A man was fired for calling a woman a âslut.â This would be unremarkable in almost all circumstances, except for one small detail: The comment occurred on Facebook from the manâs personal account.
Mashableâs Johnny Leiu outlines what happened:
â[Australian] feminist writer Clementine Ford, who often bears the brunt of vitriol on social media, was called a âslutâ by Michael Nolan on Facebook.
The original comment was posted by Nolan on Nov. 25, in response to a post where Ford called out another man for making degrading comments.â
Ford was discussing the frequent abuse women face from men and why this should stop. This was the post Mr. Nolan decided to leave his awful remark on.
Nolanâs employer, the hotel chain Meriton Apartments, was listed on his Facebook profile, so Ford decided to point out their (then) employeeâs behavior.
She wrote: âI wonder if the folks over at Meriton Apartments are aware that a man listing himself as a supervisor for their business likes to leave comments on womenâs Facebook pages calling them sluts. I wonder if they are also aware that he is a racist.â
After being alerted, Meriton issued a statement to Ford:
âMeriton Group have now investigated the matter relating to the complaint made about Michael Nolan using inappropriate language on Facebook⌠Meriton Group does not condone this type of behavior. Michael Nolan was removed from the Meriton site on Saturday 28th November pending an investigation, and as of 2:30pm today 30th November 2015, he no longer works for the Meriton Group.â
Many people have seen this as a woman overreacting to a man saying âmean wordsâ on the Internet. But that perspective carves out large aspects of this situation, presenting a false narrativeâa narrative that continues to allow people, especially men, to get away with harmful behavior under the guise of unrelated but important-sounding concepts, like freedom.
Here are the facts.
First, Ford had no power to fire this man. Yet Ford is receiving angry, vile messages, written as though she was the main person in power responsible for Nolanâs firing. She was not. Clearly that is his employer, who very well couldâve ignored Ford and kept the man on the payroll.
(Of course, Ford deals daily with over-reactive men, as she is a woman voicing her opinion on gender issues with a Twitter account. Harassers seem to lack the willpower to ignore people like Ford.)
Second, Ford didnât lie or falsify Nolanâs statements; she pointed out they exist and were being said publicly. She didnât hack his account. He left a derogatory message almost anyone could see on her page.
Businesses have long done online searches on (potential) employees. Naturally, they care about maintaining a reputation and, if they can find something damning on an employee, their shareholders and clients can, tooâand take their business elsewhere. The world has gone digital, and life isnât separated by offline or online anymore. People can and do lose their jobs for what they do onlineâeven in their personal capacityâbecause thatâs where businesses operate, too.
Again, Meritonâs decision to fire an employee over conduct that was not illegal, but which they deemed against the companyâs values, was not the first and it will not be the last such decision a modern business makes. That this conduct happened on the Internet is irrelevant: this wasnât a man writing boundary pushing poems in his journal; it wasnât him telling sexist jokes privately with friends. Nolan did this publicly, and this was the consequence.
Those who disagree continue the narrative of free speech, where âfree speechâ means no consequences. Ford and others are deciding that needs to change. As she wrote:
âI did it because Iâm sick and tired of men abusing women online and continually getting away with it. I can bear the brunt of this behavior, but Iâm angry about the number of women who tell me they canât. Too many women are harassed into silence by men who flounce about the place doing and saying whatever they like.â
Men getting away with sexism is an issue that needs addressing. A culture of sexist tolerance undermines entire industries, let alone individual peopleâs daily lives. This tolerance continues because weâve created cultures were targets of awful behavior are expected to just take it.
But consider: Nolan is responsible for his own actions and words. Meriton decided those actions and words were not in keeping with their business. Meritonâs decision was based on Nolanâs decision to be a jerk.
The false narrative of responsibility is, however, quite potent. By giving Ford powerâand therefore responsibilityâshe does not have, justification for targeting her can easily be created and continue, regardless of reality. This is why targets are so frequently viewed as irrelevant but also powerful, by their harassers.
This is the root of victim blaming. Harassersâ responsibility for awful actions are eroded, such that a false image of power lies with the recipient of abuse. Instead of confronting harassers and abusers, people blame targets for taking action in response to abuseâto protect themselves and others, as in Fordâs case. âYou got a man fired!â instead of âThatâs what happens when youâre a jerk to someone.â
As always, free expression has been dragged out as being threatened. The scary image of Big Brother watching every move we do and then losing our jobs because we were âmeanâ is being touted, with feminists behind the levers of corporate hiring practices.
For harassers, free expression doesnât exist for targets, using it to respond, ignore, or report their harassment; âfree expressionâ only exists for the enormous number of random, often anonymous, haters who harass.
You can call a woman a slut online, but youâre not allowed to call a business on the man that did so. Itâs clear how this fits in with the narrative to keep targets silenced and, as Ford and others highlight, preserve the reputation of the most privileged groupâwho, for too long, have been able to conduct themselves without fear of consequences.
For too long have targetsâoften women and marginalized peopleâbeen the ones bearing the consequences of harassers. With the great equalizer that the Internet has become, we are more able to let those who are actually responsible for terrible actions bear appropriate consequences.
âConsequencesâ in no way means violence or threatsâthatâs what weâre combating!âit means responses like suspension of social media accounts, employers being notified, and so on.
This is not to say everyone should be fired for what they say online nor am I encouraging everyone report abusers to their place of work. But, focusing on this particular case, we see how responses to Ford taking action itself fits into a narrative that aims to keep her and others silenced; who want to punish her for being brave enough to take action.
Speech without consequence isnât free, itâs privilege. And more and more, we are using free expression and digital tools to fight back against harassment that has always been thereâbut for which itâs never been the harassersâ problem to deal with.
And if these hypersensitive men canât deal with responses to their abusive behavior online, maybe the Internet isnât for them.
Correction: An earlier version of this article showed a photo of Clementine Ford the actress not Clementine Ford the journalist. The mistake as since been corrected.