A birthday party, a car in the wrong space, and Mr "L”

This tells of the unresolved incident whereby a tenant parked her car in the parking space allocated to another in an apartment building parking lot in London, Ontario, and the resulting fabrications, false memories, and further offensive behaviour of Mr “L”.

The reason I am telling about this incident that took place 3 years ago is because I need to tell my side of the story, due to boss Mr “L” still saying, three years on, that I parked in the other tenant’s parking space, and that she, apparently, only then parked in mine.

The incident was never investigated, even though I reported it to Management as he had come quite nasty, blaming me and threatening to call a tow-truck if I parked in someone else’s parking space again (I had told him that day, when I went to ask him to ask the owner of the blue car to move, that when I saw someone in my spot, I parked in the next space to it).

I had arrived home at 2:30 in the afternoon, of Tuesday, July 4, 201 (a regular workday for Canadians as far as I know) after being out running errands with the car for a couple of hours or so.  When I realized someone else had parked in my parking space, I just pulled into the next space to that, which happened to be empty.  I was tired and did not realize it would cause such a problem to Mr “L” sense of logic, or to the dismay of some friendly residents in the building who were helping him celebrate his birthday, they said. 

I left my car in the next space while I went in to see if Mr “L” was around or someone who knew who had parked in my space.  As I walked by the lounge I saw Mr “L” sitting there with other residents as they commonly did, and went in, although this time they were eating cake and ice cream. Immediately, I was treated as though I was trespassing on a private party, although this was a working day and the middle of the afternoon. I was scorned for appearing thus, to ask him if he could call the owner of the blue car (the one usually parked beside mine) before I went up to my apartment.  

Mr “L” was more interested in where I had parked my car (because, well, wherever I parked it now it would not be in the space allocated to me.)  He turned against me, ,just as his group of old girls had, and threatened to have my car towed if I parked in someone  else’s space again, because I should have parked in the Visitor’s parking area.  He had the authority to have cars towed, he suggested, although the fact that this other woman had parked her car in my space while I was away didn’t seem to bother him. It was MY car that he threatened to have towed. He did finally go to call the owner of the blue car, after finishing his cake and ice cream.   Within a few minutes she came down, and we walked out together, for her to move hers into her own space, and me to move mine into my space.  She seemed a bit confused, as one would be if they had parked in the wrong space and not realized it.

The situation, however, was left with me being blamed, as Mr “L” decided to spin it, distorting what happened into it being me who parked in the blue car lady’s space so she had no choice but to park in mine, apparently.  However, Mr “L” wasn’t interested in calling the tow truck on her parking  mistake, only on me, for parking in the next empty space.  And blaming me was what he continued to do, it appears, during all the time I attempted to get the situation sorted out with Property Management.  I had been unable to pursue the matter farther due to other commitments.  2017 was a busy time, dealing with health issues and a doctor behaving about as nonsensically as Mr “L”.  I just didn’t have time to do it all.  

Having that erratic situation never being resolved, as Management was unable to deal with it effectively, was another burden I was forced to carry, through being blamed for yet another incident that was not my fault.  There is no Tenants’ Association for residents to go to, when such things happen. It is only people like Mr “L” and his inner circle, presumably, who get to say what’s what.

I just happened to mention the parking space incident one day, on my way through the parking lot, to Mr “L” as it happens, who is still the one in charge, although since Management had never conducted an investigation, apparently not even asking the errant lady herself how it came about, no guilt or innocence was ever decided upon. It was only stated by the higher-ups that the situation had been “addressed” thoroughly and it was time to drop it. It looked like the situation hadn’t been addressed at all – especially about the approach to the situation by Mr “L”.  

So imagine my surprise when I discovered, three years later and straight from the horse’s mouth himself, that I had parked in the blue-car-lady’s space first, whereupon she had parked her car in mine. He didn’t say whether she had mentioned that “fact” to him on July 4, 2017, before going up to her apartment after parking in my space, or whether she had simply decided that nature would take it’s own course.  He just said I had been the one at fault, parking first in her space, then she in mine. Nobody has mentioned that incident to me, in fact, other incidents have not been mentioned either, as though the girls in the know had learned what they should take as the truth.  Nothing seems to arrive at a resolution here. They are just left up in the air, and the girls in the inner circle would know what had been decided as the truth.

I still don’t know how that situation as described by Mr “L” could have come about – how did the blue car lady come to arrive home – and when – only to find I had apparently parked in her space.  I would like Mr “L” to be more specific, because of course the superintendent would know. But if I had already been in her parking space, (parking there earlier in the day, or the day before), at some point the evening before or on July 4, she had to have come home with her car, and parked it in my space because hers was taken.  If she had gone to Mr “L”, I’m sure he would have asked the lady J what time she arrived home and found her space taken.  After all, he would want the truth of the matter, wouldn’t he?   

