For my own mental health, I didn’t follow the case against the former World Juniors players but in order to understand the impact, I had to catch up after the fact. It was probably somewhat less difficult to do it that way because I wasn’t finding out slowly and letting my mind get too far ahead of itself, but seeing it in a flood didn’t feel any better
Yes, many women and girls are sexually assaulted, yes, I was one of them, no, I don’t like to talk about it. I no longer carry guilt for the times I was too young to do anything about it, and thanks to finally getting access to properly trained therapists, I have a better understanding of how those experiences set me up for continued difficulties as an adult.
I highly recommend going out of your way to access that kind of therapy if relationships are a struggle or you find yourself taking responsibility for difficulties within them that have you wondering how you can change others’ treatment of you. Sadly, there’s a lot of overlap with how we learned to deal with what happened in the past and how we deal with problematic behaviours and situations in the present, and it’s mostly because we weren’t taught how to deal with it, or manage those feelings in a healthy way.
I’m not “cured” but I do have a much better understanding of where to draw the line between my responsibility and someone else’s, and I’m able to recognize problematic behaviours much more easily than I ever could in the past. It’s a small step, but every little bit helps.
Returning to the verdict for five former players, in which a judge found them not guilty of sexual assault, the situation as described was extremely difficult to read. I usually stay away from consuming disturbing content because I visualize things I read and hear and they’re as clear to me as if I was witnessing them first hand. I’m also good at empathizing, so I can also put myself in the position and have pretty strong feelings, if not physical reactions, to the thought.
At that point, it becomes my reactions, my feelings, and they have little to no relevance to the facts. I tried to keep them out but…
There were a few things that bothered me about the decision. First, the judge included references to why she should not rely on stereotypes and myths and then continued to do so throughout the rest of the decision.
Myth: video is useful for determining whether someone is intoxicated.
Can you imagine the defence showing video of someone in a bar “walking in high heels” as evidence of their sobriety after they crashed a vehicle? How about a video of them talking and laughing? Or realizing they were given incorrect change after ordering a drink?
Yet, these were all accepted as evidence and taken as “proof” that E.M. was not that intoxicated.
Myth: a woman who feels vulnerable will display that vulnerability openly, just in case the five guys in the room didn’t offer to discuss whether she, a naked woman in a room with five hockey players, was indeed vulnerable over tea first.
We’ve entered into “what I might do in that situation” and there is no way in hell I’m going to show them that I’m perfectly aware of how vulnerable I am. Besides, I’m cool. I’m not scared. And hey, maybe I’m even moved to demonstrate how cool I am with this situation because I am so aware of how vulnerable I am that I’m not going to let this be a worse situation by being scared, having to try and stand up for myself, and making sure these guys know they have to kill me after whatever is going to happen next.
I’m also a worst-case scenario thinker, though. In my mind, the woman who doesn’t get raped and murdered is the woman who can convince the guy who drove her out to the middle of nowhere that she actually wants to be there. That being ten minutes out of town and not having any sense of which way home was is precisely the situation she was hoping for when she told the guy she’d had a crush on for a year who was giving her a ride home from a party, “I don’t need to go home just yet.”
She’s the same woman who, after getting into a car with a complete stranger, convinced him she just needed to stop at her apartment building super quick and was absolutely coming right back down.
Dumb. Risky. Dangerous.
Or maybe it wasn’t. Maybe he totally would have just given her a ride if she’d just pointed out how vulnerable she was walking through a sketchy part of the city by herself and just really wanted to be safe at home. I played it the way I played it.
Hopefully, I can be forgiven if I’m not personally convinced that a woman in a vulnerable position will naturally be listing off all the ways she’s at a disadvantage before heading off to cry in a corner.
You know what, though? I could go on about sketchy situations that I did or didn’t make it out of unscathed.
I am a person who believes very much in personal responsibility. I know the choices I made, and I know why I made them. I’m also aware that society in general expects me to take responsibility.
“Don’t walk through secluded areas alone.”
“Stick with your friends at the bar.”
“Never take your eyes off your drink/ always cover your drink.”
“Don’t drink too much.”
If we don’t follow the rules, we’re “asking for trouble”.
That may be — on second thought, I really hope it is — an outdated phrase.
Yet, I had a conversation within the last five years with a new dad who said he’d teach his daughter not to put herself in that position; so, even if it’s no longer an oft used phrase, the sentiment lives on.
What finally got me to finish this post was something that Johnny said on Real Talk with Ryan Jespersen Tuesday. After a very good interview (1:15:17-ish) with Minister of Education Demetrios Nicolaides and past Library Association of Alberta President Laura Winton about the UCP’s book ban (starts at around 38:40), Johnny made a comment about how the books the UCP is banning are ones that offer a much more contextualized and worthwhile learning opportunity than much of which kids can get access to online.
He referenced the hockey player’s trial saying that the kind of situation they were playing out was a fantasy; something that is picked up from porn hub, not reading a personal story about consent, even if it had a couple of graphic images on two of 500 pages.
Minister Nicolaides claimed that it was the government’s responsibility to protect “minor children” and “elementary school students” from books that were meant for secondary students. He refused to acknowledge the story, or the extremely valuable lesson it was offering.
The UCP may stick to their talking points about banning these books, but to me, they’re just trying to ensure that the spirit of not being able to hold a predator to account lives on.
Because the fact remains that most predators are those who gain your trust. They’re not as likely to be stranger on the street, they’re far more likely to be a classmate, or a family member, or a family friend. Every statistic tells us this. Every child is vulnerable and those who identify as 2SLGBTQ+ are even more vulnerable than that.
Some people want to hold predators to account. Some people want to make sure those who exhibit predatory behaviour can “still have a career”.
And that’s something I cannot wrap my head around.
Calgary Communities Against Sexual Abuse: 403-237-6905
Thanks to everyone who reads, shares, and becomes a free subscriber. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber; to those who have, your support is greatly appreciated!
Once again, the law prevails over common sense therefore not only setting back the true liberation of women by decades but handing a bunch of juvenile millionaire hockey icons an even stronger sense of entitlement. Damn it all!
Thank you for sharing some of your personal story and your insights into this never ending issue. I too mostly avoided the trial but the schemata I did get, I knew they were guilty. In true patriarchal tradition, EM,not the hockey hegemony was on trial. As usual.
With a rapist running Amerika and likely pedo and the priveleged white boys and male identified judges club running the show in Canada,when will we as girls and women truly have our day in court?