It's been a strange year.
Feminist rights leapt to the fore, in a tumbling series of events that I'm still having trouble piecing together. From the criminal hacking of celebrity nude photos, to the Gamergatebullshit conroversy, to the recent harassment allegations against renowned Canadian celebrity-host Jian Ghomeshi, it seems like this year we pulled up the carpet and were surprised to find that misogyny had been quietly spreading under the floorboards all along, and those doses of feminist bleach we sprayed on it's persistent mold during the 70s got votes but little else (yes, that's right, modern women only got the vote in your mother's lifespan. Are we still operating on the belief that we don't have work to do?). All of this has lead to increasing scrutiny around allegations of sexual harassment and abuse at several levels of society: in government, in entertainment, in the online world.
Meanwhile, the Ukraine became ground zero for Vladimir Putin's newest chapter in rewriting Cold War history, with a "subtle" invasion of the Crimea by Russian forces intent on "restoring order" in the troubled region. Even now, Russia is feeling the sting of US-led trade sanctions on its economy. Somehow, however, all of this pales in comparison to North Korea's alleged hacking of Sony Pictures to halt the release of Seth Rogan's "The Interview," a movie so offensive to the Glorious Leader that copies are now being sent by balloon from pro-democratic factions in the south.
In the great world of science, the ESA's Rosetta mission made history and landed a module on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko (but to its friends, it will always be Gary). Running parallel to the year's feminist stories, a great deal of social media attention was focussed on India's Mars mission, and this viral photograph:
In a country currently wracked by rampant sex crime against women, this photo became a rallying point to show the world that not only is India pursuing a vibrant independent space program, it is taking its place in history by ensuring women are a part of that program, and, by extension, their nation's future.
At home, watched our homicide rates declining to record lows, yet we bore witness this year to two violent shootings that jolted the country: first in Moncton, a town that had not seen a murder since 2010, and then again in Ottawa, with an attack that became a rallying point for a myriad of politic interests. Somewhat ironically, it was in this last case, a scene of chaos and confusion, that I found a point of clarity.
You see, this summation so far of 2014 is but a tiny snippet of some of the major events that occurred in the news. The breakneck pace with which information has been hurled at us over the last 365 days is unprecedented. People everywhere are demanding our opinions, and we want to be able to give them. That means keeping informed. But how can you possibly do that? Each day brings so much change, so much destruction, so much creation, so much NOISE. Tuning in to that cacophony of voices can be...exhausting.
Well, that's the thing. You can only know so much.
During the Ottawa Shootings, the media was out in full force, as is wont to happen in a case of supposed terrorism and mayhem. Yet with everything happening, with all of the sensationalism and misinformation, I tuned in to the CBC, and was surprised to find a recurring message of simple, honest, truth: "What do we know with certainty right now?" Several observers, both local and abroad, were in high praise of that coverage and that message. But this isn't about tooting the proverbial horn of the CBC. It's about the message itself.
There's a simple relief to be found in asking yourself that question at any given time, especially during a period of self-reflection as is so often found on New Year's Eve. "What do you know with certainty right now?" In a world given to wild speculation and gross misrepresentation, truth is a commodity that is in high demand but too often in short supply. Perhaps, then, before you look without at everything happening around you, look within at what you're doing. Who you are. What you want to do.
I call 2014 a strange year because the events that occurred don't have an easy-to-follow pattern, a theme, or even strictly speaking a cohesive relevance. I could speculate that 2015 will be more of the same, but I don't know that with certainty. Nobody has a crystal ball. Nobody knows what's going to happen next.
It's said that knowledge is power. I think it would be more honest to add that real power is knowledge backed by certainty. And all I can know, with certainty, is what's happening right now, right here, with me.
And right now, I know I need a drink. With certainty.
Feminist rights leapt to the fore, in a tumbling series of events that I'm still having trouble piecing together. From the criminal hacking of celebrity nude photos, to the Gamergate
Meanwhile, the Ukraine became ground zero for Vladimir Putin's newest chapter in rewriting Cold War history, with a "subtle" invasion of the Crimea by Russian forces intent on "restoring order" in the troubled region. Even now, Russia is feeling the sting of US-led trade sanctions on its economy. Somehow, however, all of this pales in comparison to North Korea's alleged hacking of Sony Pictures to halt the release of Seth Rogan's "The Interview," a movie so offensive to the Glorious Leader that copies are now being sent by balloon from pro-democratic factions in the south.
