Dom Harvey is a coward.

There has been a lot of back and forth about the stupidity of Dom Harvey taking still frames of a woman dancing in order to get a photo of her knickers/three pairs of stockings/leotard.

First things first. Most performers don’t get to choose their costumes. If they do try to, they get labeled difficult. Any performer knows this. So slut shaming someone for an outfit they don’t chose is a pretty low hit.

Secondly, in order to see ANYTHING of a smutty level in a dance outfit there would have to be a serious malfunction. When I was dancing I wore a g string, then my skin tone tights, then my costume undies, then, then fishnets or costume tights, then my leotard or skirt. Sorry to ruin the day of the losers responsible for this being an actual thing on google search

But you aren’t gonna see anything, no matter how much time you waste re watching and freezing shots to take pics. Creep.

My next point has not been covered yet as far as I can see. There has been a lot of discussion about what is and isn’t funny and who is and isn’t public property, and what parts of a woman’s body are and aren't ok to view if it is already “out there”. But there has been no mention of the cowardice involved.

Cowardice? What? This was a quick joke. He picked the only obvious target right?

 She was the only appropriate target... the only woman wearing a dress short enough to catch a glimpse of her knickers as she executed a lift or jump. The only person who would be suitable for this “Joke”.
Well GOLLY. If only there was a woman there dancing incredibly with her legs in the air in a similar fashion on the same show, on that same night. A woman with media power, a woman with the power to change people’s careers because she is well connected. A woman who if she didn’t like the joke could really mess with Dom Harvey’s future. A woman with the Queen’s service medal.

  *cough*.

If only such a woman existed, Dom Harvey could have used her as his target and proved his claims of humor, punching up, and showing that he takes the mickey out of everyone, no matter how powerful. If only there were such a woman, the joke might work. It wouldn’t be a pathetic little perve taking the mickey out of a woman who has so little control out of her image that this may be the one thing she is remembered for.

If he had used Candy, the joke still wouldn’t be a good one, it would still be creepy as hell. But if she has the power to respond without the entirety of New Zealand media shitting on her, that would be a start right??

Pity there was no other woman he could have chosen… then people might have noticed what a coward he was.

a response to robyn malcolm

yesterday i had a brief exchange on twitter with robyn malcolm regarding roger sutton, and you can see the whole exchange from this tweet:

A CERA employee with some humanity https://t.co/VgjwPhpUVz http://t.co/2Q9s8efQBx
— Robyn Malcolm (@robynmalcolm) November 19, 2014

twitter is unfortunately not a good medium for a detailed discussion of the issues, so i wanted to give a fuller response here.

i really do understand the desire to support a friend who is going through difficult times.  from the twitter exchange, it appears that she knows mr sutton well and considers him a good friend.  i know it must be difficult to watch your friend go through something like this in such a public way.  and i'm sure it's difficult to see people saying some very negative things about him.

supporting a friend who has done something wrong is not an easy business.  but i don't think you do your friend any favours by dismissing what he has done or by ignoring the complainant in this case and her suffering.  sure, make the point that your friend is generally a wonderful person who has achieved some very important things for the community, but also acknowledge that in this instance he stuffed up.

the best example of this would be owen pallett's facebook statement on hearing of the allegations against his friend jian ghomeshi (for details of that case, see my post here):

At no point here will I ever give my friend Jian’s version of the truth more creedence than the version of the truth offered up by three women. Anonymity does not mean these women do not exist....

...Jian Ghomeshi is my friend, and Jian Ghomeshi beats women. How our friendship will continue remains to be seen.

now i'm not for a minute implying that mr sutton's actions were at the level of mr ghomeshi's.  however, that doesn't mean that mr sutton's actions should be dismissed, ignored or in any way treated as not important.  of course other people do worse things, that's not the point.  the things that mr sutton constituted serious misconduct, they were not trivial matters.  i don't believe you can do a friend any favours by embedding a view that he has been unfairly treated when there is no evidence that this is the case.  in fact the whole "look over there, that thing is so much worse" is the richard dawkins "dear muslima" defence, one which he has since apologised for.

ms malcolm has known mr sutton for 20 years.  but what if she had known the complainant for 20 years?  what if she had watched the complainant go through the harrowing process of the investigation, sat by her while the complainant suffered through that press conference & the resulting aftermath?  would ms malcolm's response have been the same?  mr sutton is struggling but he is the one who has behaved wrongly in this case.  that doesn't make him a terrible person overall, he's not some kind of monster.  but he is in the wrong and that can not and should not be overlooked.  the impact of his behaviour can not and should not be overlooked.

the best way to support a friend who has done something wrong is not enabling a view that his wrongness isn't so very bad.  rather, it would be to say to the person: "what you did here is not ok.  you are still my friend and i still really do care for you and will stand by you.  but you need to change this particular behaviour because it isn't acceptable".  that's my opinion anyway, for what it's worth.

[EDIT: i did want to say that i am a fan of robyn malcolm's, not so much of her acting as i haven't watched any of her shows, but of her political activism.  i love how she stood up and made her voice heard on the union dispute with peter jackson, & i have also admired her stance on other issues.  the fact that i deeply disagree with her on this issue doesn't change that.]

Que ne CERA pas, CERA

Why do you go to work?

No, really, take your time.

Because in all the commentary from Roger Sutton about how much he "deeply regrets" he didn't "find out earlier" that his behaviour at work, where he held ultimate power, was unacceptable, no one is talking about what work is for.

It's where we go to earn enough money to eat, pay our rent, look after ourselves and people we care about.  If we're lucky, we might be working somewhere which makes our heart sing, but ultimately it's about survival.

