SL Tribune Suspends Robert Kirby

[Calm]

As far as her work for Deseret News under the name Courtney Jane Kendrick, the most recent commentary I found was from 2013.

[katherine the great]

12 minutes ago, Exiled said:

So an escort comment lowered her powers of resistance to such a level that she couldn't resist the marijuana edible? Is that common? Or is she coopting the "me too" movement like other exposed perpetrators do in other contexts? Sure, Kirby was a jerk and should have been punished for his deplorable behavior. However, Ms. Kendrick claims to have had no resistance. Is that really how it is?

There's nothing wrong with reflecting through hindsight (although we should be careful to not become spin doctors). When completely unexpected events happen, we don't always act in the way we think we should and its normal to think it through so that we can be more prepared the next time. I didn't really get the impression that she was claiming to have no resistance but that she was trying to understand why she would just passively and obediently take the brownie without any objection.

[Exiled]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

While Kirby was certainly rude and insensitive, Kendrick gave him all the signals that it would be O.K. with her.  Both of them misread the actual situation at Sunstone symposia, where many ignorant, wannabe anti-Mormons assemble.  This points up the danger of allowing sleaze to replace maturity in SLC, and is reminiscent of the "fun" which UofU students have in getting drunk and cussing at BYU students and alumni during game night.

Then, when the jape-fest gets out of hand, everyone loiters in aftershock wondering what happened, the consquences (and not the truth) arrive at their own sad homecoming.

Hey, go along to get along.  It'll all be O.K.  It's just a little sin.

I thought we were good Robert. I told you that I was trying to throw my beer at that other BYU guy and not you. 😎

[Exiled]

2 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

There's nothing wrong with reflecting through hindsight (although we should be careful to not become spin doctors). When completely unexpected events happen, we don't always act in the way we think we should and its normal to think it through so that we can be more prepared the next time. I didn't really get the impression that she was claiming to have no resistance but that she was trying to understand why she would just passively and obediently take the brownie without any objection.

So was this the first time she ever tried marijuana or is she just wondering why she would take some from Kirby?

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Exiled said:

So was this the first time she ever tried marijuana or is she just wondering why she would take some from Kirby?

Sounds like the second.

[katherine the great]

2 minutes ago, Exiled said:

So was this the first time she ever tried marijuana or is she just wondering why she would take some from Kirby?

Idk if it was her first time. She stated that she isn't opposed to marijuana. The whole theme of her narrative though is that she went against what she thought was her basic nature with this man and was trying to understand why she would do that. I would think that if a man made the escort fantasy comment to me that I would retort with something like: "Better yet, let's pretend like you're a male stripper.." and if it were a man who I wasn't in awe of, I probably would say something like that in response. But if the man was, say, Chris Stringer (a world famous biological anthropologist who I consider a "rock star" and who is about the same age as Kirby), I really don't know how I would respond. I might just do exactly as she did and not say anything in the moment but reflect deeply later on. I think Kirby's biggest mistake (as I think Julianne mentioned earlier) was to publicly humiliate her the way he did. That would totally fry me.

[Exiled]

1 minute ago, katherine the great said:

Idk if it was her first time. She stated that she isn't opposed to marijuana. The whole theme of her narrative though is that she went against what she thought was her basic nature with this man and was trying to understand why she would do that. I would think that if a man made the escort fantasy comment to me that I would retort with something like: "Better yet, let's pretend like you're a male stripper.." and if it were a man who I wasn't in awe of, I probably would say something like that in response. But if the man was, say, Chris Stringer (a world famous biological anthropologist who I consider a "rock star" and who is about the same age as Kirby), I really don't know how I would respond. I might just do exactly as she did and not say anything in the moment but reflect deeply later on. I think Kirby's biggest mistake (as I think Julianne mentioned earlier) was to publicly humiliate her the way he did. That would totally fry me.

I think the public humiliation is definitely driving the bus.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

Kirby is a celebrity of sorts which means they weren't on equal footing. I think the key phrase from the Trib was that there had been other complaints. Apparently, this woman had the social media presence to make it public. Which doesn't say much for the Trib, but hey, he is probably a big money maker for them. 