In the great world of science, the ESA's Rosetta mission made history and landed a module on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko (but to its friends, it will always be Gary). Running parallel to the year's feminist stories, a great deal of social media attention was focussed on India's Mars mission, and this viral photograph:
 |
| Manjunath Kiran/AFP |
At home, watched our homicide rates declining to record lows, yet we bore witness this year to two violent shootings that jolted the country: first in Moncton, a town that had not seen a murder since 2010, and then again in Ottawa, with an attack that became a rallying point for a myriad of politic interests. Somewhat ironically, it was in this last case, a scene of chaos and confusion, that I found a point of clarity.
You see, this summation so far of 2014 is but a tiny snippet of some of the major events that occurred in the news. The breakneck pace with which information has been hurled at us over the last 365 days is unprecedented. People everywhere are demanding our opinions, and we want to be able to give them. That means keeping informed. But how can you possibly do that? Each day brings so much change, so much destruction, so much creation, so much NOISE. Tuning in to that cacophony of voices can be...exhausting.
Well, that's the thing. You can only know so much.
During the Ottawa Shootings, the media was out in full force, as is wont to happen in a case of supposed terrorism and mayhem. Yet with everything happening, with all of the sensationalism and misinformation, I tuned in to the CBC, and was surprised to find a recurring message of simple, honest, truth: "What do we know with certainty right now?" Several observers, both local and abroad, were in high praise of that coverage and that message. But this isn't about tooting the proverbial horn of the CBC. It's about the message itself.
There's a simple relief to be found in asking yourself that question at any given time, especially during a period of self-reflection as is so often found on New Year's Eve. "What do you know with certainty right now?" In a world given to wild speculation and gross misrepresentation, truth is a commodity that is in high demand but too often in short supply. Perhaps, then, before you look without at everything happening around you, look within at what you're doing. Who you are. What you want to do.
I call 2014 a strange year because the events that occurred don't have an easy-to-follow pattern, a theme, or even strictly speaking a cohesive relevance. I could speculate that 2015 will be more of the same, but I don't know that with certainty. Nobody has a crystal ball. Nobody knows what's going to happen next.
It's said that knowledge is power. I think it would be more honest to add that real power is knowledge backed by certainty. And all I can know, with certainty, is what's happening right now, right here, with me.
And right now, I know I need a drink. With certainty.
This last weekend saw the wrap-up of the 12th Doctor's (13 if you're being a nerdy git) first season, save of course the obligatory Christmas special to come. Already opinions are flying about, proclaiming Worst/Best Season EVAH depending, largely, on what fanboy camp you currently fall into with regards to actors and showrunners. My thoughts? Read on...
An Episode-by-Episode Breakdown of Nu-Who Series 8
Instant Classics
Listen
Was there ever really any doubt on this one? In a rightfully acclaimed episode, Moffat's script fully embraces the old adage that the less we see of a monster the scarier it is, and sees it to its extreme conclusion with the possibility of "perfect hiding." Playing once again on the consequences of time travel with child-versions of characters we've already met, Listen shows that it's not about seeing the monster, it's about being afraid. What does fear mean to us? To an audience? Terrific writing, brilliant performances from Capaldi, Coleman and Anderson, and a wonderfully moving score to round out the final moments make for an unforgettable classic.
Flatline
This is, in my opinion, the best standalone "monster of the week" episode the series has had since "Blink." Oh, to be sure, there have been better episodes with monsters in them - Midnight, for instance - but they weren't episodes about monsters. Flatline is 100% about creepy crawlies, in this case, the 2-dimensional beings the Doctor deems "the Boneless." What do they want? How do they operate? Most importantly: how do we beat them? What makes this episode so enjoyable is that once a mechanic of the baddie is established, it is followed through. We, as the audience, get to follow Clara and the Doctor, and as they figure things out, we get to experience their sense of investigation and discovery along with them. Add in some absolutely brilliant physical comedy (the Doctor's "Addams Family" escape from the train, followed by his premature celebratory jig is especially memorable) and you have another A+ episode.
Almost-Greats
Time Heist
Time Heist is terrifically plotted, has exceptional guest stars with great motivations and unique abilities, and sees the 12th Doctor, for the first time, winning big with absolutely no losses. So why can't I rate it in the classics? Well, for a few reasons. For one, the revelation that the big bad monster in the bank is really just misunderstood and just does this out of wuv has been done far too many times, especially in the newest series. We've seen it before in Hide and in The Beast Below, just to name a couple of instances, and it doesn't feel interesting here. The second revelation, that the Doctor was behind the whole thing, also isn't terribly compelling or surprising. Mostly though, I take issue with the Doctor declaring, at the end, that robbing the bank was to beat Danny Pink's date. It just doesn't mesh with what this new Doctor is about. Are these minor gripes? Yes. Time Heist is still a lot of fun and very well crafted, it just doesn't quite make it into the top tier.
