All posts by gcw

The ABC must hold the line against Lattouf

Antoinette Lattouf is a type. We all know what that type is. I have already posted several comments on the case she is running against the ABC with the help of the leftist law company Maurice Blackburn.

That type is the insufferable self-entitled young woman who does not think she owes it to anyone to follow the rules of the organization she works for. I thought the self-declared Lebanese Muslim was another irritating Gen Z type who couldn’t keep her mouth shut. She just had to give her opinion on a matter that was off limits for ABC employees. But Antoinette is suffering arrested development. She is older than the Gen Z age bracket.

Now Lattouf has offered the ABC a settlement via her lawyers which they describe as ‘modest’. The offer is in the headline to the SMH article below.

As I have said before; the ABC must not back down in this straightforward case of an employee flagrantly ignoring the rules of her employment. It would set a precedent for every self-entitled, young woman who thinks the world must know and benefit from her views.

For once, show some backbone ABC management

*****

Lattouf’s ‘modest’ ABC offer: $85,000, replacement shifts and an apology

Calum Jaspan, Sydney Morning Herald, July 14, 2024
Compensation of $85,000, a public apology and reinstatement as a fill-in radio presenter are the three items on Antoinette Lattouf’s wish list from the ABC, should the national broadcaster want to avoid a costly trial in the Federal Court.

Lattouf’s legal team, led by Maurice Blackburn’s head of employment law, Josh Bornstein, wrote to the ABC last week offering a compromise settlement after mediation between the parties failed last month.

The message from ABC chief content officer Chris Oliver-Taylor confirming Lattouf would be stood down.
The message from ABC chief content officer Chris Oliver-Taylor confirming Lattouf would be stood down. CREDIT: MARIJA ERCEGOVAC

“The offer is modest and is made on an open basis. It is a compromise on what our client could be awarded at trial if she is successful, particularly having regard to any penalties that may be imposed,” said the letter, seen by this masthead.

In the letter to the ABC’s lawyers at Seyfarth Shaw, Bornstein and his team said if the offer were rejected, they estimated the broadcaster would spend an additional sum in the hundreds of thousands in legal costs, on top of the significant sum it had spent to date.

Lattouf’s team is holding the line on its accusation the ABC breached its disciplinary policies in its enterprise agreement by sacking her for reposting a Human Rights Watch post in December while presenting the Mornings show on ABC Radio Sydney for five days.

Read the rest here . . .

Gynocentrism and man-hatred – the state of play

We must be thankful for Bettina Arndt who does the heavy research work to bring together the facts of feminist control over just about every aspect of our society.

That a woman fills a position of power and authority is not the problem. It’s only a problem when that woman does not have the skills and experience to fill that position, is chosen on a quota system, and – worse – uses that position to promote the feminist agenda – which is just about always.

All feminists are political activists.

*****

Women on top

-Why so many prized jobs are now in female hands.

BETTINA ARNDT, JUN 26, 2024

A picture speaks a thousand words. Look at this line-up, showing all the ACT Supreme Court judges. This formidable female-dominated bench wouldn’t exactly inspire confidence if you were a poor sucker facing a last-ditch appeal of a guilty verdict following a false rape accusation.  

All the more so when the bench is led by Chief Justice Lucy McCallum who recently grumbled in a newspaper interview about the “intractable problem” of “ensuring an accused person has a fair trial.” Women’s groups are working hard to solve her problem, with all sorts of inventive solutions that do away with any notion of a fair trial – like an alternate court system with a lower standard of proof.

Whenever there’s a big job announced in Australia, you can bet your bottom dollar that the prize will fall to a woman – even when that means the newcomer is decades younger and less experienced than her predecessors.

Gender is the trump card wiping out all other merit-based considerations. It must be rather maddening to be a high achieving Australian man clawing your way up the ladder knowing that the top rung is no longer available.

Often the result is just absurd. Here are the governors of the six Australian states – once again, there’s just one token man. The recent announcement of “equity advocate” Sam Mostyn as Governor General really took the cake, particularly when Albo announced this week he was proposing an astonishing $200,000 increase in her salary.

