "start a discussion" should probably start by seeing if there's already an ongoing discussion and trying to catch up.
Another comment was the best way to get a byline in a major American periodical is apparently to get accused of sexual harassment.
posted by mark k at 7:12 PM on September 19, 2018 [1 favorite]
Jeet Heer retweeted a comment that he made when Buruma was hired that he liked Buruma but hoped it worked out--apparently having no editorial experience isn't great preparation for being an editor, though obviously there are deeper problems. People who try to "start a discussion" should probably start by seeing if there's already an ongoing discussion and trying to catch up.
Another comment was the best way to get a byline in a major American periodical is apparently to get accused of sexual harassment.
posted by mark k at 7:12 PM on September 19, 2018 [1 favorite]
Ugh ugh ugh. I'm so glad Buruma got canned. I just read the Slate interview and I just can't with this guy. So unselfaware, so smugly misogynistic. But thinks he's just fair and balanced. UGH!
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 8:56 PM on September 19, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 8:56 PM on September 19, 2018 [1 favorite]
Constance Grady in Vox, "Essays from disgraced men aren't provocative and new. They reinforce the status quo":
Buruma’s argument is essentially that what’s really valuable here is the story of Ghomeshi’s suffering. The question of what he’s suffering for — the harm he is accused of inflicted on 24 women — becomes irrelevant. His suffering becomes more important than theirs. . . .posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 12:05 AM on September 20, 2018 [4 favorites]
it’s . . . difficult to understand how the #MeToo movement can be said to have gone too far when Donald Trump was credibly accused by dozens of women of sexual harassment and still get elected president, when the Supreme Court currently includes one man who was accused of sexual harassment and may soon include another. It’s difficult to understand how one can reasonably make the argument that the men who lost their jobs in the wake of the #MeToo movement were hurt by the movement and not by their own choices to harass and assault their colleagues.
And it’s difficult to understand how spotlighting their voices in the way the New York Review of Books and Harper’s have is doing anything more than reinforcing a system in which men’s social status is considered to be more valuable than women’s bodily safety, in which accusations of sexual violence are brushed aside as so much shrill hyperbole, and in which powerful men are able to hurt those they have power over with impunity. It’s difficult to understand how these essays are doing anything more than striving to return to the system that necessitated the birth of the #MeToo movement in the first place.
Ottawa Citizen has a report on Buruma leaving the NYRB. It includes a quote from Kathryn Borel.
Vanity Fair also has a good overview report, giving full credit to Nicole Cliffe's role in the events. I think Isaac Chotiner did outstanding work here, but it's disspiriting how the woman who broke the story doesn't get credit to the extent a male colleague does, for instance not even being mentioned in The Guardian's report nor indeed by the Ottawa Citizen (though to give credit to the New York Times, they did include her quotes in their piece).
posted by Kattullus at 2:12 AM on September 20, 2018 [5 favorites]
On Wednesday the woman to whom Ghomeshi apologized, Kathryn Borel, told the National Post she “was bowled over by the thousands of intelligent, concise and fair-minded people who immediately decried the decision to publish such an irresponsible and hurtful piece of writing. The conversation has come a long way. That gives me hope.”It also confirms from the NYRB that the publisher, Rea Hederman, was involved in Buruma leaving, though it's still not clear if Buruma resigned or was fired.
Borel added that she hopes Buruma now understands that “just because Ghomeshi walked out of the courtroom a free man, doesn’t mean he’s an innocent man.”
Vanity Fair also has a good overview report, giving full credit to Nicole Cliffe's role in the events. I think Isaac Chotiner did outstanding work here, but it's disspiriting how the woman who broke the story doesn't get credit to the extent a male colleague does, for instance not even being mentioned in The Guardian's report nor indeed by the Ottawa Citizen (though to give credit to the New York Times, they did include her quotes in their piece).
posted by Kattullus at 2:12 AM on September 20, 2018 [5 favorites]
Sexism and misconduct are not side effects of these men’s rise; they’re inextricably part of the reason for it, whether or not the men are aware of that. Such deeply ingrained abuse, and its deeper institutional support, has effectively cleared the playing field of so much competition: female colleagues who may have been smarter, more creative, better—if only they were not so distracted with dodging unwanted kissing, ass grabbing, dick exposure. Below the surface of these high-profile, headline-making accusations, in other words, is a story about the everyday erasure of women.Lauren McKeon at The Walrus
(*applause*)
posted by warriorqueen at 8:07 AM on September 20, 2018 [6 favorites]
“As editor of the New York Review of Books I published a theme issue about #MeToo-offenders who had not been convicted in a court of law but by social media. And now I myself am publicly pilloried.”Wait. Hold on a tick here.
