Only *some* of them? I think Jesse Brown at Canadaland got pretty much all of them, so if they leave any of these out, we’re going to need a follow-up piece to find out why they decided to omit what they do.

I always want to ask “How many women?  How many fucking women will it take before you just automatically say ‘yeah, this guy is a predator,’ cuz I’ll just wait for that many women to come forward and we won’t have to repeat this conversation for the 47th time.

The pearl-clutching apologists are the worst. He wasn’t ousted because the world can’t handle edgy takes. He was ousted for participating in the cover-up of a violent sexual attacker. 26 women. Twenty-six women. TWENTY SIX WOMEN.

I refuse to believe any version of this story where I have to root for Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, III.

I’ve been following the literary world Twitter gossip about this debacle: A number of staffers were so horrified that they were immediately looking for new jobs. Now a disclaimer appears above the Ghomeshi piece stating that the following issue will address some of the factual discrepancies. It will have to be a long…

A story worth hearing?

Then there’s the whole teddy bear thing. [[shudder]]

This should either be added to the article, or have a separate article written. Thanks for this

“Before 2014, it was unimaginable to me that I would become a poster boy for men who are assholes,” Ghomeshi wrote in the piece.

Right? I mean, he begins his ‘article’ with a story about how even a random karaoke-bar hostess in ~New York~ knows who he is. I haven’t had the spoons to be able to make it through the entire piece, though I have tried a couple of times. I just keep getting derailed and closing the window whenever I read about…

Wow, that Slate piece is a meisterwerk in deflection and minimization. He would rather be talking about anything else BUT this topic. He’s getting hung up, as men do, on whether or not the crime was proven in court and a guilty sentence awarded; he doesn’t consider sexual assault or harassment to be crimes, only…

I never had any doubts about his guilt but the Crown was FAR from perfect, in fact they made some unforgivable mistakes, including not being prepared. And not being prepared is inexcusable when trying a high profile case, and it’s not like they didn’t know who Marie Heinan was. But their biggest mistake was not…

That article is great, I love the final paragraph

Yea, it’s not surprising to me that asshole men think the experiences of other asshole men are worth amplifying. This is why is it so critical to have representation from marginalized communities in these positions of influence.  

They are so valuable, so vital.

Yeah, I’m a Canadian and followed it pretty closely. He was definitely known as an asshole prior to 2014. If you listen to stories from people around him he was a controlling piece of shit for a long, long time and was tolerated because CBC thought he was their “star.”

Your first line literally gives two reasons why he deserved to be sacked as the editor...

God, I LOVE a good fact-check. I refused to read the original essay, and gritted my teeth and bore through Buruma’s interview with Slate (bless Nicole Cliffe for her fury about this and nearly-concurrent return to Twitter).

This was a very satisfying read. 

The redemption of men must go on, at all costs. They are so valuable, so vital. In a couple of years, Ian Buruma would be given a platform by another powerful dude to claim he was taken down by an overly sensitive hit mob too. On and on it goes, the wheels of patriarchy in perpetual motion.