Perhaps none of this would matter if we could be assured that this new breed of female top dogs would simply do their jobs, without using their positions to constantly promote women at the expense of men. But across the board we see women in power misusing their positions to stitch men up or grind them down.

Queensland Chief of Police Katarina Carroll was forced out of her job when officers began to revolt. The police service had been found by the state’s anti-corruption watchdog to have engaged in “corrupt manipulation” to achieve a 50 per cent female hiring target. The report found 200 meritorious male applicants missed out on joining the force due to this corrupt practice.  

And it is hard to forget that Australia’s very first female top cop, Christine Nixon, also ended her career in 2009 thoroughly disgraced when it was found she spent the morning of Black Saturday, Australia’s worst bushfire, with a 90-minute appointment at the hairdresser followed by a 45-minute meeting with her biographer. In the evening, as the town of Marysville burned to the ground, she was having a leisurely meal in the pub.

And then there was NSW Police Commissioner Karen Webb who desperately needed a reset after a series of unforced errors plagued her leadership. She was renowned for being an appalling communicator, failing to promptly address the media when police officer Jesse Baird was murdered, and following the tasering of a 95-year-old grandmother. Luckily, she was given a reprieve when she was able to bask in the glory of a female police officer’s heroics in the Bondi Junction attack.

Now she is making a name for herself tackling the scourge of domestic violence. She’s launched a series called Operation Amarok – where so far more than 3,500 domestic violence offenders have been rounded up and arrested. Nothing like scooping up thousands of wife batterers to win applause from the media. No one is going to bother to ask about the evidence supporting these arrests.

Clearly our female top cops haven’t exactly covered themselves in glory; and it is interesting that men have been slipped back into the job in Queensland and Victoria. Right now, Webb is the only remaining female chief.  

Read the rest here . . .

Another horrific case of domestic murder

Again, it is sheer coincidence that I was alerted to the ABC report below not long after I finished posting the previous report.

I must congratulate the ABC reporters for their restraint. In the recent past, cases like the present have unleashed fiery condemnations from the ABC about the pernicious nature of maleness – as exhibited by a man setting his house on fire to kill his family.

However, this is a preliminary report, and the ABC may still have the chance to express their fury over that poisonous male entity in our society.

Two points are pertinent, though. The trio of reporters were able to convey the deadly information that the man tried to stop police from rescuing the children. What an evil bastard. On the other hand, they had to quote police as saying that the man had no criminal record, was not subject to an AVO, or was before the courts.

So, what motivated his murderous violence?

A hint to those man-hating feminists out there: just saying he’s a man is longer enough.

*****

Three children dead after house fire in Sydney’s west being treated as domestic violence incident

By Tony Ibrahim, Ethan Rix, and Holly Tregenza, ABC, 7 July 2024

A fire which killed three young children in a house at Lalor Park in Sydney’s west is being treated as a domestic violence incident. 

Fire crews were called to the scene just before 1am on Sunday. 

Police said two boys, aged two and four, were treated by paramedics and taken to Westmead Hospital in a critical condition, but died a short time later.

Fire and Rescue crews extinguished the fire before the third child, believed to be a 10-month-old girl, was found dead at the scene. 

Police allege a 28-year-old man, who is now in custody, tried to stop police and other emergency services from rescuing the children from the burning home. 

“I can confirm during police attempts to get into the property, those efforts were frustrated by a male inside,” NSW Police Acting Superintendent Jason Pietruszka said. 

Police tape cover the driveway of a burnt out home.
Fire investigators are making their way through the low-set brick house on Freeman Street in Lalor Park. (ABC News: Ethan Rix)

The man arrested is the father of the children who died and was under police guard in hospital. 

He was in an induced coma and being treated for burns and smoke inhalation. 

The mother, as well as four other children aged between six to 11 years, were also taken to hospital and were expected to recover.