I have two take aways from this. There has been a growing movement against sexist progressive/former Mormon men who use feminist causes for their own benefit while still holding the same views on women. The first excuses I saw were that they had learned it when Mormon.  Uh huh. But that seems to have gone by the wayside in order to take them on directly. 

Second, it is too early to expect this but at some point women who are well educated in this problem have to start standing up to these guys when it is feasible to do so. I totally understand her reaction. Everyone has had situations where they were so stunned that they didn't react normally. No matter how often we run into situations like these, they are rarely the same and we tend to react as she described. (I do think ingesting something was a bit much, though, but I wasn't there.) Women will almost always try to defuse and get along with men who have power or standing like this jerk. It is the safest thing to do, especially when she has to go on stage with him. Had he not humiliated her publicly, he likely wouldn't find himself in this situation because she would have let it go.  So I hope the MeToo movement spends as much time in training women to be ready for these situations as they do in calling out the offenders. 

 I just want to reiterate that I think his behavior was reprehensible. My wife was sexually assaulted by someone in a position of authority of her. She is also routinely hit on in inappropriate ways when she travels for work. They both suck. They both deserve to be called out. They do exist on seperate planes though with a bright line between them. If Kirby’s apology is really the best he can do he’s at least lost this reader for good. 

[katherine the great]

1 minute ago, Exiled said:

I think the public humiliation is definitely driving the bus.

Well I think its probably what drove her to make a public statement. But I think she would have thought long and hard about the two other events either way and shared it with only her friends.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

But if the man was, say, Chris Stringer (a world famous biological anthropologist who I consider a "rock star" and who is about the same age as Kirby), I really don't know how I would respond. I might just do exactly as she did and not say anything in the moment but reflect deeply later on. 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-thing-all-women-do-you-dont-know-about_b_8630416?ncid=engmodushpmg00000003

Quote

It occurred to me recently that a lot of guys may be unaware of this. They have heard of things that happened, they have probably at times seen it and stepped in to stop it. But they likely have no idea how often it happens. That it colors much of what we say or do and how we do it.

Maybe we need to explain it better. Maybe we need to stop ignoring it ourselves, minimizing it in our own minds.

The guys that shrug off or tune out when a woman talks about sexism in our culture? They’re not bad guys. They just haven’t lived our reality. And we don’t really talk about the everyday stuff that we witness and experience. So how could they know?

So, maybe the good men in our lives have no idea that we deal with this stuff on a regular basis.

Maybe it is so much our norm that it didn’t occur to us that we would have to tell them. 

It occurred to me that they don’t know the scope of it and they don’t always understand that this is our reality. So, yeah, when I get fired up about a comment someone makes about a girl’s tight dress, they don’t always get it. When I get worked up over the every day sexism I’m seeing and witnessing and watching... when I’m hearing of the things my daughter and her friends are experiencing... they don’t realize it’s the tiny tip of a much bigger iceberg.

Maybe I’m realizing that men can’t be expected to understand how pervasive everyday sexism is if we don’t start telling them and pointing to it when it happens. Maybe I’m starting to realize that men have no idea that even walking into a store women have to be on guard. We have to be aware, subconsciously, of our surroundings and any perceived threats.

Maybe I’m starting to realize that just shrugging it off and not making a big deal about it is not going to help anyone.

We de-escalate.

We are acutely aware of our vulnerability. Aware that if he wanted to, that guy in the Home Depot parking lot could overpower us and do whatever he wants.

Guys, this is what it means to be a woman. 

We are sexualized before we even understand what that means. We develop into women while our minds are still innocent. We get stares and comments before we can even drive. From adult men. We feel uncomfortable but don’t know what to do, so we go about our lives. We learn at an early age, that to confront every situation that makes us squirm is to possibly put ourselves in danger. We are aware that we are the smaller, physically weaker sex. That boys and men are capable of overpowering us if they choose to. So we minimize and we de-escalate.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

She presents herself as not having a problem with marijuana.  If she was not acting spaced out, what would it matter if she had consumed any?  

This is not a woman who worries that her blog will go down because she took marijuana, imo.  I doubt her market sees that as much of a negative.

 

I’ve never heard of her until now. But it would appear she has (or has had in the past) a free-lance relationship with the Deseret News. I would think that segment of her “market” or some portion thereof might disapprove. 