Deep Breath
Whenever they kick off a new Doctor, it will forever be measured now against The Eleventh Hour, which to me remains one of the finest episodes of nu Who ever and quite possibly Matt Smith's absolute best. In that lens, Deep Breath comes up short. For what it is, though, it's fun, it's exciting, and it lays out the groundwork for the season wonderfully while bringing back some familiar faces in the Paternoster Gang to ease the transition. I can't help feeling, however, that certain aspects could be chopped from it entirely with little to no loss. The dinosaur, for instance, is pure goof territory and contributes absolutely nothing to the remainder of the plot. There is also a LOT of mean-spirited humour directed at Clara, none of it particularly justified. Still, the sequence where she holds her breath, followed by her triumphant turning of the tables on her captors, gives her a thousand times more meat than all of Series 7 combined. And Capaldi's scene in the alley with the homeless man ranks among some of the most memorable lines in the show: "who frowned me this face?" A great kickoff, with some fine tuning and fastidious cuts it could've been timeless.
Ho-Hums
Into the Dalek
When it comes to Into the Dalek, all of my complaints, literally all of them, centre around how this is basically the same bloody episode as Dalek. Right down to the point where the Dalek declares how the Doctor "is a good Dalek." It's almost exactly the same line. It's the same emotional beats, it's the same plot arc, it's the same conflict, it's the same episode. Oh, that episode is still good, but when I'm watching it and thinking to myself "why should I care a second time?" that's never promising. About the only really great thing I can think of in this episode was the opening scene with the Doctor chastising Journey Blue (what a name) for failing to properly ask him to bring her home. Nothing new here, nothing extraordinary here. Next.
The Caretaker
Ah yes, Danny Pink's moment to shine as the new Rory Williams (or something along those lines). There are a few funny moments in this episode, notably the Doctor's intrusion on Clara's class, and the relationship between Danny, the Doctor, and Clara gets a good shakeup. In addition, Danny confronting the Doctor in the TARDIS marked him out in stark contrast to any other boyfriend character who's come before. Mickey wasn't articulate enough to argue with the Doctor, and Rory...well, Rory never really did much of anything besides die frequently. But...God's sakes the threat in this episode is silly. The barest of reasoning brings the Doctor to Coal Hill school, and the Skovox Blitzer - purported to be one of the deadliest killing machines in existence - turns out to have the aim of a Storm Trooper. I just can't take it seriously when Danny performs a perfect aerial somersault over the robot doomsday weapon and comes up looking perfect and clean, when by rights he should've been a smouldering pile of ash. Setting that moment of true awful aside, why is Courtney Woods a thing? More on that in the next episode.
Kill the Moon
A lot of people hated Kill the Moon for bringing Doctor Who pseudoscience to new absurd levels with a Moon-baby (if you ask me, we left behind all sanity back with Closing Time when Craig blew the Cybermen up with love(that was an actual line, folks)). Honestly, that's not the problem I have with it. The problem I have is that it's a huge buildup to this moment of choice where really, the episode should have been just about the choice. I get that there needed to be an explanation behind the opening scene with Clara talking to the entire Earth about death and consequences and blah blah blah, but by putting everything into the final ten minutes the earlier encounters with monster spiders become instantly moot. And how about Courtney Woods? Why is she even here? Why is she even anywhere? The Doctor talks about how what she did was "not bad for a girl from Coal Hill School," but...well...what exactly did she DO? What is he talking about? She didn't press the button to stop the Moon being blown up. She didn't come up with the idea for the Earth to vote. Her entire contribution to the episode is to be a whiny nuisance, and when the time comes to decide on the Moon's fate, her only role is to mildly back up Clara and then clam up completely. The Doctor tosses out that she might be president some day, but who cares? That has no bearing whatsoever on the outcome of the events we see. The short of it is this: The Doctor and Clara's tremendously engaging scene in the last few minutes can't make up for 35 minutes of events that don't matter. Next.