An entire issue about the poor suffering men?
A FUCKING THEME ISSUE?!?
This guy definitely has something lurking in his background that he doesn't want out either.
posted by Etrigan at 10:56 AM on September 20, 2018 [8 favorites]
He’s now whining about ”being convicted by Twitter”, aparrently.
No mate, you published an entire issue of trash devoted to a misogynist agenda, your downfall is your own fucking fault.
posted by Artw at 11:12 AM on September 20, 2018 [6 favorites]
No mate, you published an entire issue of trash devoted to a misogynist agenda, your downfall is your own fucking fault.
posted by Artw at 11:12 AM on September 20, 2018 [6 favorites]
Coming back to the notion of "free speech absolutism", funny how it never quite extends to people saying "You are a horrible person. Go away."
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:20 AM on September 20, 2018 [9 favorites]
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:20 AM on September 20, 2018 [9 favorites]
”being convicted by Twitter”
twitter do your thing ...
(Historians of the future may need to write the history of the present in relation to twitter as much as the history of the 1930's needs to be written in relation to radio.)
(Also I see that the dudes are already lining up with their "But you fuck one goat!" takes.)
posted by octobersurprise at 11:30 AM on September 20, 2018 [2 favorites]
twitter do your thing ...
(Historians of the future may need to write the history of the present in relation to twitter as much as the history of the 1930's needs to be written in relation to radio.)
(Also I see that the dudes are already lining up with their "But you fuck one goat!" takes.)
posted by octobersurprise at 11:30 AM on September 20, 2018 [2 favorites]
So, apparently Buruma had a previously scheduled interview with the Dutch magazine, Vrij Nederland, on other topics. Ineveitably, his latest circumstances became the focus of the interview instead, "Ian Buruma reacts: ‘I still stand behind my decision to publish’". One part jumped out for me (emph. added):
posted by mhum at 3:16 PM on September 20, 2018 [6 favorites]
The interview in Slate exploded the issue, but Buruma also still stands behind what he said in the interview. ‘The theme interested me and now I have become a part of this: what do we think of punishing people by social media? There is no time limit to it, no defense possible. If somebody is not guilty in a court of law, he deserves scorn, sure – but in what form and for how long? It is absolutely not true that I do not have empathy for women who are mistreated or assaulted. But I also want to know: what happens when you are publicly pilloried on social media? That story had not been told.’Uhh, my dude. Jon Ronson wrote a whole book pretty much about that in 2016, So You've Been Publicly Shamed. Although, if I recall correctly, the Ronson's main thesis is that internet shaming is so utterly devastating and life-ruining that we should all stop it... except, in practically all the examples he explores in his book, the subjects all more or less make it out okay and move on with their lives and (again, if I recall correctly) he never really acknowledges that.
posted by mhum at 3:16 PM on September 20, 2018 [6 favorites]
Honestly if he hadn’t been fired for this collosally shitty issue he’d put together I’d be happy to see him fired for being such a collosal crying baby.
posted by Artw at 3:43 PM on September 20, 2018
posted by Artw at 3:43 PM on September 20, 2018
Yeah, apparently it's an entire issue devoted to this sort of thing. Buruma (and NYRB) deserves every bit of ignominy the receive for this.
The psychology of this is obvious, because I'm a late middle-aged white guy from the center-left "liberal" cohort (no longer, I've been moving steadily leftward since my 20s), but I am genuinely deeply infuriated by this sort of thing. It's always these fuckheads -- men about my age or older, writers/intellectuals/pundits I've been familiar with for decades who in the last ten years feel the need to write chin-stroking ruminations on these supposed "excesses".
