kimmy

Unless there is content in the Facebook group that is more drastic in nature than the screen-captures posted at The Coast, then there's nothing that the police can pursue. I am sure they're just doing due diligence on the issue. -k

I did some of my Christmas shopping at Target. Tons of parking, no lineups! The reason I seldom went to Target is that the inventory was crap. Dismal selection of mostly crappy merchandise. I feel sorry for the people who work there, but as a shopper losing Target isn't much of a loss. -k

I just saw this, comparing an actual photo of the rally in Paris, to the way it was presented in a Jewish newspaper. They made several women, including Angela Merkel, vanish. Apparently, for the orthodox Jews, not even Angela Merkel can be seen in the company of men. What a bunch of jackholes. -k

That sounds rather bitter, to be honest. -k

That was really something. I'm not quite sure what, yet. But definitely something. As I've mentioned, my little brother was shy and socially awkward and a target of bullies... as well as being exceptionally intelligent. I see him a bit in that post you linked to. -k

! -k

The idea that most women are secretly daydreaming about biker gang dudes or billionaires with whips is pretty goofy. Physically attractive, yes. That much for sure. And a cool billion wouldn't hurt, to be honest. But stereotypical "bad boys" stuff is a bunch of clap-trap. In my view, the #1 thing that attracts women to men is: maleness. Masculinity. A strong body is a good start, as is financial success. The stereotypical bad-boy shenanigans might dupe young or gullible women as showing masculinity, but most women will grow out of that sooner or later. A masculine man displays confidence. He inspires confidence in others. He commands respect. He is unashamed, whether it be of his job, or of his appearance, or his hobbies. He is passionate about the things that are important to him, whether it be his work or his hobbies. He's unafraid to say no and stand his ground. He doesn't cave in if you cry or have a temper-tantrum. He doesn't need to undermine others to build himself up, because he is confident in his status and abilities. He isn't a braggart, but when he does talk about himself he can back it up. He's not a big talker, but when he does say something, he means it. He's secure and confident, so he doesn't need to show off to impress people. He is straightforward and direct, not manipulative. He doesn't play games to get what he wants. I could go on like this for a long time. As for the "nice guy". What I have learned about the "nice guy" is that he's pretty much the opposite of the man I just described. The man I described above is probably a nice guy in every way that matters. The "nice guy" is ironically not very nice. The "nice guy" is your devoted friend... he'll listen to all your problems while "those other guys" don't care. He's not like "those other guys". He's always there for you, and he'll do anything to help you. That's because somewhere along the line, "the nice guy" got an unhealthy idea of how to relate to women. Perhaps he learned that if you do what mommy tells you and make her happy then she'll give you attention and praise, and he has based his attempts to relate to adult women on this model. "If I just keep doing things for her, sooner or later she'll realize how nice I am and she will love me." He's basically come to think that women are like vending machines, where if you put in enough good deeds, then you can press the button and romance comes out. In fact, "nice guy" is scared to even press the button, fearing rejection. He's standing there feeding good-deeds into the vending machine and hoping that the button will somehow press itself, because he's scared to even attempt to relate to her as anything other than a pal who is always there to lend a hand or go for coffee. The "nice guy" ends up carrying around a lot of resentment, because no matter how many good deeds he puts into the vending machine, romance never materializes. He tends to wander on a bipolar path between devoted doer of good deeds and passive-aggressive dude who is pissed off about something but is scared to tell you why. Eventually, maybe he snaps and says "I helped you move your couch! I remembered your birthday! I listened to you when you wanted to talk! Why are you dating that other guy instead of me?!?" but probably he holds it inside, because he's terrified that an outburst like that would ruin his chances forever. The "nice guy" is kind of a weasel. He's manipulative, he'll use guilt to get you to spend time with him. He'll take any opportunity to try to undermine your relationship with "that other guy". Whether it be some piece of gossip or an "believe me, I know guys like that" piece of advice, he'll do what he can to tear down "that other guy". Ultimately, he's a coward, afraid to put his cards on the table, afraid to let you know what he really wants, and yet angry that he's not getting it. And sadly, he probably doesn't even understand any of this. He just knows that he's not getting what he wants from his relationships but he has no idea what he's doing wrong or how to fix it. -k