Dark Water/Death in Heaven
So. The season finale. Why didn't I rate it higher/lower? In a nutshell...when the Doctor is so unaffected by events, I am unaffected by events. People die. Lots of them. People he even liked. The only victory he really has is that Kate Stewart is saved by a fanservice moment, that and he might not have to drag Clara around any more. You could call the Master being dead a win, but you really, really shouldn't. Not in the Doctor's view, anyway. At this point, he is operating on the assumption that he and the Master are the only Timelords in existence (or in this dimension, or something). Yet when the Master is (presumably) atomized by Cyber-fanservice, the Doctor doesn't bat an eye. Mere moments ago, he was taking on the task of killing the Master only with the most extreme of reluctance, but now that someone else took it out of his hands...he's ok?
On the other side of the coin, we have Danny caring too much. That is to say, him giving up his life to this nameless, voiceless child he killed while at war may resonate with the character in his universe, but in the audience universe (you know, the real one), I felt absolutely nothing. We have never seen this boy before. Even seeing him now, we know nothing about him. Exactly why should we feel empathy for him, the way Danny does?
Honestly, I could probably fill pages with why I didn't get anything out of the season finale, but suffice it to say that as much as I didn't like it, I'm not prepared to write it off completely. No, that is reserved for the last three episodes.
Complete Failures
Robot of Sherwood
Where to begin? A nonsensical villain plan, absurd technology that changes rules to suit the plot, bafflingly easily defeated rubbish robots, dialogue scenes that meander into nothing...I just don't know what else to say. Clara and the Sheriff's scene stands in stark contrast to her previous one-on-one with a villain in Deep Breath. Here, she learns nothing of note, certainly nothing that enters into the final equation. Her clever deception (I too saw pretty lights?) simply doesn't read here, not unless we assume the Sheriff is a complete idiot. And I cannot let this stand: the robots are beaten with platters that come from...where? And why does this work? How does the Doctor know it will work? This is to say nothing of the fact that shooting an arrow into a reactor causes it to be refueled. That is basically like saying if you fired a rod of plutonium into a nuclear reactor, it'd increase the output. No. No. No.
Mummy on the Orient Express
Following on the heels of Kill the Moon, there's...this. Quite aside from the fact that this is another time where the monster is just "misunderstood," I just couldn't be bothered to care that this thing was killing people. Mainly because the people were so poorly drawn. When Clara asks the Doctor if he saved the rest of the people on the train, and he answers grumpily that of course he did, I honestly didn't care one way or the other. We see so little of them and learn even less that not knowing their fate I wouldn't have batted an eye. But the thing that really drives me up the freaking wall about Mummy on the Orient Express is how, as I said, it follows up Kill the Moon. In this instance, Clara insists she is done travelling with the Doctor, fed up - as she should be - with his compounding lies. So, what does he do to change her mind? Why, he lies again of course! Several times! He lies about his motivations for bringing her aboard the train. He lies to get her to bring someone to him. He lies, he lies, he lies. And she...forgives him for it? There's no turn, there's nothing earned, there's no motivation. She just...does it. Because if she had ditched out at this point in the season, the show would really be screwed. FAIL.
In the Forest of the Night
Much like Kill the Moon, a lot of audience members detested this episode based on its hokey fake science mumbo-jumbo. Yes it's silly. No trees and fire do not work that way. This is not the problem I have. The problem I have is that it's all over the map, and there's never really a real sense of danger. Aside from some curiously adaptive wolves (yes, the Doctor was right, zoo wolves would not behave that way), the trees, although omnipresent, are hardly threatening. Was there ever really a moment where anyone truly believed that the trees were, oh, I dunno, about to just suffocate humanity? Commit mass genocide a la The Happening? No. And the solar flare is just too distant and unfelt to ever be keenly realized. Again, this episode is a followup to Kill the Moon, and that terrific final scene where Clara tears the Doctor a new asshole. And again, just like Mummy, referring back to that scene only weakens the impact. With the Doctor calling back her speech, I just don't get Clara's sudden burst of nobility. The TARDIS is huge. Infinitely huge. If the Doctor truly believed that humanity was about to be annihilated, are we really to believe her first reaction would be "get away!" and not "pile in the population of Leeds, we're bailing out of this shithole?" Final thought because it's the final thing that happens: why, oh why, did the trees bring back that missing girl? And how? And what? There was zero emotional need for that particular dangling thread to be snipped. If anything, it takes away from the arc of Maebh's character, confronting a harsh reality where yes, sometimes people have to deal with death at an incredibly young age. Well, you know, unless magic trees resurrect your relatives. Then consequences be damned!