It's so disappointing. And I think there's a weird element of self-hate, or maybe fear, that I managed to escape this yet I can imagine a life where I did not. I think I've been fortunate in two respects that are outside the scope of anything I can take credit for: first, that I didn't end up professionally and socially in an echo-chamber milieu of these self-satisfied "liberal" middle-aged white men; and, second, MetaFilter. The latter I believe strongly. So I guess I ought to say "thank you".
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 3:50 PM on September 20, 2018 [4 favorites]
The psychology of this is obvious, because I'm a late middle-aged white guy from the center-left "liberal" cohort (no longer, I've been moving steadily leftward since my 20s), but I am genuinely deeply infuriated by this sort of thing. It's always these fuckheads -- men about my age or older, writers/intellectuals/pundits I've been familiar with for decades who in the last ten years feel the need to write chin-stroking ruminations on these supposed "excesses".
It's so disappointing. And I think there's a weird element of self-hate, or maybe fear, that I managed to escape this yet I can imagine a life where I did not. I think I've been fortunate in two respects that are outside the scope of anything I can take credit for: first, that I didn't end up professionally and socially in an echo-chamber milieu of these self-satisfied "liberal" middle-aged white men; and, second, MetaFilter. The latter I believe strongly. So I guess I ought to say "thank you".
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 3:50 PM on September 20, 2018 [4 favorites]
LGM sums it up: Being Fired Because You're Bad At Your Job Is Not A Violation Of Due Process:
Losing a good job in a competitive field is always hard, and the older you are the harder it is to get another comparable one, even if you’re fired through no fault of your own. The implicit argument of the “but hasn’t #MeToo gone too far” argument is that people fired for cause are worthy of more sympathy and attention than people who are fired for worse or much worse reasons. This is bizarre. It is true that people like John Hockenberry will have an even harder time finding a comparable job than people let go because their employer decided to PIVOT TO VIDEO or whatever, but…it’s not clear why it’s unfair that having a history of doing stuff like “making it impossible for your African-American co-workers to do their jobs because you feel threatened by them” and “repeatedly sending unsolicited creepy texts to your company’s 21-year-old interns” might now tend to count against you in the job market. The only way these arguments make any sense whatsoever is…if you don’t really think repeated sexual harassment constitutes being fired for just cause.posted by NoxAeternum at 4:19 PM on September 20, 2018 [13 favorites]
I think all workers should have the protections Rick MacArthur denies his workers. But even robust labor protections don’t mean you can’t get fired for cause, and don’t guarantee that you can get the job you want if you do.
I though the Slate interview was bad but that Vrij Nederland piece is on a whole other level. Blimey.
It's clear he should never have been appointed in the first place.
I am sure that the next editor of the NYRB will be great and I look forward to her appointment
posted by fallingbadgers at 12:36 AM on September 21, 2018 [1 favorite]
It's clear he should never have been appointed in the first place.
I am sure that the next editor of the NYRB will be great and I look forward to her appointment
posted by fallingbadgers at 12:36 AM on September 21, 2018 [1 favorite]
"But I also want to know: what happens when you are publicly pilloried on social media? That story had not been told."It's also grimly hilarious that he seems to think no one's ever been "publicly pilloried on social media" simply for the crime of being a woman or queer or trans or having the wrong opinion on a game or a comic book. Brianna Wu just ran for fucking office. Where's her invitation to write a piece for NYRB? The most charitable interpretation here is that Buruma is so out of touch with the contemporary world that he thinks Ghomeshi really is some kind of victim.
It's always these fuckheads -- men about my age or older, writers/intellectuals/pundits I've been familiar with for decades who in the last ten years feel the need to write chin-stroking ruminations on these supposed "excesses."
There's paragraph in Moira Weigel's review of Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt's The Coddling of the American Mind that's very apropos:
"For all their self-conscious reasonableness, and their promises that CBT can master negative emotion, Lukianoff and Haidt often seem slightly hurt. They argue that intersectionality theory divides people into good and bad. But the scholars they quote do not use this moral language; those scholars talk about privilege and power. Bad is how these men feel when someone suggests they have had it relatively easy – and that others have had to lose the game that was made for men like them to win. Their problem with “microaggressions” is this framework emphasises impact over intentions, a perspective that they dismiss as clearly ludicrous. Can’t these women and minorities see we mean well? This is the incredulity of people who have never feared being stereotyped. It can turn to indignation, fast."posted by octobersurprise at 7:28 AM on September 21, 2018 [11 favorites]
"Fragility", which is a very useful concept.