I’d like to hear his story of how this incident happened, from notes he took about it.  I’d like to know what time she says she arrived home and, parking in my space instead (which Mr “L” and Management insists is a no-no), did she then attempt to contact Mr “L”? Did she leave a note for him, or a phone message, to get me to move my car?  How about some details on exactly how this situation came about, since they are claiming I was at fault for parking in the wrong space first.  I spoke to the lady once or twice after that, asking her to call Management and tell them what happened, but she said only that she thought the situation had been resolved. No, lady with the blue car. It hasn’t been resolved!

What was odd about this was that he seemed ready to place blame on me as soon as I walked in – his women, too - and was most certainly ready with the story that I had parked in the wrong space the day before. But if that were the case, that I had in the wrong space first, wouldn’t the other lady had gone to him about it on July 3; so why didn’t he telephone me that day and ask me to move my car. Or why didn’t he check during the day of July 4th, and realizing I had gone out in my car, which I had at about 12:30 pm, why didn’t he contact the lady who apparently had been obliged to put her car in my space, to ask her to move her car, now that I had gone? 

I was blamed, unjustly, for causing this incident. Now, three years later the lady in the blue car is still in her parking space, and I am in mine, beside hers.  I have explained here how this incident came about, and the result for me of trying to get it resolved. I have spoken my truth, and others have spoken their lies.  But I would still like them to speak up and admit they were wrong, and wrong to blame me.  If anyone can explain how this happened, in a different way than what I am stating, then explain, giving times of day, and who parked where, and to whom did they report it.

As well as getting the story straight, about the parking space, what’s been ignored altogether by Mr “L” and other staff, is his behaviour and that of his female companions.

 Part 2

 So what was it, you may be wondering, that started this up again, this situation that had been in limbo for 3 years?

On Tues Sept 15, 2020, I had gone out to the car, and stopped for a moment to ask a question of Mr “L”, about something for the apartments.  I happened to say something about living with the old parking space incident from 3 years ago, having to live with it not being settled and he responded in a manner I wasn’t expecting, saying that I was the one who parked in the other person’s parking space first, and so she parked in mine when she came home.  Well he caught me off guard, and I responded, telling him what I thought of him.  He wasn’t taking an approach that suggested it was a no-fault matter. He placed the blame squarely on me!  I told him off, indicating I did not accept his version of what happened and then left! Nothing had changed. He’s still the same old person.  (And as I have stated, I would like him to explain exactly how that incident happened the way he said it did, and why on earth the lady didn’t try to fix the problem instead of parking in my parking space and simply going home).

On Friday Oct 9, 2020, when I came back from getting groceries, a red pickup truck with a hook on a chain on it was parked in my parking space, no doubt from the site next door, although most park their vehicles away from the residents’ parking areas. 

Without entering the driveway into our lot, I stopped just as two guys in red vests went by, on their way to the construction site. I explained that there was a pickup truck in my parking space, and would they mind trying to locate him and have him move his vehicle (assuming he was from the site).  They did that, and a few minutes later the man came and got into his truck - without speaking to me - and moved it.  I didn’t get out of my car. I parked it and went home.

The next day, Saturday, October 10, the London Free Press had a special piece about Thanksgiving, so I wrote a comment about this incident for it, thanking the two workers who had been passing by just when I needed them – too tired to get out of the car to have to go looking for the owner of the red pickup myself, at the construction site!

The comments made by myself and one other following the article were later removed, but that doesn’t lessen the appreciation I have towards some people of this city who were so helpful to me at that time. In fact, it makes me appreciate the kindness I received even more.  I still have what I wrote in the comment I submitted:

Regarding a recent incident, I am grateful two workers in red vests who happened to be on the spot went to find the man who parked his red truck in my parking spot while he went to the construction site next door. I appreciated not having to try to find someone who could help in this matter without having it end up the same as it did 3 or 4 years ago when I was the one who got blamed for being the person who initially parked in the space next to mine. I am grateful for the opportunity to tell about that incident and the disregard, rudeness, and lies of the people involved. The London Free Press has provided readers with this opportunity to discuss local issues and happenings until recently (soon after the rope incident in the nature area, which offended some people), when commenting on articles was severely restricted. I don't like to see people with power using it to silence others! (WE ASKED LONDONERS: What are you most grateful for this year? https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/we-asked-londoners-what-are-you-most-grateful-for-this-year   Oct 10, 2020).  

Parking in another person’s parking space isn’t such a big deal. But it was, when Mr “L” and his buddies were in charge of such situations. 

The Threat-sensitive Brain: a theory about animals applied to Gabriel Wortman

An analysis of
Seeking to explain Nova Scotia shootings: Inside the 'threat-sensitive brain'
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/mass-killing-portapique-mental-health-1.5602698
'A threat-sensitive brain that is always looking for evidence to confirm the world is against them' by Michael MacDonald· The Canadian Press· Jun 08, 2020 7:25 AM AT | Last Updated: June 8

The Threat-sensitive Brain 

Can such a theory be applied to human beings or is it better off being applied to animals who survive on instinct? (revision of response to same article previously posted elsewhere).

