Why Jian Ghomeshi's bedroom IS my business
Many recoil at the notion that a person’s private affairs are of public interest, but when it comes to the details Jian Ghomeshi’s recent firing, the public is right to want to know more.
While we don't yet know all the details surrounding the CBC's decision, the allegations we have heard – which include the physical and verbal abuse of a number of young women, as well as the sexual harassment of a former CBC employee – are disturbing.
Ghomeshi's own explanation of the situation, posted on his Facebook page, written with the guidance, one would assume, of Navigator, the PR agency he hired to manage his crisis, has provided us with perhaps more than we ever hoped to learn about what goes on in Ghomeshi’s bedroom – his "secret life," as he calls it. He has made it our business whether we like it or not.
I would not deny that Ghomeshi deserves a private life. Certainly I think most of us have behaviours, experiences, thoughts and desires we would prefer be kept out of the public realm – we don't need to know all the dirty details of one another's relationships and sex lives, even if we are talking about those who are in the public eye, as Ghomeshi is. That said, he is wrong that what he does in his private life, considering the circumstances, isn't his employer's business – or ours.
The issue is not only alleged abuse, but abuse of power – and Ghomeshi's position of power is very much connected to his job at the CBC. As reported by The Star, the women making the allegations – all at least 20 years younger than him – met Ghomeshi as fans. Two of the women claim he met them at CBC events, after which they said he contacted them via Facebook to ask them on dates. If this is true, it means Ghomeshi very directly used his position at the CBC to prey on younger women. Whether or not he can prove the women "consented" to violence in the name of sexual play does not change the power imbalance that is inherent in these scenarios. One of our readers calls this imbalance, "celebrity sorrow."
There are scores of men who have used fame, power, money, and status to victimize, manipulate, and abuse young women and girls -- from R. Kelly to Jimmy Savile to Bill Cosby to Jimmy Page. Often celebrity men present warm, pleasant, endearing personas to the public that convince us they are incapable of harm. Meanwhile they take advantage of young women who desire attention from their idols and are eager to please. These men will then employ that same power and influence to intimidate the women they victimize into compliance and silence. More often than not they get away with it, sending a powerful message to both victims and perpetrators.
Ghomeshi is a man, which immediately grants him a certain level of power and privilege in a patriarchal society. He is a celebrity, which means he is looked up to and admired by many, including the young women he dated or tried to date. In the workplace he would have been in a position to sexually harass women (and did, allegedly, at least once) who would likely feel too vulnerable to come forward, lest they negatively impact their current or future employment opportunities.
And he was much older than the women he pursued, a power differential often employed by men who enjoy the feeling of superiority they get from dating women who are less confident, less experienced, less financially and socially privileged and, generally, more susceptible to exploitation and manipulation at the hands of men who are willing to take advantage.
The absolute truth is not something we currently have access to – we may never learn all the facts in this story. It is fair to assume that the CBC has information that has not yet been made public. It is not easy to fire a unionized employee from the network and this is not, by any means, a decision they would have taken lightly considering the audience, attention, and accolades Ghomeshi has brought to our ever more vulnerable public broadcaster. Despite what he would have us believe, the CBC would not fire someone as widely beloved as Ghomeshi simply because they found his bedroom practices distasteful.
You never know what really goes on behind closed doors. But if we ever intend to address the power dynamics and patterns that play out time and time again between powerful men and the women they victimize, sometimes at least, it is our business to find out.
More in Opinion
This isn't about his 'sexual choices', this is about his ability to use his power in order to abuse, manipulate, lie and deceive.
Been there, done that. These many (whether working in the public eye or not) are 'powerful', and he isn't alone. They deceive, lie, manipulate and abuse the women in their lives and when it goes against them - they then use terms like 'private life' sexual preferences' to defend themselves. It comes down to entitlement and in many cases, those in their circle worrying more about the picture than the reality. We easily support these 'hard down by' by blaming the one who is brave enough to speak up. It's an ongoing battle of power and Jian is not alone is using everything in his arsenal to spin it his way.