Superintendent Pietruszka said the incident was being investigated as a domestic violence related offence, and said the man was not the subject of an AVO and was not before the court for any matter. 

“He is not adversely known to police at all,” Superintendent Pietruszka said. 

“We’re treating this as a domestic-related homicide, multiple homicide. “

Read the rest here . . .

Behind the scenes – driven to despair?

It is sheer coincidence that Janice Fiamengo’s latest piece follows my previous post in which I mentioned the horrific case of the man who killed his wife and children. He threw petrol over the car in which they sat and set it alight.

Naturally, I wrote, feminists blame his being a man as the sole motivation for this horror. No other explanation necessary. But I wondered what circumstances would bring a man to kill his family in that way. In her latest piece on her substack, Janice Fiamengo added crucial background information as a prelude to another issue concerning men and women.

No normal man kills his family just because he is a man. No, there must be other factors playing a crucial role. In this case, the man, Rowan Baxter, was driven homicidally crazy by a custody battle. Familiar circumstances for a growing multitude of men. That does not excuse Baxter’s murderous behavior, just as it does not excuse the behavior of women driven to homicide. But it does offer an explanation.

It is significant that the detective in charge of the case was booted off when he alluded to Baxter’s torment. Of course, a female was appointed to take his place. Oh, yes, she would provide the right perspective, wouldn’t she?

*****

Everyone Agrees that the Murder of a Child is a Dreadful Crime

Except when a woman is the killer


JANICE FIAMENGO
, JUN 29, 2024

Ohio mom who left toddler alone when she went on vacation sentenced to life  in prison

When Rowan Baxter murdered his estranged wife and three children by pouring petrol on their car and setting it on fire in Brisbane, Australia in February, 2020, the news reports were unsparing with the sickening details, describing the raging flames that engulfed the children and relating how Baxter’s wife, Hannah, who escaped the car with “her skin melting off,” begged neighbors to save them. Readers were encouraged to dwell in imagination on the unhinged cruelty of the father, who “tried to stop bystanders from rescuing them as they burned to death before stabbing himself in the chest when he knew his evil deed was done,” as the Daily Mail Australia narrated. (In fact, nothing could have been done to save the children; the father merely screamed at passersby.)

Even the headline made sure no reader could fail to simmer with contempt: “Gutless father who set family car alight tried to stop bystanders saving his three children as they burned to death inside.” Various relatives of the dead woman were quoted calling the ex-husband a “heartless monster” and a “disgusting human being,” and dozens of reports quoted statements about Baxter from Hannah’s friends and family as if they were fact.  

When the detective in charge of the investigation suggested at a press conference that it was possible Baxter was “driven too far” by events of the preceding year, his comment caused an immediate uproar because he raised the mere possibility that a fierce custody battle, rather than innate cruelty, may have influenced the murder-suicide. That detective was immediately taken off the case and replaced by a woman who said he should not have spoken as he did.

It was clear that Baxter must be seen as an emblem of pure masculine evil. Nothing must be allowed to humanize him, nothing to assuage public outrage. When Premier Jacinta Allan of Victoria, Australia announced her new Parliamentary Secretary for Men’s Behavior Change (focused on “prioritizing the safety of women, children, and communities”), readers remembering Baxter would have had no trouble recognizing the need. No one, after all, doubts the reality and impact of men’s violence.

Women’s violence, however, is another matter. Less than a year later in Australia, this time in Melbourne, a mother was the killer of three children, and the reporting was entirely different. A report of the crime, “Police reveal Tullamarine’s Perinovic family home deaths likely a murder-suicide,” is typical in eschewing sensationalism; it refrains in the title even from identifying the mother as the killer. Katie Perinovic, the same age as Rowan Baxter when he committed murder, is listed with her children as one of the “victims of Thursday’s tragedy,” and the mood evoked by the report is one of uncomprehending sadness rather than outrage. Neighbors remember a lovely family and wonder how to break the sad news to their children. The event is repeatedly referred to not as a “shocking murder-suicide” (as in the case of the Baxter car inferno) but as a tragedy, a “heartbreaking experience” for everyone involved, almost as if it were a natural disaster rather than a deliberate human act.