This type of mental health explanation, as described in the article, ignores the reality of informal social networks or community ideals of conforming to the authority of those who have been granted power to control the lives of those living within their borders. Communities based on tradition or other cultural values may well result in the individual being punished discreetly and informally for breaking the rules of the hierarchy, which could be based on sexuality, or gender, wealth, or another kind of perceived status of members of the community.

Seeking to understand the behaviour of the individual presumably isolated within it, in relationships with fragile bases in which loyalty and trust have little place, means that injustices will build up, and if not resolved may eventually result in the individual attempting to break away from this insurmountable problem.

The idea of the 'threat-sensitive brain' must surely result in loud beeps in the brains of those reading about it, as though the individual has some kind of physical brain disorder (or animal-like brain where instinct is what counts) that results in the individual being unable to reason, to adapt, to be in a relationship, and to live a life of substantial success within the community and at a distance, doing work that has earned him compliments and security, doing sensitive, personal work with clients/patients seeking dental repair. If Gabriel Wortman were this kind of person, he probably wouldn't have been able to achieve all that he did.

The term 'injustice collector' is the creation of those who have lived at the top too long and has little understanding of what really happens in society, in communities that are encouraged and rewarded for demonstrating the collective value of family, sharing, and conformity and excluding those who don't quite measure up.

Referring to being an 'injustice-collector' as a way of seeing the world, as Tracy Vaillancourt (children's mental health and violence expert) does, according to this article, is only one possibility of a motivation for this tragic event. This expert in child bullying would do better spending more time on the subject of 'peer victimization' among adults.

Read ‘Dangerous Instincts’: FBI profiler explains the dangers of that ‘nice’ neighbor <https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/dangerous-instincts-fbi-profiler-explains-the-dangers-of-that-nice-neighbor/2011/10/17/gIQAkvNCDM_story.html> for information on the world-view of Mary Ellen O’Toole, a former FBI profiler who coined the term.

Michael Arntfield, criminologist turned armchair psychologist, who speaks of the 'injustice-collector' as someone who often feels "cheated or disrespected by others, even though there may be no evidence to support those beliefs." And that is most likely the problem. If a community does show disrespect in small ways, in an unrelenting manner, there may well be no “evidence” of the type that someone like Arntfield, a former police officer now working in a 'customized academic appointment' at Western University, would value (see Wikipedia, Michael Arntfield). Most of his work seems focused on the individual rather than the community, as most psychologists involved in extrapolating this theory of 'injustice-collecting' and the 'threat-sensitive brain' are.

I suggest a focus on the community, and I don't mean accepting their stories on Wortman as 'evidence' of his guilt or fitness-of-mind or not, but treating them, too, as though they might not be as credible as the investigators of this horrendous tragedy would like them to be. Liking should not translate to 'credibility'. Rather, investigators should attempt to be objective and to keep in mind that when such a tragedy happens, evidence of the sort that shows the killer in a good light may well be kept hidden. No one wants to support the bad guy at a time like this. Mr Wortman was known to be a caring and community-minded denturist in his working community and among those who knew him in that role. But community is often set apart from a person's work-life. It doesn't mean that Wortman should be labelled 'injustice-collector' because those in the business of psychology see him as such. 

A perspective taken from the discipline of Sociology might be better at undoing some of the falsehoods of this perspective, and the very one-sided blame on one man, similar, in fact, to the moral culpability of the tragedy of the Montreal massacre of 1989, during which killings were committed by Marc Lepine, for reasons that were distorted and attempted to be hidden from Canadians.

References:

Seeking to explain Nova Scotia shootings: Inside the 'threat-sensitive brain'  
by Michael MacDonald·
The Canadian Press·
Posted: Jun 08, 2020 7:25 AM AT | Last Updated: June 8
 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/mass-killing-portapique-mental-health-1.5602698

 ‘Dangerous Instincts’: FBI profiler explains the dangers of that ‘nice’ neighbor
By Monica Hesse 
Style
October 24, 2011
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/dangerous-instincts-fbi-profiler-explains-the-dangers-of-that-nice-neighbor/2011/10/17/gIQAkvNCDM_story.html

The Women’s March, social injustice, and personal experience

About a week ago a piece was written for the Washington Post that I found to be out of place in the Opinions section. I hesitate to provide the title of it, as it might automatically turn readers against me, for not viewing it with the sensitivity it requires, at least on one level. But here it is - the title 'My wife died just after Election Day. I'm attending the Women's March for her'. 