People with a lot of relative privilege become very uncomfortable when they perceive themselves as being primarily seen as members of a class, and not as individuals, as they are accustomed and expect. Suddenly there's a "worrisome social trend" visible to them. Meanwhile, for all their lives they've been seeing and thinking of most of the (less relatively privileged people) around them usually as interchangeable members of a class, not as individuals.
The typical response to this point is that shouldn't we try to treat everyone as individuals, with their own personal dignity and history, rather than acting as if white men, too, are metely interchangeable?
Well, sure. When the day comes that I notice most white men treating everyone else with individual dignity, is the day when it will be important to me that I'm sensitive to this complaint. Until then, it's special pleading from those who need to learn that they have no right to place themselves at the head of the queue (which they/we always fucking do).
I think what's always most galling to me is this pattern where someone is aware of a widespread injustice, they have some sense of how it works, but aggressively fail to look at themselves and their own behavior through this lens and, worse, demonstrate how shallow and self-serving that supposed awareness is just as soon as they personally feel threatened in any way. This awareness and process should be difficult and uncomfortable -- if it's not, we're not really doing the work.
I am no paragon and I certainly don't want to present myself as one. But I've been trying to do this work almost my entire adult life -- first in a few areas, then, as my awareness grew, in others -- and it's never stopped being difficult and uncomfortable. If anything, it's gotten moreso over the years as the hubris of youth has given way to a lengthening list of "I'm ashamed I tbought that back then". (With, at the risk of repeating myself, the decreasing plausibility that there's not something right now I'll regret thinking/saying/doing in the future.)
One of the things that I've felt an increasing responsibility to do on MetaFilter is that, when we're collectively expressing outrage at this sort of bad behavior by others, to speak up and say, "I've done some of these kinds of things; I worry that I'm doing some of them now; and it's as crucially important to interrogate ourselves as it is to interrogate others."
I just ... well, I feel like until I start hearing a lot more of that from cishet, middle-class white men like myself (but, really, just more from everyone), I can't bring myself to believe things are going to change as much as I wish they would.
And I reserve a lot of anger for people like myself -- people with a lot of relative privilege who seem to maybe have a bit of a clue but, when they have to put their money where their mouths are, hunker down and whine. The psychology about this for me is both the disappointment at people like myself, accompanied by the quite natural fear that I easily could be them.
Back to Jian, he's an ethnic minority and, while his public social identity as such has varied, it's something he was very aware of, and talked about, thirty years ago. But, notably, there seemed to me to be little awareness of his privilege as a man. Nor his social privilege with regard to cultural capital and education. And what we know about his life as a celebrity reveals little cognizance of that variety of privilege and how it is so often abused. In the end, I feel that he was aware of only as much as it personally benefitted him, certainly very little of what personally challenged him. And in recent years, and profoundly so in this essay, he's demonstrated this.
Of Buruma we have the example of the institutional structures that butress rape culture and how quickly and easily men identify with men who commit sexual violence and instinctively find ways to defend them.
More than that, though, Buruma embodies in almost every particular this blithe but subtly monstrous combination of privilege and fragility. Sure, it's such a goddamn tragedy that he lost his prestigious job because he publicly performed his solidarity with a man accused by twenty women of sexual violence -- performed in the name of "having a public dialogue". Fuck that and fuck him.
I'm more than a little frothing at the mouth today, but for obvious reasons. Aren't we all?
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 12:25 PM on September 21, 2018 [7 favorites]
People with a lot of relative privilege become very uncomfortable when they perceive themselves as being primarily seen as members of a class, and not as individuals, as they are accustomed and expect. Suddenly there's a "worrisome social trend" visible to them. Meanwhile, for all their lives they've been seeing and thinking of most of the (less relatively privileged people) around them usually as interchangeable members of a class, not as individuals.