That's kind of what I meant. I understand why guys come up to me and tell me a blonde joke. I do. They are, as you say, trying to paint a picture of themselves, show that they're confident and not scared of what I might think of them, that sort of thing. Plus whether I think it's hilarious or whether I tell him he's a jerk, just about any response gives them some kind of opening to talk more. Confidence is generally pretty attractive... it's usually a sign that somebody has a healthy self-image, some amount of status, achievements and life experience that he's proud of, this sort of thing. Lack of confidence isn't always a sign that somebody is undesirable, but it can be. Here is the story of the most confident man I've ever met. Waitressing in a little upscale downtown bar as a 21 year old, I one had a customer who still gives me the creeps 10 years later. He's probably 20 years older than me, wearing what looks like an expensive suit, immaculately styled hair, very handsome. I brought him his drink, and he asks what time I finished (understand that this is pretty common) and I said 10. At this point guys who are feeling bold say "Would you like to go someplace afterward?" Not this guy. This guy glances at his expensive-looking watch and says "Knock off early." He said this not in a teasing or flirting way, but like it was a command. This left me a little rattled, and I laughed it off and went to check on my other customers (unfortunately I didn't have many.) Go to the back and pretend to be busy. Go back to check on him, he says there's a restaurant he's heard is good, tells me I'll love it. I laugh it off, tell him I can't. Go to the back, pretend to be busy, wait as long as I can, go back to check on him. He tells me "You've got a seductive smile." That's not a seductive smile, that's my "I'm only smiling because I'm nervous" smile. "If you're not hungry, we'll go straight to my hotel. It's just down the street." I laugh, I tell him no, that's not going to happen, and go into the washroom to try and compose myself. Breathe deeply. Come back out. Notice he's finished his drink. Go over, ask him if he wants anything else, and he says "Yeah, I want you to stop playing around. Do you want dinner or do you want to go straight to my hotel?" I can't take this any more, I go ask the bartender to give him his bill and tell him to leave. I go hide in the kitchen for several minutes. I come back, the guy is gone. The bartender says the guy told him that I'm a cock-tease. I'm not sure if you can appreciate how unsettling this was. While I don't believe I was in any physical danger while my co-worker and several other customers were present, there was something frightening about this man-- his absolute certainty that he was getting some Kimmy that night, that he was *entitled* to some Kimmy. And that he apparently thought I was leading him on somehow. It wasn't something I was able to just shrug off and forget about. -k

I spent some amount of time among both the chess-club types and the sports heroes. . I think the difference is best summed up by Bull Durham's groupie/philosopher Annie Savoy, when she said "The world is made for people who aren't cursed with self awareness." With the chess club types, the thing is that they're often highly perceptive. They tend to be acutely aware of their flaws, they tend to be acutely aware of how they're perceived by others, and they tend to internalize it. They experience rejection, they reflect on it, and they come to realize "Girls don't like me because I'm this and this and that and the other thing." And that becomes their reality and limits them each time they interact with a girl. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. There are introspective, intelligent, and perceptive people on the popular-guy, athletes, frat-guy side of the fence too, of course, but they're probably not the guys we're talking about when it comes to sex assault cases. I've never known anybody who I know to have committed a date-rape or sex assault or sex-harassment. I've known several who I'd not be the least surprised if they did go on to do something like that. Their prominent characteristics that gave me that impression is a glaring lack of empathy combined with a sense of entitlement. The chess club guy may be too perceptive; this guy isn't perceptive at all. He doesn't notice the feelings of people around him, and he doesn't care. He's used to having his way, and gets mad when somebody says no. If you reject the chess-club guy, he thinks its his fault. If you reject this guy, he thinks its your fault. It can be a little scary to be around this guy, especially if he's had a few drinks. Anyway, most people don't fall neatly into any sort of description. There's outgoing athletes who are full of empathy and understanding. There's nerds who are oblivious to how obnoxious they are and keep trying regardless of how often they're told no. There's everything in between. But generally, I think there's something to what Annie says about being cursed with self-awareness. Too much can be a bad thing. -k

It appears the Dalhousie talk has for the moment run its course, so I'll bite on some of these other things that are going around... I followed Gamergate with passing interest, but I confess I didn't learn anything about how males behave in the current century. Can you expand ot that thought for me? As I saw it, Gamergate (what a pompous name for it) was essentially a temper-tantrum by a bunch of rejects angry at being called out for being juvenile misogynists. I didn't learn anything about men from the drama, aside from the small and unrepresentative group who self-identify as S3R10US GAMERZ. But you saw things differently, apparently. What did you see that I'm missing? Wait, is that John Cusack? Dressed as a hobo? Is he driving an unmarked cop car from the 1970s? I have not seen this film. -k