Edited to add:  Never mind. I just noticed you have already researched this. 

Edited September 16, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I think the public humiliation is definitely driving the bus.

She states it is her reaction to his column on Denson.  I see no reason to doubt her given her past willingness to make public and private complaints about inappropriate behaviour (referred to in here:  https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900006904/the-agony-of-john-curtis.html )

Sunstone happened almost two months ago.  It would have been better for her to immediately respond rather than wait until it probably had disappeared from the minds of the few people who knew about it. 

Edited September 16, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ve never heard of her until now. But it would appear she has (or has had in the past) a free-lance relationship with the Deseret News. I would think that segment of her “market” or some portion thereof might disapprove. 

Had five years ago.  She has changed her market since then from what I have read.  She is a Democrat and works community outreach for Provo.

Edited September 16, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

43 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 They do exist on seperate planes though with a bright line between them.

However, when it comes to work or neighbours, it is not usually the respectful ones who commit assault from what I have read.  Often there is sexual harassment that occurs prior to assault.

[smac97]

5 hours ago, juliann said:

Kirby is a celebrity of sorts which means they weren't on equal footing. I think the key phrase from the Trib was that there had been other complaints.

I also noticed the plural use of "complaints" by the Trib.  But were they all complaining about the same thing (Kirby's treatment of Kendrick)?  Or were they suggesting that Kirby has engaged in multiple instances of misconduct?  I couldn't really tell from the Trib's statement.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 hours ago, juliann said:

Lets not go down the blame the victim with speculation path. This is about him and those like him not her. The problem with ingesting things is that you cannot trust what some men will put in it.

I was under the impression that she knew it was a pot brownie when she ate it?  Are you suggesting that he doped her without her consent?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Had five years ago.  She has changed her market since then from what I have read.  She is a Democrat and works community outreach for Provo.

It would appear she doesn’t do the community outreach gig for Provo anymore. That was when John Curtis was mayor. 

This is from The Utah Bee:

“Courtney Kendrick (C. Jane Kendrick) is a writer, blogger, columnist, speaker and community advocate. For twelve years she has cultivated her award-winning blog CJaneKendrick.com where she writes personal essay on a wide range of topics. As a lifetime resident of Provo, Utah, she co-founded, produced, and hosted downtown Provo’s Rooftop Concert Series, as well as the annual celebration of Provo Women’s Day. She’s a former columnist for the Deseret News, and has recently been featured on NY Magazine’s The Cut and Scott’s Simon’s Weekend Edition on NPR. After three years as the Civic Outreach Advisor for the Provo City Mayor’s Office, Courtney left to pursue campaign strategy and communications consultancy. She lives in Provo’s Tree Street community with her husband Christopher and four children.”

 

[Calm]

As of December, she was working for the Mayor:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10159645016255481&id=694050480

Can't see in her FB when she left.

Edited September 17, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

As of December, she was working for the Mayor:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10159645016255481&id=694050480

Can't see in her FB when she left.

Hmm.  A city employee publicly admitting to consuming a controlled substance.  

What a weird story this is.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hmm.  A city employee publicly admitting to consuming a controlled substance.  

What a weird story this is.

Thanks,

-Smac

And one Presidents 42-44 admitted to and I’d be willing to place money that #45 has as well. Not sure what the scandal is here. It’s 2018 after all...

[sunstoned]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Last I heard, possession of marijuana was illegal in Utah. Is that no longer the case? 

I agree.  In fact, he should have been fired twice.  Once for the abuse and once for a drug violation. 

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And one Presidents 42-44 admitted to and I’d be willing to place money that #45 has as well. Not sure what the scandal is here. It’s 2018 after all...

I'm not big on the tu quoque approach to such issues.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

As of December, she was working for the Mayor:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10159645016255481&id=694050480

Can't see in her FB when she left.

The source I quoted was published after the first of the year. And people don’t always get around to timely updating of their Facebook profiles. 

Edited September 17, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Maidservant]

7 hours ago, Exiled said:

Ms. Kendrick claims to have had no resistance. Is that really how it is?