Death so often does necessitate the offering of condolences, ignoring errors in judgement or in practice, and just generally thinking of uplifting things to say. But then why would anyone choose to publish an obituary in the Opinions section of a newspaper?  Perhaps the reason was that it wasn’t an obituary in the usual sense. It was as much about the husband of the person who had died as about the deceased. And yet, scores of comments in the Comments section following the article were written in a manner that resembled condolences more than comments.

One might ask, was the article telling us the opinion of the writer on some social or political  - or economic  - issue? Not exactly, no, the writer appeared to be questioning his own sense of masculinity, in preparing to march in place of his deceased wife in the Saturday’s Women’s March, held in Washington and in places around the world, on Jan 21, 2017. Those who marched did so for a variety of reasons, many of the marchers no doubt being personally motivated, others marching for the rights of women who are marginalized in society, some having specific interests, such as abortion rights for women, violence against women, etc.

Mr Ikins’s wife suffered a tragic death, a fall down stairs, a coma, and finally, release through death. I can relate to that experience of having a fall. A year ago today I suffered a slip and fall, through which I broke my femur. Luckily  - I think – I survived, not having severed an artery and having a fast-acting, thoughtful neighbour, paramedics ready to do their bit, and an expert surgeon to care for my injury. Since then I have had to walk using a walker, but in a few days I will have the nails removed from the knee – nails that held the rod in place while the leg healed. So I am hoping for the best outcome. But by chance, my equilibrium – my sense of balance, experienced as a kind of giddiness, has affected my ability to walk normally too. Mr Ikins says that Nov 8 was the worst day of his life.  It was not a great day for me, either.

On November 8, 2016, I attended an appointment with an ENT (ear, nose and throat) specialist, to tell him about the symptoms I had been having, but found my concerns being dismissed by a specialist who was overbooked, overworked that day, no doubt, and who was not expecting this new set of symptoms. For some reason, he was also defensive, and spent far too much time explaining to me why he sent the last report to my old family doctor, the one I had laid a complaint against with the CPSO, and filed an application against with the Human Rights Tribunal.  I had realized the report went to that doctor, despite my requesting from his appointment taker/secretary that it not be, but it was anyway, in order to abide by the regulations. 

On my way in, I had asked the girl at his clinic front desk if the report could be sent to a different doctor this time, and she said she thought so, but to ask the doctor when I saw him, which I did. All this took precious time away from my concerns – of the balance issue – disequilibrium.  Finally, he offered me a partial VNG test (look it up). I agreed, and later, at home, looked up the test on google. I saw that I had been offered only a piece of the set of 4 tests, and so decided to try to get the tests I needed. To skip to the end of this story, the appointment-taker/secretary and the staff at the ENT clinic lied about me, and the ENT specialist cancelled the appointment I had with him. I am now left with no suitable options for a proper diagnosis nor for treatment options, nor to repair the damage to my reputation.  The only possible option I have, which won’t help my vestibular/vertigo problems, is to lay a complaint against this doctor too.

Returning to the article written by Charles Ikins, I have to say I question whether Charles Ikins’s perception of the reasons for the march were rather limited. He saw it as being for women who experience indignities of the kind Trump had presumably committed, the very reason his wife was protesting.  And he decided that it would not be unmasculine for him to march in place of his wife, to honour her beliefs and commitment.

For the most part, I believe the women’s march was about fighting for the rights of women, and especially marginalized women, women who do not get the same kinds of opportunities and treatment that other women do – some of them single women, poor women, women without husbands, black women, old women, and so on. The maintaining of rights of women – abortion, sexual rights, and so on, were also reasons women marched.

I thought that the Washington Post had used a grieving husband’s thoughts and piece honouring his wife as a political manoeuvering – publishing it on Trump’s Inauguration Day, the day before the women’s march. Taken on its own, as a piece intended for friends and family, the article could be seen as having merit. But published in the Washington Post, for the public to read, it came across as something very different.

Part way through the article, Mr Ikins mentions the admonition for participants to “check your privilege.” He says he thinks he knows the meaning of the phrase, and yet the article itself is an example of what the privileged should try not to do. Instead of seeing things through their own eyes only, and taking for granted the things they have, the material advantages in life, and seeing their own cause as the one most worthy, they might try to see what others experience in life.

It is part of the human condition for tragedy to strike families – all of us - tragedies that are not anyone's fault. That's not going to help the writer of the article talked about here, but it needs to be said. Furthermore, some people in life – women among them – struggle in ways the privileged might not even be able to imagine – and it is not always men who are responsible for the injustices.  Finally, I have reservations about the value of a Women’s March if President Trump is chosen to be the most recent scapegoat for feminists seeking to unite women over a cause - any cause – to enhance interest in the feminist movement.

Men are slow to show support for the Women's March. Is it considered unmasculine?