Final Thoughts
So, as I hinted at at the beginning of this post, I think this was neither the best nor the worst season we've seen of nu Who (because I know that inevitably someone will demand I tell which is my best and worst, and will argue incessantly with me, I believe Series 5 was the best, and Series 7 was the worst). There were some episodes which I will maintain are absolute classics, and others that I will just as vehemently decry as soulless atrocities. There's always a "honeymoon period" with a new Doctor, where people are ready to declare things this and that to the ultimate hyperbole. For all the people saying BEST DOCTOR EVER there are just as many people saying WORST DOCTOR EVER, and never the twain shall meet. Ultimately, it's still an entertaining show, it's still Doctor Who, and we can all look forward to more adventures in wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey.
Or at the very least, Nick Frost in a Santa Claus suit (insert your own "Frost" pun here).
Or at the very least, Nick Frost in a Santa Claus suit (insert your own "Frost" pun here).
There's a morbidly fascinating direction to media cycles. When a crisis occurs, the immediate reaction is to seek an explanation. How did this happen? Who do we blame? How can we help? We aren't after information; information is obtained through rigour, not through rapid development. We're after judgement, and the quicker the better, because the intoxicating power that comes with being on the side of judgement is something we love to taste when the opportunity comes. Feeding this frenzy are the parties involved. Say the right words, spin the right message, find the right button to push, and you can wield that brief moment of opportunity like a glove.
Such is the case with the ongoing development of Jian Ghomeshi and the CBC.
Some framework: what do we know so far?
1) On Sunday, Oct. 26, the CBC issued this statement for immediate release:
"TORONTO, Oct. 26, 2014 /CNW/ - The CBC is saddened to announce its relationship with Jian Ghomeshi has come to an end. This decision was not made without serious deliberation and careful consideration. Jian has made an immense contribution to the CBC and we wish him well."
2) As Chuck Thompson was the designated contact person for further information on the announcement, he was contacted by several journalists for additional comment. The Globe and Mail quotes Thompson, in an email, as saying:
“Information came to our attention recently, that in CBC's judgement, precludes us from continuing our relationship with Jian Ghomeshi.”
3) Subsequently, Ghomeshi, through his agent, issued a media release indicating his intention to file suit against the CBC for damages in the amount of $50 million, and to seek reinstatement in his position. Ghomeshi also retained the services of a "high-stakes public strategy and communications firm," Navigator.
4) Finally, on his public Facebook page, Ghomeshi issued a statement outlining his belief that his termination from the CBC emerged from, in his words "the risk of my private sex life being made public as a result of a campaign of false allegations pursued by a jilted ex girlfriend and a freelance writer."
From a purely PR perspective, it doesn't take much critical thought to realize who has obtained that crucial first step. That one party accomplished this isn't surprising. What is surprising, even alarming, is how quickly that first step has been picked up as the dominant narrative in this situation.
Already, the online argument is being framed around if we think the CBC was right or wrong to fire someone over private sexual conduct, if an employer has any business knowing our personal life, if consent is applicable in this situation, etc. etc. etc. All of this has been accomplished in the span of hours. I'd be impressed if I didn't find the whole thing so repellant.
I shouldn't be surprised, really. We've seen this happen before. People who are otherwise sane, forward thinking individuals, supporters of equal rights and a new dialogue around rape culture, suddenly forming ranks and drawing lines in the sand to support one of their own. As ever before, it relies on the individual in question issuing a pre-emptive statement, "getting ahead of it," as it were. We've seen it with Woody Allen. We've seen it with Roman Polanski. We'll undoubtedly see it again.
"Presumption of innocence," goes the reply, when I become critical of the unique treatment these people seem to receive. Indeed, presumption of innocence is one of our most sacred rights. Unfortunately, that's not what's at stake in today's events.
In the sequence of events I have listed above, there is no accusation. There is no criminal charge. In order for there to be a need for presumption of innocence, one must first be charged with an offence. Ghomeshi has not been charged.
No. What we are dealing with now is something different. We are dealing with the presumption of conspiracy.
By issuing his statement, Ghomeshi has thrown into question every aspect of whatever eventual consequences might have befallen him / may yet befall him still. His statement attacks the character of potential accusers, not actual ones. That they may transition to a point of actual accusers following this means they begin their position under scrutiny. In his statement, there are a myriad of different forces to be accounted for: the CBC, the jilted lover, the freelance writer, the various friends (including ex-girlfriends), a major Canadian publication. That none of these are named specifically means the audience is free to interpret however they like. And there we have it: presumption of conspiracy. Conspiracy, until proven otherwise, no matter how unprovable that may be.
Of course, one cannot have a conspiracy without having an objective, and that is where the final piece of the narrative falls into place: the victim. This narrative would not be complete without reminding us of the human cost at stake. This "campaign of vengeance" as Ghomeshi calls it, is taking its toll only "two weeks after the death of my beautiful father."