No cause of death is given, no horrifying details are provided, and there are no comments from family members of the bereaved father calling the mother a “disgusting human being” or “heartless monster.” In another report, neighbors gave glowing depictions, calling her “the best mum” and “one of the nicest people you’d meet.” An earlier report, before it was determined that the mother had carried out the killings, referred to “gruesome injuries” inside the family home, but these were not mentioned, or explained, in later reports. It seems clear that in the first hours of the investigation, the father was a suspect; if he had been charged with the murders, we would have heard a good deal more about the “gruesome injuries.” But with the mother as the killer, such details came to be seen as inappropriate.

Read the rest here . . .

WHO WILL SAVE BOYS FROM FEMINIST ABUSE?

In the last few weeks, we have been treated to a festival of man-hatred led, of course, by the Labor and Greens Parties – and their affiliates in the media. Labor’s Minister for Quotas and Man-hatred, meangirl Katy Gallagher, was again in the thick of it. The festival followed a period during which there was (allegedly) an unusually high rate of females murdered by their partners.

Two points yet again came to mind.

First, there was no mention of how many males were murdered during the same period. Fact is that males, due to the gene pool nature has dealt them, are more likely than females to resolve conflicts with violence – violence that in extreme cases ends in murder.

Females have a very different way of dealing with conflict where their mouth plays a big role. Their mouth can be just as deadly as a punch in the face for what it can unleash. Again, this is fact.

In a recent post (The True Statistics of Male and Female Murders) I quoted figures from The Australian Bureau of Statistics that showed about two-thirds of all murder victims are male, most often by a male. These figures contradict the feminist claim that men naturally focus their violence on women.

The second point is about the motivations that bring men to kill their women. There’s no talk about what brought a particular man to that point. No, it’s misogyny, say the feminists. Men just kill women because that’s what men do. There’s no other reason. To deal with this feminist fact, the government must pump millions more into no end of self-appointed feminist bodies to deal with the ghastliness of maleness.

In the most shocking case where a man ambushed his wife and children during peak hour traffic, threw a can of petrol into their car, and set them alight, I wondered – and still wonder – what set of circumstances brought that man to such an appalling act.

In another perceptive article, Janice Fiamengo offers a scenario that must play a role in men’s desperate actions.

*****

When Feminism is Child Abuse

Feminist mothers’ (and some fathers’) words to their sons reveal insidious anti-male prejudice

JANICE FIAMENGO MAY 01, 2024

Women's Leadership | Raising a Feminist Son — Tabby Biddle

In a recent video clip, a mother tells of how she stopped her five-year-old daughter from apologizing. The daughter’s apologies, which tended to be made when she was told “No,” were a red flag, the mom noted, for her daughter’s excessive concern for others. The mother wants her daughter to be comfortable advocating for herself. She wants her to “take up space,” and, above all, not to be sorry for wanting things.

This sort of advice seems typical of modern moms and daughters. It’s all the rage now to raise girls to be assertive and not to apologize.  

What does a feminist mother tell her son? Nothing similar.

Whether in the classroom, in mainstream magazine articles, or in statements by politicians, boys learn that they should apologize. Their “taking up space” is a problem that may make girls uncomfortable. They need to be aware of girls’ discomfort and vulnerability, and they should be willing to put girls’ needs first.

The anti-male message is pervasive even, or especially, in articles by mothers of sons, as I discovered when I scoured the internet for feminist parenting advice. In these remarkable articles, mothers and some fathers openly admit to undermining and guilt-tripping their boys. They demonstrate the radical extent of feminism’s assault on the male psyche. What follows is a small, representative sample.