Suspending these students from clinical practice is far from a "made up on the fly" consequence. Students are made fully aware that their clinical practice privileges are a *privilege* that can be revoked for any display of unprofessional behavior, even something as minor as chewing gum. The contents of the Facebook page raise plenty of question about the professionalism of these guys, and the university is completely justifiable in withholding clinical practice privileges until such time as they've been convinced that the issue has been addressed. That might mean something along the lines of a sensitivity training course or who knows what. It certainly sucks for them that they can't graduate until they finish their clinical practice requirements, and that they can't resume their clinical practice requirements until concerns about their professionalism have been addressed. And I don't think you actually think there's any issue here at all. I think you're just biting your tongue and fighting the urge to tell me that you think this is all just a bunch of PC BS and that the people complaining should just shut up and deal with it. I don't want the culprits to get anonymous death threats or harassing phone calls, if that's what you're saying. I think that as a matter of fairness to the classmates, identifying the guilty ones would remove a cloud of suspicion from the rest of them. There are 26 men in the class, only 13 who belong to this group. What is going to be done for the rest of them? And I think that as a consumer, if I am looking for a new dentist I should be able to go do some research and find out if a dentist has glaring issues in their history. When I was looking for a doctor and a dentist, I ran their names through Google a few times to see if there were any red flags. Bad reviews, disputes over billing, criminal charges... anything that might turn up. I don't think hiding this information is fair to prospective clients. Violating a student code of conduct could well put an early end to your academic career. Are codes of conduct just fascist? Should they be scrapped altogether? -k

Both yourself and Smallc have been offering the idea that these guys were discussing their sexual fantasies, but that's clearly not the context of these messages. I didn't just fall off the turnip-truck and I am well aware that there are men who are turned on by the idea of having their way with an incapacitated woman *cough*Cosby*cough* or doing violent and degrading things to someone during sex *cough*Ghomeshi*cough*. And there are forums where people share their darkest fantasies. The DDS 2015 Gentlemen's Club is not that forum. The Halifax independent newspaper "The Coast" has screen-captures of some of the controversial content, with names redacted, and you can see the context. The chloroform comments came in response to a picture of a girl in a bikini with a caption that said "Bang until stress is relieved or unconscious (girl)" which triggered the following exchange: According to The Coast, they had a different poll for which classmates they'd "sport f**k": The Coast also says that female classmates were pictured and discussed frequently, and says that at least 7 female students were the focus of derogatory remarks. Regarding the topic of how well received "restorative justice" was among the women who were targets of these posts: Their contrition in words: “Boys what are they going to do? honestly. Kick every guy out of 4th year? Tell us you guys are mean for saying those things? I think the bigger issue is who the fuck is showing the girls.” “We should hang the leak from his balls. If he has balls.” “Fuck an apology. All of this is fuckin ridiculous.” You can just feel the remorse. If I'd been one of the names on the "hate-f***" poll, I don't think embarrassment is quite what I'd be feeling. Perhaps the "sport-f***" girls were slightly more flattered, I dunno. From reading over some of the other posts The Coast has included, it's clear that this isn't a matter of awkward adolescent attraction, it's a matter of disrespect. There's posts alleging female students are "damn honey pots" who try to flirt with instructors to gain an advantage. There's a post applauding the professor who has more sexual harassment complaints against him than any other, proclaiming "what a boss." There's posts complaining that the professor who showed the bikini-model video in class was made to apologize. Personally, I think this is a backlash against institutions who've failed to take sexual harrassment seriously. That CBC basically covered up Ghomeshi's harassment of his female minions has really undermined peoples' faith. Not quite as recently, the RCMP. Several issues in the states involving cover-ups of sexual harassment at universities, particularly when prominent athletics programs are involved. People read about this stuff, and then they hear that Dalhousie has, in secret, been going through this wussy-sounding "restorative justice" process, and it sounds like another cover-up. -k