The typical response to this point is that shouldn't we try to treat everyone as individuals, with their own personal dignity and history, rather than acting as if white men, too, are metely interchangeable?
Well, sure. When the day comes that I notice most white men treating everyone else with individual dignity, is the day when it will be important to me that I'm sensitive to this complaint. Until then, it's special pleading from those who need to learn that they have no right to place themselves at the head of the queue (which they/we always fucking do).
I think what's always most galling to me is this pattern where someone is aware of a widespread injustice, they have some sense of how it works, but aggressively fail to look at themselves and their own behavior through this lens and, worse, demonstrate how shallow and self-serving that supposed awareness is just as soon as they personally feel threatened in any way. This awareness and process should be difficult and uncomfortable -- if it's not, we're not really doing the work.
I am no paragon and I certainly don't want to present myself as one. But I've been trying to do this work almost my entire adult life -- first in a few areas, then, as my awareness grew, in others -- and it's never stopped being difficult and uncomfortable. If anything, it's gotten moreso over the years as the hubris of youth has given way to a lengthening list of "I'm ashamed I tbought that back then". (With, at the risk of repeating myself, the decreasing plausibility that there's not something right now I'll regret thinking/saying/doing in the future.)
One of the things that I've felt an increasing responsibility to do on MetaFilter is that, when we're collectively expressing outrage at this sort of bad behavior by others, to speak up and say, "I've done some of these kinds of things; I worry that I'm doing some of them now; and it's as crucially important to interrogate ourselves as it is to interrogate others."
I just ... well, I feel like until I start hearing a lot more of that from cishet, middle-class white men like myself (but, really, just more from everyone), I can't bring myself to believe things are going to change as much as I wish they would.
And I reserve a lot of anger for people like myself -- people with a lot of relative privilege who seem to maybe have a bit of a clue but, when they have to put their money where their mouths are, hunker down and whine. The psychology about this for me is both the disappointment at people like myself, accompanied by the quite natural fear that I easily could be them.
Back to Jian, he's an ethnic minority and, while his public social identity as such has varied, it's something he was very aware of, and talked about, thirty years ago. But, notably, there seemed to me to be little awareness of his privilege as a man. Nor his social privilege with regard to cultural capital and education. And what we know about his life as a celebrity reveals little cognizance of that variety of privilege and how it is so often abused. In the end, I feel that he was aware of only as much as it personally benefitted him, certainly very little of what personally challenged him. And in recent years, and profoundly so in this essay, he's demonstrated this.
Of Buruma we have the example of the institutional structures that butress rape culture and how quickly and easily men identify with men who commit sexual violence and instinctively find ways to defend them.
More than that, though, Buruma embodies in almost every particular this blithe but subtly monstrous combination of privilege and fragility. Sure, it's such a goddamn tragedy that he lost his prestigious job because he publicly performed his solidarity with a man accused by twenty women of sexual violence -- performed in the name of "having a public dialogue". Fuck that and fuck him.
I'm more than a little frothing at the mouth today, but for obvious reasons. Aren't we all?
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 12:25 PM on September 21, 2018 [7 favorites]
as the hubris of youth has given way to a lengthening list of "I'm ashamed I thought that back then."
Hooo boy. If you're ever inclined to dig out old journals going back 25 years or so—for no other reason than, I dunno, you feel like you're feeling too damn good or something—and read them, then I hope you have fewer opportunities than I have to say "Christ, what an asshole."
posted by octobersurprise at 1:20 PM on September 21, 2018 [2 favorites]
Hooo boy. If you're ever inclined to dig out old journals going back 25 years or so—for no other reason than, I dunno, you feel like you're feeling too damn good or something—and read them, then I hope you have fewer opportunities than I have to say "Christ, what an asshole."
posted by octobersurprise at 1:20 PM on September 21, 2018 [2 favorites]
LGM gives us some useful lexicon:
It’s a violation of dude process. That is the process that a dude gets when he is Just Asking Questions and some killjoy chick starts bugging him. Under dude process procedure the dude processes the criticism, decides it is wrong, and goes about his life remaining powerful and wealthy and care free. Dude process is connected to quid pro bro, which is an exchange of favors between two brosephs in positions of power who watch each other’s backs and take care of each other’a secrets.posted by NoxAeternum at 4:24 PM on September 21, 2018 [13 favorites]
Dude process protections are under threat from #metoo, which is one of the reasons that movement is unconstitutional.