In 2016, the On Parenting section of The Washington Post published an alarming essay by Jody Allard, a feminist journalist. Allard’s article discussed the failure of her teenaged boys, ages 16 and 18, to be feminist allies. The sons, laments Allard, “refuse to acknowledge their own culpability” in misogyny. Here is a classic feminist Kafka trap: If the boys won’t admit they’re to blame, then they’re to blame for not admitting they’re to blame. In the revealingly-titled “My teen boys are blind to rape culture,” Allard’s anger at her sons’ disinclination to acknowledge the pervasiveness of rape is palpable in every line. “They aren’t willing to sacrifice their own comfort for my sake, or for anyone else,” she seethes. But one could more convincingly argue that it’s Allard who isn’t willing to sacrifice her comfort for the sake of her boys. Why does she insist that her children believe what she believes and see what she sees, even if they actually can’t see it or believe it? She explains that “in this broken system, anyone who isn’t with us is against us. Particularly, and especially, men. Even my own sons—even yours.”

It is a horrifying article in which the sons’ expressions of skepticism about rape culture make them indistinguishable, in their mother’s mind, from the ghoulish internet misogynists she conjures. “Not all men, they remind me, and my guts wrench as my own sons mimic the vitriol of a thousand online trolls,” she tells readers melodramatically. Notice how she redefines a simple factual statement as vitriol. That her sons might be expressing a natural resistance to unfair self-castigation seems never to occur to her.

It’s difficult to fathom the psychological discomfort of being one of those sons, growing up in an atmosphere heavy with moral disapproval, and responding to the mother’s impossible-to-appease rage. It may be no coincidence that just six months earlier, this same woman had written about the suicidal depression of one of her sons, stating that “My son’s depression doesn’t belong to me. I didn’t create it and I am not responsible for it.” Perhaps not, but the damning anger can’t help.

Unfortunately, Jody Allard’s feminist convictions are not at all unusual.

How to raise a feminist

Some mothers begin their proselytizing of sons at an even earlier age. An article by feminist mother Lane Brown in the Christian Science Monitor, “NYC Candid Catcall Video: How Can We Make Our Sons Stop,” tells in toe-curling detail how a mother who watched a video about catcalling decided she would need to start lecturing her son, not yet two years old, about the objectification of women so that when he attends pre-school, for example, he will not go there with the thought “that girls are there to be looked at, or just to play the wife in a game of house.” Addressing her little boy in imagination, she outlines her standard of rectitude: “My hope of hope, before you even are able to form a sentence, is that you will never form a sentence that makes someone feel ashamed or embarrassed.” She realizes that she will have to repeat her injunctions again and again. One can only imagine the confusion, shame, and dread such lectures are likely to produce in a little boy trying to figure out his place in the world.

Read the rest here . . .

ACADEMIA ROTTEN WITH FEMINIST UNREASON

Fighting academia’s feminist tentacles

– Perth exercise scientist leads the charge.

BETTINA ARNDT, 14 FEB 2024

As the toxic sludge of feminist claptrap seeps through the academic world, there are many principled researchers grinding their teeth at this blatant ideology and poor scholarship. Most don’t dare put their head above the parapet. But now there’s a lone warrior calling it out, well aware he is likely to implode his academic career in the process.

James Nuzzo (pronounced ‘NEW zo’) is a Perth-based exercise scientist who grew up in rural Pennsylvania keen on sports and weight-lifting. A high school anatomy and physiology course inspired him ultimately to pursue a PhD on the neuroscience of strength training at the University of NSW, followed by several successful years researching the physiology of muscle strength and fatigue. He’s currently affiliated with Edith Cowan University, busily churning out academic articles on topics like exercise neurophysiology, physical fitness testing, the history of exercise research and strength training equipment, and sex differences in exercise preferences and performance.

Men’s health has also been one of his key interests and he wasn’t happy to see his discipline infiltrated by gender ideologues whining about women missing out while totally ignoring the health outcomes of boys and men.

He came across one article which took this bias to a whole new level. A bunch of mainly female exercise physiology students from UNSW cooked up the dubious argument that “gender-based violence is a blind spot for sports and exercise medical professionals.” That was the title of their journal article  published in Sports Medicine, an article which could be used as a primer for feminist tunnel-vision.  