Battling him and similar is a hard, long battle and sadly usually results in little change. Jian like others will continue on, someone will give him a job, someone a board seat and he'll carry on with little to no accountability.
This isn't about his 'sexual preferences', this is about his ability to manipulate,lie, and deceive - all traits that should be incredibly important in positions of power (public and otherwise) they simply have been highlighted via sexual relations (which are really irrelevant).
Where's the objectivity? You're correct to state we, the public, do not know all the facts. You are only assuming CBC or even the Toronto Star have all the facts.
What you assume, without fact, may in fact apply here, but it also may not!
This is hardly a balanced opinion, which is why it is an opinion and not considered "news." (Not that news today is balanced either).
And again, it is not your concern because it is an allegation. How much more difficult is it to go to the police versus the media? At least with the police you can have a publication ban. Isn't discussing the issue the most difficult part? CBC would have anti-harassment policies in place, even for the likes their "celebrities." True, a "nobody" could be fired, but that smart nobody would easily have a case against CBC, with the backup of laws, the labour board, health and safety board (since harassment is now a health and safety violation), and on and on.
Court documents with a publication ban are not available to the media. It would have been wiser to go to the police with such allegations. Instead they went to the Toronto Star and cited "fear" of consequences associated with disclosure. So what do we really have here? Allegations without proof, by multiple people which doesn't constitute proof either.
If they don't have enough legal proof for police to file charges, they should have said that, but they didn't.
So here's the real outcome, someone is accused, but not charged, their career is ruined, they are deemed guilty without facts by people such as yourself, and the accusers? They get what they wanted, anonymous destruction of a "powerful man." But what did they do for the cause that you are touting? What if they really are just pissed he dumped them? Maybe he's a "player" and they were hurt by this? Players are not good people (note: people, not men or women, people) and do hurt a lot of people, but do they deserve to have their lives ruined to this level? If those accusations are true, they should have gone to the police and ordered a publication ban.
I am against any abuse of power! I do NOT single out men vs women as you have chosen to do. However, I do not form an opinion on someone's accused actions when there are no actual facts presented. I do not believe in assumptions either.
Perhaps you could have set aside your emotional anger towards oppression you have felt and worded this article in a much more neutral form? Or was it your intent to try to insight anger towards an individual without any facts?
And if he is innocent, what will you write of the false accusers who chose to destroy his life? Or in your mind, is it impossible that he could be innocent because in our patriarchal society, he's a man, who has all the power and zero accountability?
Do you have any hard facts to support these accusations, or do you suggest we accept your blanket generalizations of all men and people in influential roles?
Please cite your sources, we're waiting.
The women and anyone else who allege he sexually and/or physically mistreated them should now go to the police, or take legal action, since their names will be exposed anyway as a result of civil legal activity now under way. Only that will ultimately determine his guilt or innocence . Continued failure to file complaints with the police or sue Jian Ghomeshi means he is innocent.
The women and anyone else who allege he sexually and/or physically mistreated them should now go to the police, or take legal action, since their names will be exposed anyway as a result of civil legal activity now under way. Only that will ultimately determine his guilt or innocence . Continued failure to file complaints with the police or sue Jian Ghomeshi means he is innocent.
This is quite relevant today!
I largely agree with the opinions that you raised in this peice. Ghomeshi works for CBC, a public broadcaster, and the CBC (quote annoyingly, in my opinion) elevated Ghomeshi to the point where CBC radio became nearly all Ghomeshi all the time. His show Q was played at 10 in the morning, 10 at night and there were many "best of Q" rehashes at other times; he also guest hosted other shows.
Personally I couldn't stand him, and couldn't run to the radio fast enough to turn it off - which is definitely saying something seeing as I am the type of person who has CBC Radio 1 on practically 24 hours a day. His show was listenable for me when he was NOT the host. So there's full disclosure - I was absolutely not a fan.
For a man who the CBC elevated to such a status, he became a huge part of the brand. Therefore the CBC has a tremendous interest in what Ghomeshi was bringing to the table, bedroom antics and all, allegations false or true.
