Let me first say that the #FHRITP trend is misogynistic and demeaning, and I applaud Shauna Hunt for not being cowered by the men who were harassing her. Shawn Simoes, the ridiculously unlikable man who has been fired from his job after being recorded supporting the #FHRITP trend, is not a popular guy at the moment with good reason, and I doubt he will be able to escape his social media footprint anytime soon. However, I wonder if firing him, though it is completely understandable, will actually address the underlying problem, which is misogyny itself. We have all united in our disapproval of Shawn Simoes, and this has provided us with the illusion that in terminating his employment (in which he earned a substantial salary of $106k, which is always highlighted in the news coverage to emphasize the high level of justice being carried out) all is once right again. But I have to wonder, is all right in the world once again?
We’re all appeased by the outcome: Man says vulgar thing, man is punished. But men do say vulgar things, a lot in my experience, and sexual harassment takes place in nearly every workplace I’ve ever been in or heard of. This is a problem, is it not? Violence against women? Misogyny? Is firing Shawn Simoes going to fix all that? I think French theorist René Girard would argue that it simply calms us back into accepting the culture and the society the way that it is, but leaves it ultimately unchallenged and unchanged. If Simoes is a scapegoat, “scapegoat” does not mean he’s innocent, simply that he’s fulfilling the role of being punished in order for the social order to continue unchanged.
Human beings are fundamentally imitative creatures. We copy each other’s desires and are in perpetual conflict with one another over the objects of our desire. In early human communities, this conflict created a permanent threat of violence and forced our ancestors to find a way to unify themselves. They chose a victim, a scapegoat, an evil one against whom the community could unite.
Again, “scapegoat” does not imply Shawn Simoes is innocent (he’s a jerk, we all agree), but should we, rather than being calmed down by his example, instead be ripping apart the seams of the culture that created him? There are millions who enjoy this degrading meme, and there are millions who are also watching pornography and the brutalization of women which therein informs things. Prostitution, trafficking, rape, the making of women into consumer products, this informs things. Firing Simoes doesn’t address this and can actually serve in the interest of furthering the REAL LIE, the REAL problem, the myth that mysogony is getting less and that women are better off now in our culture simply because they make more money. This affirms our culture, and tells us everything is okay when it’s not (I’m suddenly feeling like the reporter in that scene from Network!).
Shouldn’t we be getting mad instead of celebrating the sacrifice of our scapegoat?
by 
I agree that firing him doesn’t solve the problem of misogyny. However, firing him was a necessary step in order for his former employer to protect itself from the harm to its reputation that comes from being associated with him. He is simply not employable any more. I know that I would toss his resume out immediately if it ever crossed my desk.
I agree with all your points but would like to offer a different perspective. It’s public opinion that’s making him a scapegoat, not necessarily his employer. I think it came down to his ability to exercise good judgement. Having an opinion isn’t a fire-able offence. Expressing that opinion (which would get him immediately terminated if he conveyed those comments at the office) in front of a live TV camera when one is an employee of a public sector company would make an employer question whether this man has the sense to exercise good judgement – especially in a management position. My company let go of a woman because of her blog – she never named our company, and I’m not even sure she realizes why she was let go (she got a package so a reason didn’t need to be given). Several people knew the blog was hers and were fed up with her slamming her co-workers on it. She never mentioned names but she was fired because of the concern that she wasn’t able to keep private information private (anonymous though it may have been). I know another guy that has trouble finding and keeping a job because of his raunchy twitter account. It’s public and it doesn’t take much to find it. Technically it’s not an employer’s business what an employee thinks and does on their own time. I could believe that anyone who wears socks with birkenstocks should be pummelled with a carrot. I may verbally express this opinion to my family and friends and my socks and birkenstocks-wearing CEO will likely never hear about my opinion. But if I tweet it, or blog about it or post a Facebook photo depicting my hatred, or stand in front of a recording TV camera and express it, chances are he’ll find out about it and I won’t have a job as soon as he does. It’s how life works. The desire for public attention is natural, but it comes with consequences. Just my two cents.
Thanks for your comment Anna. I think there are two things we can talk about here. I firmly believe that there is a lack of awareness of what is public and what is private, and it is increasingly difficult for users to manage the ever changing terms and conditions of privacy on social media. So many people use Facebook, Twitter etc. in the same way that a teenage girl would have used a diary 30 years ago, and this is a problem in that they are typically unaware (or just naive) of the extent to which those publications can affect their off-line lives. I wonder if Twitter accounts, blogs, Facebook pages, ought to come with warnings? I think too many people, especially children, are completely unaware of these consequences and their permanence. I thank God every day that my diary from 10th grade was never published! Now, Simoes was on the news in front of a camera, and this is a different kind of animal. He ought to have been aware that this was a public space, but Simoes will never escape this. As Dan said below, no one will hire him. I imagine he’s going to be unemployed for a long time. He may have to sue just to make ends meet, and ultimately it will be all of Canada footing the bill for Simoes’ mistake. He was very likely drinking (I have only been to one premiership match, but there was a lot of drinking. This begs the question, is it okay for a reporter to walk into a group of drunk people and start recording them for the public?). I just wonder if the lifetime of punishment a) fits the crime, and to what extent he is being “made an example of” (if he had made $30,000/yr instead of over $100k, would he have been fired or just reprimanded?) and b) how successful that is in fixing the core problems causing this behavior. Thank you for your comment, there is certainly a lot to be discussed here!
I also just wanted to say that I am fully aware there are many jobs I would never be hired for because of THIS blog (though I would likely never know that was the reason), but if I was fired because of it I would certainly be vocal about it. Being prolife when your employer is prochoice isn’t being anti-socks and sandals, but it’s still an opinion your socks and sandals employer ought not be allowed to fire you for having.
Shawn Simoes was crushed by his own social media footprint.