The ideologues started off with a position statement from the peak American sports medicine body alerting healthcare providers to the health impacts of sexual violence. But then they did a neat pivot, without any explanation, to devote their entire article to regurgitating all the usual dogma about gender-based intimate partner violence (IPV). All the familiar cherry-picked data is there showing women as the only victims – the only mention of men referred to their “socially determined privilege,” an alleged cause of violence against women. No mention of young male victims of abuse by coaches or fellow athletes, of which there have been plenty, nor of lesbian perpetrators of abuse (lesbians top the chart of rates of IPV). And not one word about the decades of research showing men and women are victims of IPV at roughly equal rates.

Nuzzo set out to put them straight, seeking to get the true facts published in a letter in Sports Medicine. And he succeeded, but only after nearly a year of back and forth with the journal. It helped that he combined forces with Deborah Powney, the University of Central Lancashire psychologist doing work on male victims of coercive control, and John Barry, from the Centre for Male Psychology in London.

It was revealing that Sports Medicine took the unusual step of submitting the letter to peer review but, amazingly the three reviewers all concurred with the critique by Nuzzo and his co-authors. Next, the original authors were given a chance to respond – but after months, they declined that option. So ultimately the letter was published – one small victory for proper scientific inquiry.  

Their published comment proved it was the UNSW academics who had the blind spot, by providing a summary of some of the best research showing equal gender rates of IPV victimization, which also applied in sports environments.

Read the rest here . . .

O MY DARLING CLEMENTINE – A PHONEY SUCKING ON THE GOVERNMENT’S WILLING TEAT

4

Hateful Clementine Ford

Australia’s most ferocious feminist is now targeting Jewish women.

BETTINA ARNDT 1 JAN 2024

In a brilliant column recently published in The Australian, Henry Ergas summed up 2023 as “the year of living angrily.” Describing the successive waves of outrage and hatred dominating the year’s public discourse, he made the point that the Greeks believed rage differed fundamentally from ordinary anger: “anger had a defined focus; rage, a sign of fury at the world, was labile, readily shifting from one object to another.”

“Characteristic of personal immaturity, it was by its nature opportunistic, rushing to the target of the moment, like a child rushing to a new toy,” he explained.

One of Australia’s greatest haters has a new toy. For nearly two decades, feminist Clementine Ford has been spewing out her hatred of men. Now she has revealed herself to be also a zealous anti-Zionist who is stirring up her quarter of a million followers to attack Jewish women on social media.  

She started her man-hating campaign in media appearances back in 2007 but attracted widespread public attention in 2015 due to this infamous tweet:

From then on, she was regularly promoting outrage with her anti-male views.  In 2017, she signed a fan’s book with the words, “Have you killed any men today? And if not, why not?”

In 2020, complaints were made about a funding grant she was receiving from the Melbourne City Council after she posted the following tweet:

The Melbourne City Council continued to fund her.

During a public address made when her only child was a newborn, she introduced the following comment with loud gagging noises: “Euch. I have a male baby and it’s just, all the time: Feed me! Pay attention to me! Engage me!” she said, before gagging again. “Euch. So boring.”

Read the rest here . . .

DIVERSITY, EQUITY AND INCLUSION – BLOWING OFF MEN

Who Will Rid Us of DEI?

Despite recent enthusiasm, the era of DEI is well-entrenched and will not easily be dismantled

JANICE FIAMENGO, 28 JAN 2024

Virtual event explores unearned privilege

I was a diversity hire. My department hired diversity hires.  

DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) was all the rage in university humanities and social sciences departments when I was a graduate student in the 1990s: everything was about gender, race, class, and empire; oppressor and oppressed; white privilege, the male gaze. Over time, the category of class was edged out as gender and sexual identity muscled in.    

On the job market in 1999, I was shortlisted at two universities, both shortlists of all-female candidates. Job advertisements “strongly encouraged” applications from women and visible minorities.

