Respectability vs RESPECT: Part Two

This and this are connected.

Different women, separated by class, professional status, age, resources and geography.

The connection between these women: they shared an intimate and sexual space with men who did not respect them. These men, feeling unjustly deprived of 'their' entitlements,  deliberately and malevolently harmed and tried to injure them by exploiting the double standard about women's sexual expression that still persists in this 21st century.

In the case of *Nicole* and *Kim* in Halifax, the vindictive actions of a man who felt justified to impugn the respectability of his ex-lover, and to physically endanger her (and her house-mate) were documented by the victims.  Yet the crown attorney declined to pursue criminal charges for what *Adam* did.

As for Lori Douglas in Winnipeg, the first inquiry that thrust her into public view was dropped but a newly formed Canadian Judicial Council panel will be looking at her case - again.

There was one basic question that was never adequately addressed. Given that Douglas testified she had no knowledge of the proposition Jack King presented to his client — an 'invitation' for Chapman to have sex with her — nor had she consented to his initiative, was her spouse effectively trafficking her, and setting her up to be sexually assaulted as well?

It's a moot point now: King died last April, and that aspect of the complicated inquiry was dropped.

It appears to me that it is these women's respectability that is being judged, rather than the criminal actions of vengeful men.

Remember the Rehtaeh Parsons case?  Media attention put a spotlight on the reluctance of the RCMP to adequately investigate the multifaceted and unrelenting sexualized violence that led to her suicide. It forced the police to bring to justice those responsible for her harassment.

Once again, media attention has stirred the police into some semblance of action.  Kim and Nicole's criminal harasser may yet be brought to trial.

Douglas and her lawyers took legal recourse in order to expose the bullying tactics of the original CJC panel for what they were: unvarnished misogyny.

Last word: this exchange of tweets captures how women's respectability is viewed through a sexist lens and why women are challenging the double standard.

From @fortyfs' timeline, here.

Reminder: Respectability vs RESPECT: Part One.

Sauce for the gander, smear for the goose.

Imagine the following scenario.

An ex-patient of an orthopedic specialist initiates a civil suit against her, her gynecological oncologist husband and a hospital. Several years ago the patient found herself in the untenable situation of receiving, while under the care of her specialist, raunchy nude photos of her physician's husband and numerous invitations to have sex with him. The patient deflected these overtures. After her medical treatment was complete, she complained to the hospital who settled with her, giving her shush money provided that she destroyed all compromising photos and documents in her possession.

Now the former patient has gone public and the oncologist, currently the director of a teaching unit at a prestigious hospital, has taken administrative leave pending investigation and resolution of the litigation/complaint. His spouse, who suffered from PTSD at the time, acknowledged she'd posted private intimate photographs and offered his sexual services to this woman, without his consent or knowledge.

If this were a movie script, would it feature stars like Angelina Jolie and George Clooney?

Life imitates the stuff on the silver screen, as the recent actions of a man hoping to score a few million dollars by exploiting a husband's frailty and destroying a woman's life, illustrate.

Here's the actual story, not glossed by some Hollywood re-write.

[...] sexually explicit photographs of Douglas are part of the complaint made in July by Alexander Chapman, a 44-year-old computer specialist, who says he was harassed by the judge’s husband to have sex with her.

Chapman said after he retained Winnipeg family lawyer Jack King in 2003 to handle his divorce, King showed him about 30 nude photographs of Douglas and supplied him with a password for a porn website devoted to interracial sex. [...]

If a lawyer deliberately posts nude photos of herself on Facebook or on a website it could later undermine public confidence in her ability to serve as a judge, said Lorne Sossin, dean of law at Osgoode.

However, if the photos were taken in the context of an inherently private relationship and posted without her consent, Sossin said, it’s hard to imagine she should be judged negatively.

Sossin suggested it would also be unfair to find Douglas unfit for judicial office simply on the basis of her sexual predilections. At an earlier time, the same might have been said about homosexuals, he added.

In the first (fictional) instance, the demand for accountability (regarding sexual harassment and violation of sexual privacy) would be specifically directed at the spouse who acted with reckless disregard for her profession's code of conduct and her husband's privacy.

But in real life the public blaming, shaming, and punishing of women continues, whether they're sex workers, complainants in a high-profile contentious sexual interlude, G20 political activists or judges.

Because they're women, it makes them fair game for the gynophobes - within the RCMP, Harper's Conservative party or the CBC.

Note: Yes, I changed the title when I realized I'd written opposite to what I intended.