If this had played out the way things do in nature, the screen-grabs would have just been dumped onto the internet so that everybody could see who posted what. Whenever some politician or corporation or whatever posts some kind of gaffe on social media, the first thing that happens is somebody takes screen-captures so they can't just delete it when controversy erupts. The second thing that happens is they post the screen-captures to an image hosting service. And the third thing that happens is that they post a link to the screen captures to a relevant social media website so that people who might be interested can examine it for themselves. That's how this stuff usually works. If that had happened in this case, we would have the exact information. We'd know who said what, and which guys were active participants, and who made comments that were particularly offensive. It's likely that some in the group were instigators, and some were bystanders. Probably there's just a few in the group who deserve particular attention. Instead, this process initiated by the university provides them all with a guarantee of anonymity and treats all 13 the same. All 13 had their clinical privileges suspended, all 13 will potentially face delays in their graduation as a result. All 13 are now attending classes separately. All 13 are equally guilty in the eyes of the public. And since we don't actually know which 13 guys are in the club, all male members of the Dalhousie class of 2015 will have this cloud hanging over them. To me, this guarantee of anonymity seems like a really sweet deal for the worst offenders, and a raw deal for every other male student in the class. Free speech and consequence-free speech aren't the same thing. Todd Akin has complete freedom to talk about "legitimate rape" as much as he wants, but he must accept the fact that every time he opens his mouth, he is shaping voters' opinion of him, and the results will affect his electoral chances. That's how it's supposed to work. That's "the marketplace of ideas" in action. I can't understand what you're even complaining about here. You're upset that potential negative consequences for their future professional practices will have a chilling effect on dental students' ability to make offensive jokes? Ok, and? -k

I suspect that the anxiety they're feeling has to do with the potential ramifications to their degree and their professional careers, not with any discomfort they caused the women. That's one of the things that annoys me about this "restorative justice" clap-trap. "We are bringing offenders together with their victims so that they can understand the pain they have caused." What a load. I assure you, they understand. They just don't give a crap. They care about consequences, not the feelings of the women they hate enough to "hate-f***." As I've mentioned here in the distant past, my family went through an extremely stressful situation as my younger brother was a target for bullies, and particularly so at one school we went to. Part of the "conflict resolution process" involved face-to-face meetings with his tormentors where they all sat down in a room with a school counselor and "shared feelings". These meetings were terrifying for my brother, to the point that he was vomiting and couldn't eat or sleep. They were certainly not terrifying for the bullies, because nothing changed. It just reinforced their position: we can keep doing this, and the only punishment is that we go to this joke of a meeting and glare at you while you cry. To be clear, I do not favor expulsion either. I jumped into this thread when some of the members here were suggesting that this is purely a free speech issue, which I thought was pretty ridiculous. If it was me in charge of this, I'd drop the formal process, drop the "restorative justice", and just make their names public. I don't see why their identities should be shielded, particularly at the expense of the other men in their class who've done nothing wrong but will nonetheless face unfair suspicion.. -k

I think that some of the older cats in the room may be a little square to the far-out slang that the kids who are hip and with it are using these days. I'll try and clear things up a little. Saying you want to "Hate f***" someone is not an expression of sexual desire. It's said of someone you detest (hence the "hate" part) but you want to f*** them anyway as a means of degrading them, putting them in their place, and so on. Aside from being directed people someone hates in real life, it's also sometimes directed at politicians like Hilary Clinton or Sarah Palin, generally reprehensible people like Nancy Grace, criminals like that chick who killed her kids, annoying celebrities, and so-on. The implication isn't "she's really attractive", but more along the lines of "I hate her so much that I want to abuse her like a cheap prostitute." While the "who would you hate-f***" poll does indeed suggest that these men had strong feelings about the two classmates they voted on, the feelings they're expressing are not amorous ones. It's along the lines of another post from the "Gentlemen's club" that went something along the lines of "the penis is a tool for turning lesbians and feminists into productive members of society." Similarly I'm not buying that the jokes about chloroforming as a means of obtaining sex Bill Cosby style is a genuine sexual fantasy for these men either. I think Black Dog nailed it earlier: it's aggressive locker-room banter. They're not sharing their sexual fantasies, they're saying that stuff to show each other that they're balls-out kind of guys who aren't afraid to be politically incorrect, etc. I get this kind of thing sometimes. You might be surprised (or you might not...) at how many guys think that a fresh and clever way to open up a conversation with me is with a dumb blonde joke. Why do they do that? Is it because they think it's a hilarious joke, or that I'll be tremendously amused? No. They do it because they want to show me they've got big balls, that they're not intimidated by me. -k