I have no doubt that in days to come, there will be further additions to the narrative, from Ghomeshi or from other parties, that he has begun this crisis as a victim. That he is proceeding forward from a place of weakness.
Make no mistake. By taking careful pains to frame the conversation, Ghomeshi has begun from the strongest position of all.
Such is the case with the ongoing development of Jian Ghomeshi and the CBC.
Some framework: what do we know so far?
1) On Sunday, Oct. 26, the CBC issued this statement for immediate release:
"TORONTO, Oct. 26, 2014 /CNW/ - The CBC is saddened to announce its relationship with Jian Ghomeshi has come to an end. This decision was not made without serious deliberation and careful consideration. Jian has made an immense contribution to the CBC and we wish him well."
2) As Chuck Thompson was the designated contact person for further information on the announcement, he was contacted by several journalists for additional comment. The Globe and Mail quotes Thompson, in an email, as saying:
“Information came to our attention recently, that in CBC's judgement, precludes us from continuing our relationship with Jian Ghomeshi.”
3) Subsequently, Ghomeshi, through his agent, issued a media release indicating his intention to file suit against the CBC for damages in the amount of $50 million, and to seek reinstatement in his position. Ghomeshi also retained the services of a "high-stakes public strategy and communications firm," Navigator.
4) Finally, on his public Facebook page, Ghomeshi issued a statement outlining his belief that his termination from the CBC emerged from, in his words "the risk of my private sex life being made public as a result of a campaign of false allegations pursued by a jilted ex girlfriend and a freelance writer."
From a purely PR perspective, it doesn't take much critical thought to realize who has obtained that crucial first step. That one party accomplished this isn't surprising. What is surprising, even alarming, is how quickly that first step has been picked up as the dominant narrative in this situation.
Already, the online argument is being framed around if we think the CBC was right or wrong to fire someone over private sexual conduct, if an employer has any business knowing our personal life, if consent is applicable in this situation, etc. etc. etc. All of this has been accomplished in the span of hours. I'd be impressed if I didn't find the whole thing so repellant.
 |
| DaveBleasdale via Compfight cc |
I shouldn't be surprised, really. We've seen this happen before. People who are otherwise sane, forward thinking individuals, supporters of equal rights and a new dialogue around rape culture, suddenly forming ranks and drawing lines in the sand to support one of their own. As ever before, it relies on the individual in question issuing a pre-emptive statement, "getting ahead of it," as it were. We've seen it with Woody Allen. We've seen it with Roman Polanski. We'll undoubtedly see it again.
"Presumption of innocence," goes the reply, when I become critical of the unique treatment these people seem to receive. Indeed, presumption of innocence is one of our most sacred rights. Unfortunately, that's not what's at stake in today's events.
In the sequence of events I have listed above, there is no accusation. There is no criminal charge. In order for there to be a need for presumption of innocence, one must first be charged with an offence. Ghomeshi has not been charged.
No. What we are dealing with now is something different. We are dealing with the presumption of conspiracy.
By issuing his statement, Ghomeshi has thrown into question every aspect of whatever eventual consequences might have befallen him / may yet befall him still. His statement attacks the character of potential accusers, not actual ones. That they may transition to a point of actual accusers following this means they begin their position under scrutiny. In his statement, there are a myriad of different forces to be accounted for: the CBC, the jilted lover, the freelance writer, the various friends (including ex-girlfriends), a major Canadian publication. That none of these are named specifically means the audience is free to interpret however they like. And there we have it: presumption of conspiracy. Conspiracy, until proven otherwise, no matter how unprovable that may be.
Of course, one cannot have a conspiracy without having an objective, and that is where the final piece of the narrative falls into place: the victim. This narrative would not be complete without reminding us of the human cost at stake. This "campaign of vengeance" as Ghomeshi calls it, is taking its toll only "two weeks after the death of my beautiful father."
I have no doubt that in days to come, there will be further additions to the narrative, from Ghomeshi or from other parties, that he has begun this crisis as a victim. That he is proceeding forward from a place of weakness.
Make no mistake. By taking careful pains to frame the conversation, Ghomeshi has begun from the strongest position of all.
I know it's been a very long time since I've blogged.
I can put this to a lot of things: a rather marked increase in the workload at my day job, a pair of volunteer tasks that require a fair amount of focus and attention, a need to work at writing things that I hope to send out for publication in the near future. There's more to it, though.