Dude diligence is the amount of dilligence you do when you have sworn an oath of service and are looking into the background of a dude who might become one of the most powerful people in the country.
“Should we investigate Kavanaugh’s debt or what these emails that talk about secrets that must be hidden from spouses mean?”
“No. We don’t need to look into stuff. We’re just doing dude dilligence in him. Just putting on enough of a show to claim he was vetted.”
Sometimes the application of dude dilligence to a person can qualify as quid pro bro, and being investigated according to the standards of dude dilligence is definitely a dude process right for rich white guys.
Wow, Lyz Lenz responds to another self-pitying screed where a man complains about "anonymous" accusers derailing his life. She decides to be a non-anonymous accuser.
posted by mark k at 6:31 PM on September 25, 2018 [6 favorites]
posted by mark k at 6:31 PM on September 25, 2018 [6 favorites]
And there's a podcast.
On this week’s episode, Pete talks with CJR Digital Editor Nausicaa Renner about the recent decision by both Harper’s and The New York Review of Books to publish first-person accounts written by men accused of sexual assault and harassment. (Note: The podcast was recorded before news broke that Ian Buruma was out at NYRB.) Then Lyz Lenz, author of “The mystery of Tucker Carlson,” calls in from Iowa to talk about her profile of the Fox News anchor.
posted by Don Pepino at 6:54 PM on September 25, 2018 [1 favorite]
On this week’s episode, Pete talks with CJR Digital Editor Nausicaa Renner about the recent decision by both Harper’s and The New York Review of Books to publish first-person accounts written by men accused of sexual assault and harassment. (Note: The podcast was recorded before news broke that Ian Buruma was out at NYRB.) Then Lyz Lenz, author of “The mystery of Tucker Carlson,” calls in from Iowa to talk about her profile of the Fox News anchor.
posted by Don Pepino at 6:54 PM on September 25, 2018 [1 favorite]
@CaraBuckley:
posted by Going To Maine at 8:06 PM on September 25, 2018
Just received email of letter from 110 NYRB contributors protesting firing of Ian Buruma “His dismissal in these circumstances strikes us as an abandonment of the central mission of the Review, which is the free exploration of ideas.” Signatories include Janet Malcolm, Linda Greenhouse, Joyce Carol Oates, Philip Lopate, Ian McEwan, John Banville, Luc Sante, Lorrie Moore, George Soros, Michael Ignatieff, Harry Shearer, Robert Worth, James Wolcott, Colm Tóibín, Ariel Dorfman…Here’s a horrible Twitter screenshot of the letter
posted by Going To Maine at 8:06 PM on September 25, 2018
That’s certainly a list of people who should no longer be trusted.
posted by Artw at 8:35 PM on September 25, 2018 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 8:35 PM on September 25, 2018 [1 favorite]
Noted anti-sexual-harrassment-policy gadfly and Northwestern prof Laura Kipnis does some pearl clutching over Buruma's ouster on the Times' opinion page today.
posted by uberchet at 7:02 AM on September 26, 2018
posted by uberchet at 7:02 AM on September 26, 2018
I'm not surprised to see a lot of those names. I am surprised to see some. I'm disappointed by all of them and really disappointed by a few. In a lot of ways this feels like the Ronell thing all over where a largely older generation—the average age of that list is what?—50?—older?—I know many of them are are in their 60s and 70s—seems unwilling or unable to acknowledge their own privileges and take responsibility for their own mistakes.
Wow, Lyz Lenz responds to another self-pitying screed where a man complains about "anonymous" accusers derailing his life.
Yeah, that is some bullshit. In literary circles, at least, Elliot's utter creepiness has been remarked on for nearly a decade. Claire Vaye Watkins' old piece "On Pandering" has been making the rounds again and it's worth a read or a re-read.