I don't think any of the stuff that has been reported from the Facebook group would actually be a criminal matter. The issue here is a hostile environment, as well as violations of the student code of conduct. Those are matters for the school's disciplinary system, not for the police. The only avenue I could see for this to go to court would be a civil suit against the school, if students claimed that the school's refusal to address concerns that were raised last summer (in regard to chauvinist professors, not later the later Facebook issue) contributed to a hostile environment. I am not a lawyer (I refused to use the abbreviation IANAL!) but I suspect that might be one avenue they could use to go after the school if they were so inclined. -k

Actually, Ralph Kruger isn't available. Since leaving the Oilers, he has moved on to work as an executive with Southampton FC in the English Premier League. I don't follow English soccer, but from what I read, Southampton is a small-budget team that competes at the top of the league by using smart scouting, player development, advanced analysis, and cutting-edge sports medicine. In other words, they sound like the exact opposite of the Oilers. Meanwhile, the Oilers are playing great now that Dallas Eakins is gone! I remember all those TSN guys saying how sad they were for Eakins and how he never had a chance, with such a crappy roster, and Scotty Bowman couldn't win with that team and so-on. But it looks like Dallas Eakins was a big part of the problem. -k

Those poor guys, voting in the "which would you hate-f-ck?" poll... just victims of tragic circumstances. Breaks my heart. -k

That's not true. Some medical boards recommend it, to protect against false accusations. And either doctors or patients can request someone be present. But it's not required. I feel like if you feel like you need a chaperone to be present when your doctor examines you, you obviously don't trust your doctor very much so maybe they shouldn't be your doctor in the first place. But of course it's not always easy to find a doctor, and many people are stuck with whoever they get when they go to the walk-in clinic. The guy in the cubicle next to yours might spend every waking moment of his day thinking about putting a hammer through your skull and it wouldn't affect you one way or another. But if he lets you know it, it's definitely going to affect you. If you go to work one day and discover that when you're not around your co-workers make jokes about beating or killing you, your workplace might become quite stressful, even if they assure you that they aren't really going to do it. I don't think anybody is suggesting that these guys' comments represent an actual intention to drug or rape their classmates. I'm just asking you to imagine for a moment that you're walking into a classroom where a group of people have singled you out as somebody they'd like to "hate-f-ck" and think how that would feel. -k

The letter was from four women. Considering there are only 14 women involved in the "restorative justice" process underway, that's a pretty significant sample. -k

This is the risk these administrators take by failing to get out in front of these scandals. These events-- CBC, Dalhousie dental school, Steubenville, Bill Cosby and so on, that evolve into internet shitstorms are a result of pent up anger at the appearance that the perpetrators have gotten away unscathed. One situation where an internet shitstorm was successfully headed off was the CEO who was kicking his puppy on video... the company's board of directors took swift action, and a PR crisis was averted. But the women involved say they didn't want "restorative justice" and only agreed because the only alternative is to go through the formal complaint process that they already rejected because they feared reprisals from the faculty. Well? Who's fault is that? -k

Apparently, as we've learned from the CBC case and the Dalhousie case, the answer is to get the story out into social media so that it can explode to the point where the people in charge of sweeping it under the rug have a disaster that's too big to sweep under the rug, at which point they have to do what they were supposed to do in the first place. -k

I'm not for immediate expulsion without investigation, but at the same time the response by the university had until this week been pathetic. "Restorative justice" sounds like a joke. If I was the victim of this sort of harassment, I promise you the last thing I'd want is to have to sit down at a table and talk with the people who victimized me. It sounds like worse punishment for the victims than for the people who are supposed to be punished. Now the university has belatedly issued suspensions, but only after massive public derision that has damaged the reputation of the school as a whole, and will probably tarnish all the graduates of that class. -k

Further to this, female students at Dalhousie dental school have been complaining for months about both male students and faculty, but were afraid to lodge formal complaints because they feared reprisals from the faculty. -k

One thing we've seen recently in both the Jian Ghomeshi case and the Bill Cosby case is that most of the women kept quiet because they were afraid nobody would believe them, and the ones who didn't keep quiet, nobody believed. -k