Unless you've been completely cut off from all human contact (pity the lonely Mars rover) you've probably noticed that in the past year or so, the internet has been an awful, awful place to be, particularly if you're a woman. It is genuinely exhausting. With the criminal hacking of female celebrities' nude photos, the now-omnipresent tumour of hate and nerd-rage known as GamerGate, and today, the bizarre condemnation of a woman having the nerve to show up to an event after having aged, it seems like we're in the throes of a resurgence of misogyny of such unprecedented proportions that it threatens to send us back to the days of pinching secretaries and drive-through backseat blurred lines (you know, the times of Mad Men).
Of course, the truth is that there's tragically little about today's misogyny that is unprecedented. The creepy critters were always hiding under the rocks and it's only now that we're trekking out into the backwoods for a little constitutional refresher that we're finding them still slithering about. As Emma Watson aptly observed in her address to the UN, no country in the world can truly be said to be completely equal.
There are people who take umbrage with this statement, or, failing that, with movements largely aimed at adding some counterweight to the inequity. The argument, if I can collate it is as such, is that the counterweight will go/has already gone too far, and people on the other side (in this case, ye olde white men) are being harmed.
I'm going to do something, right now, for any of those people who feel attacked by feminism who chance upon this blog entry. It might come off as crazy, or patronizing, or just a blatant lie, but I want you to know - and I want any feminists to bear with me until the end of this entry, because this is going to take a sharp left turn - that I am being completely, truthfully, sincere.
I am going to take you at face value.
Not you, crazy death-threat twitter-user. Not you, dudebro with the ex-girlfriend who thinks all women are evil. No, I'm talking to you, the self-proclaimed "moderate," the person who theoretically exists behind a thick veil of awful, calling out from the sidelines that they are being unfairly represented. Feel unfair no more, you are the fairest here.
I can accept that you may have issues you legitimately want to raise. You may have honest concerns about how certain people are treated, on or offline. You may even have real points to make about video games (triviality to the common man, but YES, I get it, RealGamers™ really, really care)!
I'm afraid there's a problem. When you tack your Totally Legitimate Concerns on to someone who is asking to simply have the right to be treated the same as everyone else, you invariably come off as a douchebag.
I don't CARE if you have legitimate concerns. I don't CARE if you think that somebody posting their nudie pics on iCloud is reckless. When that person is saying to you, "I would love to be treated with respect and equality," your only answer should be FOUR. WORDS.
"I support equal rights."
Full stop. End thought. Final statement. Close the deal. Drop the mike. Glitter bomb it.
Now I can hear you out there. I can feel your fingers poised above the keyboard, ready to tell me how wrong I am, that THEY cast the first stone, that YOU'RE being attacked, that EVERYONE is out to get you. Most of all, I hear you saying "but this is REALLY about..."
Nope! Don't do it! Resist the temptation!
See, here's the thing. Equal rights are equal rights. I realize this may be a sticky wicket to navigate, but when people talk about equal rights, they don't tend to attach bizarre riders in the fine print. You didn't listen to Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous "I have a Dream" speech only for him to turn around and add "but no jews." Equal rights don't come with conditions. They don't come with attacks.
There are many important things that you may want to talk about. No, scratch that...I have no doubt that there are important things that DESERVE to be talked about.
Equal rights are not the forum to use.
Your first reaction to a woman's plea for respecting her right to privacy should not be "she should have secured herself better."
Your first reaction to a woman's suggestion for more equality in video games representation should not be "she's wrong/she's a liar/I can't even go further because these attacks are endless and increasingly vile."
All you have to do...all you ever should do...is remember four words: "I support equal rights."
By all means, write about how everyone can protect themselves online. Write about how you think video games are best represented. Write about corruption in games journalism. Just don't go attaching it as a reaction to those four words, because the moment you say "also" you're really saying "except." Equal rights aren't an exception. That's what makes them equal. If you have a real point to make, it should be strong enough to stand on its own without relying on the crutch of being framed as a reaction, right?
And if you have trouble with that concept, if you find yourself struggling at the keyboard to resist hammering out your own personal vendetta whenever someone stands up and has the nerve to suggest they want to hear those four words bouncing about the four corners of the world until they're on the lips of every last human being with total and complete openness...
...well, then the bad news is that you probably didn't believe in the four words to begin with if you thought they couldn't stand on their own.
The choice is there, though. Everyone can do it. Think of this as an offer. An invitation, even.
I support equal rights. Will you?
I can put this to a lot of things: a rather marked increase in the workload at my day job, a pair of volunteer tasks that require a fair amount of focus and attention, a need to work at writing things that I hope to send out for publication in the near future. There's more to it, though.