By Michael Alison Chandler

Washington Post - Opinions

Jan 12, 2017

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/men-slow-to-show-support-for-the-womens-march/2017/01/09/17877ba4-d35d-11e6-a783-cd3fa950f2fd_story.html?utm_term=.55a6b6b5902f

My wife died just after Election Day. I’m attendingthe Women’s March for her

By Charles Ikins

Washington Post – Opinions

Jan 20, 2017

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/my-wife-died-on-election-day-im-attending-the-womens-march-for-her/2017/01/20/e83c8092-df2d-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html?utm_term=.52db5f512fff&wpisrc=nl_opinionsA&wpmm

British comedian Johnny Vegas accused of crossing the line sexually

Johnny Vegas caused a furor the other day when he apparently went over the line in his stage show, leading to discomfort among the audience and to the woman he invited onto the stage. Bruce Dessau has commented on the behaviour, Evening Standard Apr 29, and part of my response is directed towards this: http://dessau.thisislondon.co.uk/2008/04/johnny-vegas-a.html .

I have some questions of my own, and some thoughts on all this. Were these the actions of a man experiencing the power of his position of authority, and did it go to his head? Did he ‘almost’ go over the edge intentionally - making it a question of poor judgement, or was this unintentional, his omnipotent self taking matters too far? I don’t see that much has come of this. Perhaps the stalwart admonition by Mary O'Hara (Guardian, May 1: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/theatre/2008/05/johnny_vegas.html ), naming it sexual assault, has led to this incident being covered up.

Sexual assault is a serious accusation to make, and the response to such a claim would have to be to either cover it up or deal with it. And who wants to do that? It’s too bad women have to jump in and make claims which on one level seem to be accusations, but on another are actually a way of getting the authorities to back off from investigating further. No one wants to be responsible for Johnny Vegas losing his career, and if feminist interference makes it an either/or situation, then better drop it altogether. Don’t risk people actually giving this situation some real thought. They might actually learn something about masculinity, power, and the grey area of sexuality, for men and for women. It’s not always easy for a woman to say No. Her upbringing, traditional norms, and simply being in a situation where she believes no harm will come to her because so many are watching, will all influence her way of responding to the situation. When she came off stage, finally, and was said to be looking as though she enjoyed the experience, could that have been euphoria at having escaped unharmed, relief that it was over, as well as feelings of excitement that she had been involved in this act on stage with the famous (infamous?) Johnny Vegas?

I wonder if reality television could have had an influence on Johnny’s behaviour, if this incident really did happen, having seen some of the actions other celebrities have engaged in, ‘on stage’ in Big Brother’s house – George Galloway, for one, and some sexual antics of other participants. Where does acting stop and the real person take over? Is access to power an excuse for behaving badly on stage? If Vegas's career is based on taking things to the edge, should some leeway be given to this error in judgement or intentional overstepping of power, if that's what happened? Is making an accusation in a national newspaper also a misuse of power? Should an article doing so be seen as an error in judgement on the part of the journalist or an intentional use of power?


Added Apr 20, 2012


Mary O’Hara did revise her article, changing the title and adding an additional paragraph, as follows:

* Johnny Vegas complained about this article. His solicitors have been in contact with the young woman from the audience who has told them that she went along with the joke willingly and did not feel intimidated, scared or abused during this performance.

My thoughts on this, four years later: When it comes to sexual matters, men’s mistakes in crossing boundaries or using their power to excess is often overlooked or covered up. It’s fairly normal behaviour for men, as they deal with their own sense of masculinity in a world that often denies them. As long as they have power – resources, male support or female support, they can get a second chance, and maybe more than that. It’s problematic that the women who support them the most, seeing their behaviour as nothing more than a storm in a teacup or even simply hilarious, can’t see any farther than that, or refuse to look any deeper. I know I wouldn’t have liked his behaviour, especially if it were done to me.

But this was just a comedy show, not as if it were a colleague or employer putting on a display of macho comedy and expecting admiration from all sides for it. This probably didn’t result in anyone being harassed for speaking out, or losing out on a career, and having to move away.

On the other hand, could the incident be compared to the actions of a medical doctor or a teacher, overstepping the bounds of his profession and sexualizing the doctor/patient (or teacher/student) relationship? As with the Johnny Vegas incident, there was a situation of unequal power, whereby the authority figure had the power to manipulate the other, asking her to put her trust in him while he performed certain actions, for reasons connected to the purpose of the interaction. At what point does the audience member on stage refuse to interact any more, while the eyes of the audience are upon her. Not wanting to make a scene, not wanting to appear naïve or lacking in humour, the girl may simply have waited it out, smiling, pretending it was all just fine. Aren’t there many occasions in life when women do just that – pretend it’s okay, watching to see what the others say or do, not really knowing, not wanting to make a fuss, but just conforming?