Anyone who knows anything about BDSM (and trust me I do not proclaim to be an expert) knows that it is something very carefully negotiated and built upon a lot of trust. While not everyone negotiates a safe word, the types of aggressive BDSM both admitted to by Ghomeshi and alleged by the five women (if you include the article on XOJane) are certainly not something to be experimented with in the early stages of dating, or as alleged by the one woman, on the first date.
From the perspective of CBC; it would be quite key that Ghomeshi met these women at a CBC event as a CBC representative, that he seemed to jump right into BDSM with them early from the start - because he would definitely be being quite cavalier about his private bedroom tastes becoming public. These are not fellow BDSM practicioners he met at some discreet BDSM event; they were attendees of a CBC event. On that note alone (putting my bias aside for a moment) it would definitely not be appropriate for a figure they have elevated to such a stature to represent the brand.
Next would be the allegations themselves. We are not talking about one jilted ex girlfriend as Ghomeshi whinged in his open letter. We are talking about five women. The first he went to a concert with and she was thinking he was gay and that it wasnt a date at all, and he got so grabby it made her very uncomfortable. The second was a former CBC employee, with whom he also got grabby and talked about hate f__king her; which is totally inappropriate to say in the work place even if the two of them had shared BDSM experiences together, which it is quite apparent they didn't. The other three are talking about being choked, punched and slapped in the face, and being hit hard. This sounds like violence against women, not BDSM.
To be honest, sounds to me like the man has a rape fetish. It probably started out as legitimate consensual BDSM and progressed to a point where he wanted it more and more realistic to the point where he started just surprising unsuspecting women with it. Chances are that he deliberately had text exchanges that would imply consent and was actually past the line from sex role play to actual rape and knew full well the risks he was taking. Maybe he got away with it the first time and kept doing it. Maybe there are a lot more women who are going to come forward.
Now on the feminist tint to the article; this subtracts from the core point. I am a man, I do not engage in BDSM, I loathe Ghomeshi and literally cheered when I saw he was fired in the paper. Just because I'm male I am not immediately granted power, and the author says we live in a patriarchal culture. I work with a lot of very bright successful women young and old; we have three female premiers in Canada along with many other MLAs, MPs, police officers and judges. This mythilogical "rape culture" feminists speak of does not exist - none of my male friends (and I socialize with a lot of very A type men who have no problem speaking their mind amongst other men) has ever expressed anything but disgust of someone who would rape or sexually assault a woman.
Great article, but next time leave the "women are such poor waifs and anyone with a penis has great power over them" commentary out of it. I have nothing but respect for women in general - and that means I respect them enough to feel that they are smart enough to make smart decisions.
The article is very well constructed and does justify the premiss "his bedroom IS our business".
However there is only one point where I find the assumptions are going too far. I think the accusations of power abuse and influence are a bit exaggerated. Of course I don't mean to deny it, the facts are simple and they are there : a well positioned man in front of a fan can be very persuasive. But without considering the harassment that happened next, I do not see the outrage in a man meeting a younger woman (but still over 18) in a social event and then asking her on a date.
To make myself clear, I am only commenting here on this particular dynamic of the "meeting" and the "power abuse" and not about the rest of the article or events.
How can a man in his position not have an influence on fans ? He's a public figure. - Supposing he went to a cocktail bar with friends and met a lady that knew him from his work and he got a date, and maybe more, out of this conversation, would this still be power abuse ?
I despise the actions he has been accused of, but I don't believe it all started with lies and manipulation. Or else, every public figure from broadcast to actors/singers both males/females should be accused of power abuse every time they meet someone in a public event and pursue their inclination.
Just within the last couple of hours, the total number of women with hideous JG stories to tell is up to at least eight.
All those who say we don't have all the facts in yet are right, but from the CBC's point of view, consider this: they have a host who has become a brand and, next to Mansbridge, is the face of the corporation. He is now on the record, publicly, as stating that treating women violently gets him hot. How is that going to go down with his listeners of the female persuasion, let alone the next woman he interviews?