Utterly unsurprising, too, to see Quillette publish Elliot's garbage given their mission of weaponizing resentment in the service of rightist doctrine.
posted by octobersurprise at 8:54 AM on September 26, 2018 [5 favorites]
Wow, Lyz Lenz responds to another self-pitying screed where a man complains about "anonymous" accusers derailing his life.
Yeah, that is some bullshit. In literary circles, at least, Elliot's utter creepiness has been remarked on for nearly a decade. Claire Vaye Watkins' old piece "On Pandering" has been making the rounds again and it's worth a read or a re-read.
Utterly unsurprising, too, to see Quillette publish Elliot's garbage given their mission of weaponizing resentment in the service of rightist doctrine.
posted by octobersurprise at 8:54 AM on September 26, 2018 [5 favorites]
So my print copy of NYRB arrived night before last. We've had the public storm, the clueless interview with Chotiner in Slate, the firing, and the self-pitying interview all before the issue even got to my doorstep.
Jeet Heer on twitter: It was the staff revolt that led most directly to the firing (which presumably happened after the Chotiner interview). It's a small, talented staff at a profitable (!) periodical that publishes 2 million words a year. If they left, Buruma didn't have the skill or experience to get & train a new staff.
Definitely the right choice. Hopeful for the next pick. They could stand not just a woman editor but also a shot of new blood.
Yeah, apparently it's an entire issue devoted to this sort of thing.
No it wasn't. The "theme" topic had three stories (out of 14 total): The Ghomesh piece, a review of a Jim Brown biography, and a review of three books about male youth being attracted to violence and extremism. (Haven't read any of them yet.) Most of the articles, as usual, are not directly connected to current events.
That’s certainly a list of people who should no longer be trusted.
Not really willing to write off Joyce Carol Oates in all situations for her opinion on this particular matter.
posted by mark k at 9:05 PM on September 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
Jeet Heer on twitter: It was the staff revolt that led most directly to the firing (which presumably happened after the Chotiner interview). It's a small, talented staff at a profitable (!) periodical that publishes 2 million words a year. If they left, Buruma didn't have the skill or experience to get & train a new staff.
Definitely the right choice. Hopeful for the next pick. They could stand not just a woman editor but also a shot of new blood.
Yeah, apparently it's an entire issue devoted to this sort of thing.
No it wasn't. The "theme" topic had three stories (out of 14 total): The Ghomesh piece, a review of a Jim Brown biography, and a review of three books about male youth being attracted to violence and extremism. (Haven't read any of them yet.) Most of the articles, as usual, are not directly connected to current events.
That’s certainly a list of people who should no longer be trusted.
Not really willing to write off Joyce Carol Oates in all situations for her opinion on this particular matter.
posted by mark k at 9:05 PM on September 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
Not really willing to write off Joyce Carol Oates in all situations for her opinion on this particular matter.
Why not? The position of that letter isn't just shitty, it's dangerous, as we've seen over the past several years. It's saying "as long as the person saying it knows how to code shift and phease things "politely", we feel that the most odious idea should be allowed at the table." And as it turns out, that's how you get Nazis.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:16 PM on September 26, 2018
Why not? The position of that letter isn't just shitty, it's dangerous, as we've seen over the past several years. It's saying "as long as the person saying it knows how to code shift and phease things "politely", we feel that the most odious idea should be allowed at the table." And as it turns out, that's how you get Nazis.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:16 PM on September 26, 2018
Meh. Ghomesh is bad, he should be ostracized. Buruma is bad, he should have been fired. I disagree with the letter writers, they should be criticized. I guess the alternative is that the taint spreads through each link of the chain undiminished, which I guess rules me out for not renouncing Oates and all her works too.
Letter doesn't say what you say it does either. It doesn't say Ghomesh deserves a seat at the table, it says Buruma does. I completely think Buruma's offense after the interviews demanded firing but .
And as it turns out, that's how you get Nazis.
One key step in the rise of Fascism and Nazis was, in fact, the left sticking to doctrinaire, pure, and orthodox positions. SPD in Germany and Socialists in Italy really didn't want to violate Marxist theory by actually siding with the bourgeois. French socialists expelled half their members for supporting pro-worker reforms in the '30s.
As it turns out, you can get Nazis lots of ways.