Over the next four years, the department that had hired me hired into four more positions, all heavily influenced by sex and skin color.

“Is it true that there are people in this department who are against equity?” one of the diversity hires asked, scandalized, at a small welcoming party. The clear implication was that anyone who believed in merit-based hiring must be a bigot.

This was already the unchallenged academic mindset.

Our department practiced what was then called equity hiring (a Canadian euphemism for affirmative action). I was told that equity hiring meant that whenever two or more job candidates were equally qualified, the candidate should be chosen whose hiring would make the department more diverse.

The idea is nonsense: no two candidates are ever truly equal.

Once the decision is made to prioritize diversity, that quickly becomes the only urgent criterion. White men’s applications—hundreds of them—simply went into the reject pile; most were barely even read.

Read the rest here . . .

OH NO! GIRLS BEHAVING BADLY

Janice Fiamengo shoots more holes in the feminist fantasy about females as innocent victims who can do no wrong. I recommend following some of the links. There is some amazing footage.

*****

Bad Girls Caught on Camera

Drunk, disorderly, and potty-mouthed—but still, to some, victims

JANICE FIAMENGO, 1 MAR 2024

There’s been moral outrage lately over a popular YouTube channel called Drive Thru Tours. Launched in 2020, the channel started out by posting videos of tours through parts of New Jersey and New York. It hit paydirt last year when it began showing videos of police arrests, with titles such as “Rude 19-year-old Girl Arrested for DUI in Pullman, WA” (recommended if you want to get a flavor of the site) and “Belligerent Woman Arrested for DWI after Police Pursuit and Taken to Jail (not recommended—very disturbing). The channel owner obtained the content—which until recently has focused exclusively on female offenders—from police bodycam recordings, now publicly available through freedom of information requests.

Bodycam footage was originally made accessible to the public so that American citizens can hold police accountable for their actions. Scrutiny of police behavior is widely considered a public good. Scrutiny of female behavior, however, is quite a different story—as responses to the channel demonstrate.

According to a small flurry of recent news reports, New Jersey police are warning that Drive Thru Tours is harming “vulnerable” young women by posting the evidence of their arrests. The bodycam footage was never intended, they protest, for such a purpose. In consequence, the Association of Chiefs of Police of New Jersey is calling for legislation against what they are describing as “online sexual predators,” and lawmakers in that state are considering a bill that would prohibit publishing the footage except within narrow parameters, including with the written consent of the subject. 

Quite apart from whether such a bill is a good idea or not (I favor public access but have not given the matter serious thought), the language used in the articles is remarkable for its gynocentric sentimentality and misplaced sympathy.  

One of the most vocal on the subject is Montville, New Jersey Police Chief Andrew Caggiano, who is quoted as stating that “It was never the intent of OPRA [the Open Public Records Act] to create such a platform that preys on young women and takes advantage of them at a time when they are vulnerable.” He also expressed a personal repugnance: “As a law enforcement professional and the father of three daughters, I am sickened by the fact that people are abusing OPRA to post these types of videos on social media sites.”

Given that it is not (yet) illegal to use bodycam material in the manner described, Chief Caggiano’s dramatic reaction seems overstated. One wonders in what sense the reckless and self-absorbed young people shown in these videos are “vulnerable.” Wouldn’t such language be better suited to their victims? Perhaps Caggiano knows something about his daughters that we don’t know (there is a video in which a “Cop’s Daughter Gets Arrested for DWI after Fleeing Accident Scene”): one would not normally expect a chief of police to so quickly substitute in imagination his own daughters for the inebriated and flagrantly dishonest women shown on Drive Thru Tours.

Caggiano’s bluster is, of course, all too familiar in a culture that cannot bear to hold women fully responsible for their bad actions—no matter how anti-social or potentially lethal—and must habitually frame them as innocent victims. It’s impossible to imagine such outraged sympathy being expressed for any male offenders in similar situations.

Read the rest here . . .