Did Johnny Vegas over-step the comedy mark?
By Colin Bostock-Smith
First Post
May 1, 2008
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/32522,features,did-johnny-vegas-overstep-the-comedy-mark not working
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/BostockSmithDidJohnnyVegas.doc

Johnny Vegas: A Gig Too Far?
By Bruce Dessau, Comedy Blog
Evening Standard Blogs
Apr 29, 2008
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2008_Apr_BruceDessauAGigTooFar.doc
See article comments at http://dessau.thisislondon.co.uk/2008/04/johnny-vegas-a.html

Johnny Vegas at the Bloomsbury theatre* (with note added)
originally titled ‘When is Sexual Assault Funny’
By Mary O'Hara
The Guardian
May 1, 2008
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/theatre/2008/05/johnny_vegas.html link not working
with new title, introduction and note added: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/01/gender.comedy


Links updated Apr 20, 2012

Public displays of private matters - Irene Mathyssen and James Moore

I agree that the issue now is whether or not it is appropriate for politicians to be checking out pictures of their girlfriends, half-naked, while at work, or pictures of any women. It is so easy to claim the offensive pics are 'legitimate.' Does the label 'soft porn' not apply if the man is in a relationship with the female posing scantily-clad? Why would the writer of this article consider it sanctimonius to prefer that members of parliament keep their minds focused on official matters being dealt with rather than on pictures of scantily-clad women whoever she was. Does this have something to do with current norms by which sex is seen as right and normal and cool, while anything objecting to time and place might be considered old-fashioned, and unsexy? I'm not sure that the motive of the offending MP, James Moore, is relevant (see question asked by writer of the article). When sex is introduced into the public arena in the workplace, and so easily dismissed as possibly being problematic, the question we must ask is why the writer of an article such as this thinks its okay for an MP to be viewing pictures of scantily-clad women on the job. Is it because it's his right? And if it is his right, what else does he have the right to, while on the job.

Irene Mathyssen, NDP MP, raised this matter after inadvertently seeing the images of a scantily clad woman, full-screen, on Moore's laptop computer during a parliamentary session. She thought afterwards that it would have been better if she had approached him first about this behaviour, which she saw as inappropriate, instead of passing the information along and having it end up in public. I don't know how many women have tried to resolve difficulties personally, only to have the individual back off and refuse to communicate, but it has hapened to me, and in a way that has come to ruin my life. Mathyssen is lucky she has the backing of her organization. It is likely that a woman on her own wouldn't stand a chance of having a man attempt to resolve such a problem otherwise.

Added Apr 2012

The phrase “No sex please, [fill in the blank]” (see Sudbury Star, 2003) is a joke, and using it as the title of a news article makes a joke of the issue being discussed. No sex please … we’re Canadian …we’re British …we’re sweaty …we’re babyboomers … we’re married, are just some of the ways it is used in the news.

It’s so easy for people to say this incident was a non-issue, that it should never have been raised, that to have done so was “obnoxiously sanctimonius” – ie. coming from a sense of superiority or high-mindedness in sexual matters, and in a high-handed manner. However, the MP sitting in a session of parliament with his computer screen set at an angle so it was visible to members seated behind him was an unnecessary distraction, to say the least. More was said about it at the time, leading to the incident being dismissed with a ‘full’ apology from the MP who had brought it to the attention of the House.

And who should the Sudbury Star have apologized to? Certainly not to MP James Moore, whose reputation they protected by making a joke out of the incident. There were no repercussions that we know of - no jobs lost and no new regulations about parliament members’ permitted viewing during parliamentary sessions. Members should have some sense about what behaviours are acceptable and what may not be, in certain places at particular times, such as in the House of Commons during a parliamentary session. There’s a time and place for everything, and it is usually left to the judgement of the parliamentary politicians to determine that, as individuals.

Why Ms Mathyssen responded the way she did, by raising the matter without addressing it in private first, or to someone in authority, I don’t know, but the incident occurred close to the Dec 6 commemoration of the Montreal Massacre, and the hype associated with that can lead to increased sensitivity to women’s issues. Even though Marc Lepine’s acts of violence had nothing to do with intimate relationships, the other side of it - the White Ribbon campaign - suggests that men work together “to stop domestic violence, sexual assault, and sexual harassment” (White Ribbon Campaign, 2012). Sexism is part of that, though often considered to be of milder consequence, if any.

A month or so ago, I was carrying out my routine task of rolling the garbage bin out to be picked up the next day, whereupon I noticed a fairly large picture on the inside of the window of a car, directly in front of me as I reached the sidewalk. It was of a scantily-clad woman, posing in a sexually suggestive manner. There was no information on what it was advertising, and no name or phone number. I don’t know how common this is, but there it was! It only happened once, and I have not seen it since, in fact, I haven’t seen anything remotely similar on a car window before, or since then.

In ‘Tempest in a laptop,’ Moore is said to have made accusations against Mathyssen on his website, claiming,, “This was a baseless personal attack, and I am disappointed she resorted to such an outrageous tactic to score a headline." That’s as bad as the original accusation made by Mathyssen, in its tone and substance. He is accusing her of making the accusation about soft porn on his laptop to get at him personally, for no reason that he can see, except to be able to make headlines in the news. Obviously, he was “rattled,” but was he as rattled as Mathyssen when she decided to make public his apparent display of sexual images?