It's a decision--whether instantaneous or thought out--to avoid the consequences of resistance.  Because a woman will have to choose between the consequences of non-escalation (acceptance) and escalation (resistance)--whichever set of consequences she prefers or feels strong enough to manage.  For most women, those are her two choices, period.  She can't choose to never having been degraded;  she can't choose to be believed (because she won't); she can't choose to get redress (she won't for minor to medium things and sometimes for devastating things); et cetera.

Consequences for resistance: Will I lose this job?  this promotion?  a recommendation letter?  being told to stop making a scene?  being told can't you take a joke?  on and on. None of these things seem worth losing integrity in not resisting IF it was something that was a one-time anomaly--but that's the point.  This is not about individual cases or evidence in a court of law (most women would never have enough even with all the pieces and all the agreement of the parties--because these things aren't crimes as defined--it's denigration); this is about the fabric of our culture and many women (and men) are done sewing the threads.  These aren't incidents, they are the life we have to live.

I recently watched a movie on Amazon called Woman Walks Ahead.  Watch that if you wish, and listen to some of the language-ing and framework that was flung at the woman--both from the U.S. culture as well as the Native culture ("I can't be seen taking orders from you; now we have to wait awhile" I actually laughed at that, but it's not funny when it's in the reality of the culture fabric.)  Now what is important to know is that while it seems a lot has changed for women since the time period of that movie, I don't know that it has gotten better (in some ways, yes), rather it has gotten subtler, quieter, behind-the-scenes--but it's still there CONSTANTLY.    In other words, all the words and ways of the movie, and how they bombarded that woman, are still present today--just not out loud, so women have to deal with the bombardment, but if they say something, the reply is--"What?  It's not there . . . it's 2018 it's not the 1880s, nobody would do that!  No one is telling you, you can't paint."  That's not the point.  Insert something else for our day.

Women have to 'take' every piece of ground of respect, because no one is handing it out.  (And women need to offer more respect to each other, as well.)

And that's okay.  We should work for what is important to us and not wait or expect for it to be handed out.  So that's what is happening in this social climate.

Please understand that when women give metoo and metoo ish stories, they are NOT necessarily wanting or needing redress on that particular incident.  We are simply lifting the curtain on what it's like: "It [harrassment+] happened TODAY.  It happened on my walk up to the podium."  "It happened in the produce section of the grocery store."  "It happened in this industry."  "It happened in this industry too."  "It happened when I was 11."  "It happened when I was 16."  "It happened when I was 21."  "It happened when I was 42."  "It happened when I was wearing a short red skirt."  "It happened when I was wearing my gray sweats."  "It happened when I said no to a date."  "It happened on our third date."  "It happened for 40 years of my marriage."  "It happened at the MTC."  "It happened when I was walking down the street."  "It happened at the church."  "It happened with my professor."  "It happened on my walk up to the podium."

That's what she's saying.  I was walking up to the podium.  I was going to give a talk.  I was with a respected colleague.   . . . . . That should be the whole story--if she was a woman, if she was a man.

But it wasn't the whole story.

Women are RESISTING at LARGE.  Not de-escalating AT LARGE.  This woman took a while to digest what happened to her, and then SHARED.  Because the other choice is NOT SHARING.  If others don't believe it happened, or don't believe it's importance--she believed herself.

This isn't about the edible or the joke or even the public humiliation--it's about the dynamic she found herself in; of which the joke and edible and public humiliation were customized expressions.  And I'm sure she's questioning herself as much as him--why she had to navigate the situation with the deep rules she heard inside herself that, yes, she is agreeing, her choices landed her still in a not good place.  But why are we asking anyone to navigate such waters anymore, especially if we are singing the song of progression?

Edited September 17, 2018 by Maidservant

[sunstoned]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

I don't think you understand how many women think about sexual dominance, especially when shocked by it.  All sense of being safe, on solid ground disappears.  It is similar to the saying that when men think of the worst thing that can happen on a date, they generally go to "she will laugh at me"; for women it is "he could rape and kill me".

The way I see it is that he knew he was popular and held a position of prestige.  In a sense, this is power.  He also towered over her physically,  I believe he meant to intimidate.  This is why he came off with the prostitute line.  This is humiliation and intimidation.   He needed to be called out.  He needs to be made an example of.  This behavior should not be acceptable any society.   A suspension is too light of a penalty.