We do not go to work to listen to sexist jokes.  Outside of the sex industry, we do not go to work to have our bodies or our sexual attractiveness commented on or assessed.  We do not go to work to be patronised as women through the use of unwanted, demeaning words.  We do not go to work to be touched in any way by someone else without our consent. 

Some male commentators are terrified Roger Sutton's decision to resign will mean an end to ordinary workplace interaction. 

Here's the thing.  If Roger Sutton's behaviour is your idea of ordinary workplace interaction, then yes, you need to change.

We've had the excuses.  He's nice.  His wife likes him.  This is all a bit silly and goes a bit too far.  It's just hugs from the boss, isn't it?

In my first paid job, I sold sports gear in an old-fashioned sportshop. 

When I was 16, on a slow day over the holidays, my boss made a "joke" in front of  three others.  "You're going to have to go out the front, Luddite, and show a bit of leg."

I liked my boss.  I liked working with his son (my age), his daughter (a couple of years older) and his wife, who did the books.

I said "Fuck off." (Young, impetuous, not the suave control of language I have now).

There was a stunned silence.  I walked to the back of the shop, shocked, angry, upset, sure I was going to get fired.

He apologised to me later that day, and told me what he'd said had been inappropriate.  I apologised for telling him to fuck off, but said I'd not liked what he said.  It never happened again.

That's a good employer response to sexual harassment in the workplace.  Taking responsibility, apologising, and never doing it again.

Not giving an unauthorised account of your version of events to a press conference.  Not continuing to plug yourself all over the media.  Not talking about how hard you work in your very hard job.

Rape culture tells us that nice men don't do yucky stuff.  Rape culture tells us that victims lie and exaggerate.  Rape culture tells us feminists go too far with their overemphasis on consent and power.

Respect to the woman who made this complaint, it was brave and I have no doubt, necessary for her wellbeing at work.  Respect to my fellow bloggers, pushing back against rape culture.  Respect to everyone out there challenging their friends, family and colleagues when they hear this sexual harassment being minimised.

We don't go to work for this.

on roger sutton not being the victim

today the news breaks that roger sutton is resigning from CERA as a result of allegations of sexual harrasement.  he announces and holds a press conference, apologising for the hurt he has caused.  and yet, there is still a certain dismissiveness of his own behaviour: "hugs, jokes, i do do those things...", "i am who i am", "i never meant to cause any harm" (yeah, intent isn't magical) and "i've worked my guts out for the last three and a half years" (sorry, that doesn't give you a free pass to harass anyone).  on the other hand, there were statements taking responsibility for inappropriate jokes and a strong statement that he is not the victim here.

sadly, but somewhat predictably, there has been a lot of minimising of the behaviour in various media reports.  the focus has been on the language - "really, calling someone honey or sweetie is sexual harassment now?", but there has also been minimisation of the unwanted hugs (oh but women hug men, hugging is common etc etc).  despite his own statement that he isn't the victim, there are a lot people who are trying making him one.

it was pretty infuriating listening to gary mccormick on radio nz, worried about what a terrible impact this was going to have on nz.  very little concern at all for the woman who made the complaint, no acknowledgement that mr sutton mentioning that he may have hurt other women by his behaviour as well.  in fact, no recognition that the sum of his behaviour over a period of time may have created a difficult work environment for the women who had to work with him.

we have heard from his tearful wife, and i can completely understand that she is upset by what has happened and feels protective of her husband.  when she says "She says she is baffled that his "hugs and jokes" have been misinterpreted and that Mr Sutton is simply a "touchy-feely" person.", one has to wonder whether or not she has spoken to the woman who laid the complaint or to the other women who may have been hurt, and whether she has been part of the investigation or read the full report.  maybe she has done all of the above & still supports her husband.  but in doing so in the manner that she has, she is further harming the women in the workplace.

i've also seen, on social media, the "nice guy" defence.  the one where people refuse to believe that a person could have committed particular acts because they are so nice, they do such good work, they have benefited society in xyz ways.  except we have so many, many examples of people who behave extremely well in many spheres but who have also been abusers or harassers.  just because someone is nice in their behaviour towards the majority of people they come across, or just because someone donates to charity or does other "good works" doesn't mean they haven't behaved badly.

in this particular case, the state services has investigated the complaint against mr sutton, and while the conclusion is that the behaviour didn't justify dismissal, it was considered inappropriate.


the problem with the current media narrative, with the minimising of the behaviours complained of, is that it creates an environment where it's almost impossible for the complainant and other women to come forward and tell their side of the story.  after all, we live in a culture where women who come forward are subject to all kinds of abuse, death and rape threats, character assassinations and more.  it's hard enough as it is.  but given the climate created by the current media narratives, it is going to be even harder for these women to speak out.

and of course, there is the ripple effect.  minimising mr sutton's behaviour makes it harder for other women in other workplaces to lay a complaint.  in fact, in choosing to resign, mr sutton has placed the complainant in an even more difficult position.  she will now be blamed for costing him his job, even though that may not have been the outcome she wanted.  it has created a higher level of hostility.  i can understand that he no longer feels comfortable in that workplace, but there is no doubt of the impact on the complainant.  even state services commissioner iain rennie said "There are no winners. This is a sad day for the complainant in terms of the impact on them."

one has to wonder, with some of the people being dismissive of the significance of mr sutton's behaviour, whether they are feeling just a little threatened or defensive because they know that their own behaviour might have been upsetting to another person.  a hug isn't always welcome.  just because you are a "touchy-feely" person doesn't mean that the person you are touching is the same.  and yes, the touchy-feely person needs to check that their way of being isn't making other people uncomfortable, because each person has the right to determine how, when and where they are touched.

i've heard that there are more details to be revealed on thursday.  by that time, it may be too late to upset the impression that has been caused by today's reporting.