According to Allan Woods of the Toronto Star, “MPs are protected from legal action for anything that they say in the House based on the principle of parliamentary privilege.” But in this case, Mathyssen repeated her allegations against Moore to reporters afterwards, while Moore also overstepped legal boundaries by placing his defamatory comments onto his website. It seems as though they were both at fault. It wasn’t the law Mathyssen was afraid of, was it, that led her to apologize. Could it have been the threat of loss of career, for speaking out against behaviour that for men might well be seen as normal?

The phrase ‘tempest in a laptop’ is a play on words of the phrase tempest in a teapot, referring to a big fuss over a minor matter, similar in effect to the joking, demeaning title of the article ‘No sex please, we’re Canadian.’

Allan Woods continues to distort the event in his ‘Tempest’ article, writing that while telling reporters about it, “the image of the scantily clad woman she had described to her fellow MPs turned into "soft porn, Playboy-type stuff." Sometimes it takes a while to come up with the right words to best explain the situation. “Scantily-clad” could mean images from the underwear section in the Sears catalogue. But we all know the difference between that and the kind of sexually suggestive images that are implied by the terms "soft porn, Playboy-type stuff." And, by the way, the image stuck on the inside of the window of the vehicle I mentioned outside where I live was of a woman scantily clad, but of the Playboy type, not Sears catalogue. It was small, too – the article of clothing work by the woman in the image - not the picture itself.

Both of these people - Irene Mathyssen and James Moore - made mistakes in judgement, but only one of them had to apologize, coming across as the guilty party. So was this an error on her part in “jumping to conclusions,” as Woods says in his opening sentence, or was her lack of judgement more to do with expecting this kind of behaviour among MPs, or any men in the workplace, to ever end. If it did end, if men stopped looking, what could we surmise from that?

The problem returns again to one of time and place. Where should such behaviours be tolerated, or accepted as humorous, or seen as normal, and when? It then depends on the person him or herself to decide and act accordingly.


No sex please, we're Canadian
Sudbury Star
7 Dec 2007
http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=808127&action=svdMsg&&archive=true#threads
http://www.intelligencer.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=808127&archive=true

Mathyssen stands by her complaint
By Chip Martin
London Free Press (Sun Media File)
Dec 7, 2007
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/Mathyssenstandsby.doc

NDP MP sorry for 'scantily clad woman' attack
The Canadian Press
CTV
Dec 7, 2007
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20071206/NDP_apology_071207/

Tempest in a laptop 'Porn' furor grips MPs
By Allan Woods
Toronto Star
Dec 6, 2007
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/283086--porn-furor-grips-mps

White Ribbon Campaign
Online site
2012
http://www.whiteribbon.ca/about_us/#1


Links updated Apr 19, 2012

Clinton: femininity, masculinity, and marriage

Some truth here, finally. It's not a welcome idea that women are able to achieve success because of the men they marry, but in Gary Younge's article in the Guardian (UK), author Suzanne Goldenberg quotes a female lawyer as saying about Hilary Clinton, "This is a woman who is where she is because of who she married". A lot of women, feminists included, aren't willing to admit that that is how they've managed to get ahead, in their own spheres of life, even though they are lesser in status than Clinton's. Marriage has always been, and always will be, the best resource a woman can have (the same goes for men). Thus, the essential ingredients for success, for Hilary Clinton and many other women, are indeed a combination of femininity, masculinity, and marriage. Read also essay on Gertrude (Briggs) McPherson: an interdisciplinary, biographical approach to life cycle development. Gertrude (Briggs) McPherson was a wife and mother, a missionary, artist, author and suffragist. Born in England, in 1908 she went to Hong Kong. . .


All Clinton has to do is prove her femininity. And her hypermachismo
By Gary Younge
The Guardian
Nov 12, 2007
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/nov/12/comment.gender

Gertrude McPherson and the Grey Cottage: an interdisciplinary, biographical approach to life cycle development
By Sue McPherson
S A McPherson website
2001
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/EssaysandWriting/GMcPhersonGryCttgLifeCycleSMcPherson.doc


Links updated Apr 19, 2012

Montreal Massacre

6th December 1989

One has only to do an internet search on the phrase "Montreal Massacre" to come up with many different articles and letters addressing this event in Canada's history. In 1989 a young man entered the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal, armed with a semi-automatic rifle. In one classroom he separated the male students from the women and started shooting, moving on from there down the halls. By the time he was done shooting that December day, 14 women lay dead, 12 of them engineering students.