Unless you've been completely cut off from all human contact (pity the lonely Mars rover) you've probably noticed that in the past year or so, the internet has been an awful, awful place to be, particularly if you're a woman. It is genuinely exhausting. With the criminal hacking of female celebrities' nude photos, the now-omnipresent tumour of hate and nerd-rage known as GamerGate, and today, the bizarre condemnation of a woman having the nerve to show up to an event after having aged, it seems like we're in the throes of a resurgence of misogyny of such unprecedented proportions that it threatens to send us back to the days of pinching secretaries and drive-through backseat blurred lines (you know, the times of Mad Men).
Of course, the truth is that there's tragically little about today's misogyny that is unprecedented. The creepy critters were always hiding under the rocks and it's only now that we're trekking out into the backwoods for a little constitutional refresher that we're finding them still slithering about. As Emma Watson aptly observed in her address to the UN, no country in the world can truly be said to be completely equal.
There are people who take umbrage with this statement, or, failing that, with movements largely aimed at adding some counterweight to the inequity. The argument, if I can collate it is as such, is that the counterweight will go/has already gone too far, and people on the other side (in this case, ye olde white men) are being harmed.
I'm going to do something, right now, for any of those people who feel attacked by feminism who chance upon this blog entry. It might come off as crazy, or patronizing, or just a blatant lie, but I want you to know - and I want any feminists to bear with me until the end of this entry, because this is going to take a sharp left turn - that I am being completely, truthfully, sincere.
I am going to take you at face value.
Not you, crazy death-threat twitter-user. Not you, dudebro with the ex-girlfriend who thinks all women are evil. No, I'm talking to you, the self-proclaimed "moderate," the person who theoretically exists behind a thick veil of awful, calling out from the sidelines that they are being unfairly represented. Feel unfair no more, you are the fairest here.
| threephin via Compfight cc |
I can accept that you may have issues you legitimately want to raise. You may have honest concerns about how certain people are treated, on or offline. You may even have real points to make about video games (triviality to the common man, but YES, I get it, RealGamers™ really, really care)!
I'm afraid there's a problem. When you tack your Totally Legitimate Concerns on to someone who is asking to simply have the right to be treated the same as everyone else, you invariably come off as a douchebag.
I don't CARE if you have legitimate concerns. I don't CARE if you think that somebody posting their nudie pics on iCloud is reckless. When that person is saying to you, "I would love to be treated with respect and equality," your only answer should be FOUR. WORDS.
"I support equal rights."
Full stop. End thought. Final statement. Close the deal. Drop the mike. Glitter bomb it.
Now I can hear you out there. I can feel your fingers poised above the keyboard, ready to tell me how wrong I am, that THEY cast the first stone, that YOU'RE being attacked, that EVERYONE is out to get you. Most of all, I hear you saying "but this is REALLY about..."
Nope! Don't do it! Resist the temptation!
See, here's the thing. Equal rights are equal rights. I realize this may be a sticky wicket to navigate, but when people talk about equal rights, they don't tend to attach bizarre riders in the fine print. You didn't listen to Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous "I have a Dream" speech only for him to turn around and add "but no jews." Equal rights don't come with conditions. They don't come with attacks.
There are many important things that you may want to talk about. No, scratch that...I have no doubt that there are important things that DESERVE to be talked about.
Equal rights are not the forum to use.
Your first reaction to a woman's plea for respecting her right to privacy should not be "she should have secured herself better."
Your first reaction to a woman's suggestion for more equality in video games representation should not be "she's wrong/she's a liar/I can't even go further because these attacks are endless and increasingly vile."
All you have to do...all you ever should do...is remember four words: "I support equal rights."
By all means, write about how everyone can protect themselves online. Write about how you think video games are best represented. Write about corruption in games journalism. Just don't go attaching it as a reaction to those four words, because the moment you say "also" you're really saying "except." Equal rights aren't an exception. That's what makes them equal. If you have a real point to make, it should be strong enough to stand on its own without relying on the crutch of being framed as a reaction, right?
And if you have trouble with that concept, if you find yourself struggling at the keyboard to resist hammering out your own personal vendetta whenever someone stands up and has the nerve to suggest they want to hear those four words bouncing about the four corners of the world until they're on the lips of every last human being with total and complete openness...
...well, then the bad news is that you probably didn't believe in the four words to begin with if you thought they couldn't stand on their own.
The choice is there, though. Everyone can do it. Think of this as an offer. An invitation, even.
I support equal rights. Will you?