(Source for these claims is The Primacy of Politics, which I happen to be in the middle of and would recommend regardless of our disagreement on comments made by others on NYRB editorship.)
posted by mark k at 11:22 PM on September 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
Letter doesn't say what you say it does either. It doesn't say Ghomesh deserves a seat at the table, it says Buruma does. I completely think Buruma's offense after the interviews demanded firing but .
And as it turns out, that's how you get Nazis.
One key step in the rise of Fascism and Nazis was, in fact, the left sticking to doctrinaire, pure, and orthodox positions. SPD in Germany and Socialists in Italy really didn't want to violate Marxist theory by actually siding with the bourgeois. French socialists expelled half their members for supporting pro-worker reforms in the '30s.
As it turns out, you can get Nazis lots of ways.
(Source for these claims is The Primacy of Politics, which I happen to be in the middle of and would recommend regardless of our disagreement on comments made by others on NYRB editorship.)
posted by mark k at 11:22 PM on September 26, 2018 [1 favorite]
Yes, it’s the people who said “not be trusted” who are being rigidly doctrinaire, while the people who read that as “renouncing Oates and all of her works” are the nuanced side. And calling someone “cancelled” on Twitter is violence.
posted by Etrigan at 3:32 AM on September 27, 2018
posted by Etrigan at 3:32 AM on September 27, 2018
Twitter has been really bad For Joyce Carol Oates, her taking the dumbest position possible on this is completely unsurprising.
posted by Artw at 6:09 AM on September 27, 2018 [2 favorites]
posted by Artw at 6:09 AM on September 27, 2018 [2 favorites]
Bwaaaaaaaaa!
Whoa. Whiplash. My near lifelong love of JCO has suffered a serious blow and at nearly the same moment my disdain for Molly Ringwald has evaporated. Cog...nitive... dissonance...
posted by Don Pepino at 4:13 PM on September 27, 2018
Whoa. Whiplash. My near lifelong love of JCO has suffered a serious blow and at nearly the same moment my disdain for Molly Ringwald has evaporated. Cog...nitive... dissonance...
posted by Don Pepino at 4:13 PM on September 27, 2018
Yes, it’s the people who said “not be trusted” who are being rigidly doctrinaire, while the people who read that as “renouncing Oates and all of her works” are the nuanced side. And calling someone “cancelled” on Twitter is violence.
“Not be trusted” is not a soft phrase, it’s a hard one -and it seems to be getting used in a hard way here.(Artw has benn, to my eyes, very severe all thread long. Bully to him for his opinions! But I see no reason to assume they are nuanced at this particular point.) No one else has mentioned getting “cancelled” so far in this thread, so I’m not sure why we need to raise the specter of Sarah Jeong’s mistreatment here.
In any event! Some more reporting on the letter by Boris Kachka for NYMag: “The Backlash to the Backlash at The New York Review of Books”
posted by Going To Maine at 9:59 PM on September 27, 2018 [1 favorite]
“Not be trusted” is not a soft phrase, it’s a hard one -and it seems to be getting used in a hard way here.(Artw has benn, to my eyes, very severe all thread long. Bully to him for his opinions! But I see no reason to assume they are nuanced at this particular point.) No one else has mentioned getting “cancelled” so far in this thread, so I’m not sure why we need to raise the specter of Sarah Jeong’s mistreatment here.
In any event! Some more reporting on the letter by Boris Kachka for NYMag: “The Backlash to the Backlash at The New York Review of Books”
posted by Going To Maine at 9:59 PM on September 27, 2018 [1 favorite]
I appreciate PEN's stance (from the NYMag article): he probably wasn't fired for the subject matter so please reveal what actually happened so we can stop it with the free speech arguments.
posted by tofu_crouton at 5:28 AM on September 28, 2018
posted by tofu_crouton at 5:28 AM on September 28, 2018
« Older 'It's Prince, thinking aloud on the piano' | The Miracle of the Mundane Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Jian shutting up and fucking off forever. There's literally the entire rest of the web that's better to read than this. Even the primordial ooze of the *chan-sphere know they're primordial ooze, a level of self-awareness that Jian as yet lacks.
posted by scruss at 5:05 AM on September 15, 2018 [64 favorites]