Most of the writing on this topic has been done from the perspective of the obvious victims - the women who were killed. But the reasons why Marc Lepine did what he did have never been permitted to come to light, or if they have been, were quickly dismissed. As time goes on, I wonder if I am experiencing something of what Marc Lepine went through. Or are we really expected to believe that he never tried to contact feminists, tried to talk to them, to get them to see his perspective, to realize the effect feminism was having on Canadian society?

As a man, a rather traditional man with both French-Canadian and, on his father's side, Algerian Muslim roots, he discovered that the place that had traditionally been men's - in male-dominated fields in university and careers out in the world - were being shared with women, no longer being men's alone. For this to happen, some men would lose out. And Lepine, age 25, was one of them. Without the help of parents, and not being middle class, and not holding the same values of many others of his age, Marc Lepine, born Gamil Gharbi, was at a disadvantage when it came to being accepted at engineering school.


See the Montreal Massacre website: http://www.montrealmassacre.net/  for essays, articles and commentary.


If you would like to have a comment or essay, etc included in the website please contact me.


Updated Apr 18, 2006

Montreal Massacre -- more than violence against women

On December 6, 1989, a 25 year-old man walked into the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal and shot to death 14 women, wounding 13 others. The Montreal Massacre was an appalling tragedy which has now taken its place in Canadian history, remembered mainly as an ultimate example of male violence against women. The lives of the women who died are remembered with sadness and pride. The realization of this injustice, that ruined the lives and promise these women had to offer that can never be recovered, will not go away.The gunman, Marc Lepine, a Quebecker born Gamil Gharbi in 1964, is not thought of by people so much any more, old memories portraying him as inhuman, a representation that is met by many with revulsion.

The reasons behind this atrocious event - including Marc Lepine’s life - have never been adequately explored. Lepine saw himself as a political activist, but unable to resolve his own personal dilemma or what he saw as political wrongs in society. Instead of accepting his fate or leaving quietly he chose to use a violent means of making a political statement-by killing feminists-before ending his own life.

Responses to his actions for the most part focused on apparent weaknesses in his personality and academic worth, together with the abuse he endured in childhood, to back up the idea that within himself, Marc Lepine was less than a human being. Against this image of monstrosity, the memory of the 14 women he killed have been idealized, as representing innocence and feminist breaking of tradition, for instance, or as women killed simply because they were women. The 14 women killed included 12 engineering students, a student in nursing, and a data processing worker at the Ecole Polytechnique.

Soon after the shootings, Lepine was labelled a mass murderer, although in one crucial respect his actions did not fit the stereotype. Rather than selecting a target group on the basis of religion, race, social class or ethnic group, he selected his victims on the basis of gender. Consequently,the fact that women were the victims became the focus of attention, leading to violence against women being seen as the main social issue ensuing from the tragedy.

However, exploring the significance of this tragedy must go beyond looking at it as being mainly about violence against women. The wider social significance of the Montreal Massacre relates to ideas about work, relationships, and the possibility of fulfilment of human potential. Alongside these, consider the influence of race and ethnicity, and of class differences, on opportunities for participation and fulfilment in today's world.

Lepine's victims were Genevieve Bergeron, aged 21; Helene Colgan, 23; Nathalie Croteau, 23; Barbara Daigneault, 22; Anne-Marie Edward, 21; Maud Haviernick, 29; Barbara Maria Klucznik, 31; Maryse Leclair, 23; Annie St.-Arneault, 23; Michele Richard, 21; Maryse Leclair, 25; Anne-Marie Lemay, 22; Sonia Pelletier, 28; and Annie Turcotte, aged 21. Yet remaining fixed on the fact that it was women who were killed takes away from the social significance of the shootings at l'Ecole that day.

Memorials that commemorate the lives of the women who died are just one part of the multiple strands of memories of all those wounded within themselves by this tragedy. If something positive is to come out of the violence that Marc Lepine committed, it would involve a rethinking of how Lepine’s life is remembered, how the women are remembered, and recognition of changes brought about by feminism and its impact on the lives of the women and men of today. Now that time has passed, perhaps there will be a willingness to reconsider the lives of others involved, and how commemorations can be enhanced to reflect the lives of all those whose lives changed that day.

This article was originally published Dec 1st, 2005 in Western News: Comments. University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
http://communications.uwo.ca/com/western_news/opinions/montreal_massacre_--_more_than_violence_against_women_20051201436450/


To read more:

Honouring victims of violence
Dowling, Karmen
Western News, UWO
Dec 5, 2005
http://communications.uwo.ca/western_news/story.html?listing_id=20358 broken link
http://communications.uwo.ca/western_news/stories/2005/December/honouring_victims_of_violence_flag_at_halfmast.html

Perspectives on the MontrealMassacre: Canada's Outrage Revisited
By Sue McPherson
Montreal Massacre website
2005
http://montrealmassacre.homestead.com/files/articlesandessays/PrspctvsMntrlMsscrSMcPherson.doc


Links updated April 16, 2012