# And Now Chris Hardwick \[domestic abuse allegations\]
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [June 15, 2018, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153 "2018-06-15T15:28:07Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 17
### Author:  [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)
#### Post date: [June 19, 2018, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153/321 "2018-06-19T04:49:32Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#):
>
> An alcoholic can have whatever boundaries they want to have, but if they pursue a relationship with someone whom they know drinks, yeah, I’m going to see it as controlling if they insist (not just ask) that their partner stays sober too. We could just as easily be talking about any hang up, really. If you have a food addiction and therefore have to stick to a certain diet, as a supportive spouse it almost goes without saying that I would abstain from eating junk food around you. But if the mere idea of me eating sugary snacks at the office completely sight unseen by you violates \* your\* boundaries, then this tells me that your boundaries overlap with my personal space a whole lot. Maybe this doesn’t make you abusive, but it would absolutely be a warning sign that I’m dealing with a personality type that is more controlling than not. If I wasn’t particular assertive with my own boundaries, it would be in my best interest to look at you carefully.
I don’t really know a lot about food addiction, so I’m not sure how well that maps to alcohol addiction. I do think referring to alcoholism as a “hang-up” is dismissive of a serious condition. If someone feels that their recovery is at risk if they’re in a serious relationship with someone who drinks, that’s a valid concern. “If I see her coming home after having a few beers, and it not being a problem, then I’m going to start thinking I can have a few beer, and it won’t be a problem,” is not an unreasonable concern for someone with an addiction.
I’m arguing in the general, here, and not specifically about Dykstra’s story. It’s certainly possible to weaponize his addiction as a way to control her, and the situation has an inherent power imbalance. While, “I can’t be in a relationship with someone who drinks,” is a valid boundary, it’s very hard to say, “I’d rather drink than be in a relationship with you,” without sounding like you’ve got a substance abuse problem, and that’s assuming good intentions on behalf of the addict. If they’re emotionally abusive (as opposed to simply chemically) there’s a lot of ways they can get really ugly with that. **Dangerosa** ’s got a really good point about the other habits that go along with addiction, and that’s something you have to be aware of if you’re getting into a relationship with someone with a history of substance abuse. But the specific issue of the addictive substance needs to be granted a pass in that sort of judgement. There’s a legitimate, non-controlling-asshole reason to have that sort of requirement in a relationship.
> [@](#):
>
> Perhaps if she said he’d approached the issue as a request and not an edict, then I would agree with you. But the very manner in which he apparently communicated this expectation to her is relevant to her story.
Well, as to the specific phrasing, he is reacting to her drinking a glass of wine in front of him. If she had no idea he was an alcoholic, that’s a pretty dickish way to break the subject. If she knew he had a drinking problem, that’s not really cool on her behalf. I don’t mean that as an attack on her, or a defense of Hardwick, because I don’t enough details of the situation. I don’t even like bringing it up, because it’s the sort of niggling detail that detracts from the more serious accusations - the sexual assault and the professional black-balling - where there’s no grey area where that might be acceptable.
And yet, I brought it up anyway, because SDMB. Sorry.
---
### Author:  [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)
#### Post date: [June 19, 2018, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153/322 "2018-06-19T05:03:45Z")
> [@Batano](#):
>
> As to her goals, they are great. Did she achieve her goals? I don’t think so. She exposed one guy, who is now married (GOD HELP HER), but I don’t see a lot of self-reflection of how she got in that situation or what she’ll do in the future. Or warning signs for other women.
Can you even identify her goals? From your posts in this thread, it seems more of a launching point to attack women rather than to understand the actual topic. I’ll help you:
> [@](#):
>
> I want this to be two things. Number One: Closure. I’m approaching my thirties, finding stability, and quite simply, I want this out of me. But more importantly, Number Two: A warning.
Dykstra even numbered them. 1. Closure. 2. A warning. Only she can know if this provides her sufficient closure, but it’s very clearly a warning and part of the rising chorus of women speaking up against a culture and history of terrible behavior.
You don’t see self reflection? Did you read the actual link? (my bold)
> [@](#):
>
> These were just a few of them. **And _I_ made the choice to accept his controlling behavior,** as he’d just left his long-term girlfriend and I assumed that he was going through some serious emotional discomfort. **This was a huge mistake.**
The entire article is entitled _Rose-Colored Glasses: A Confession._ Rose colored glasses means she wasn’t seeing clearly. She’s confessing her part in the whole shit show. Only if you expect her to grovel more could you think that she isn’t demonstrating self reflection. And warning signs for other women? There was an enumerated list of select examples, along with a litany of others. For example, when after surgery for an ectopic pregnancy the first question a person asks the doctor when they can have sex again in front of the patient’s mother - that’s a warning sign that should be heeded.
---
### Author:  [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)
#### Post date: [June 19, 2018, 10:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153/323 "2018-06-19T10:40:22Z")
> [@Miller](#):
>
> I don’t really know a lot about food addiction, so I’m not sure how well that maps to alcohol addiction. I do think referring to alcoholism as a “hang-up” is dismissive of a serious condition. If someone feels that their recovery is at risk if they’re in a serious relationship with someone who drinks, that’s a valid concern. “If I see her coming home after having a few beers, and it not being a problem, then I’m going to start thinking I can have a few beer, and it won’t be a problem,” is not an unreasonable concern for someone with an addiction.
But what if the drinking occurs when the spouse is on a business trip hundreds of miles away schmoozing with clients? What if we’re talking about a glass champagne at their best friend’s wedding, that you opted not to attend? If the spouse drinks only on certain occasions and then when they do, it’s never apparent to you, then it is a head scratcher to me how this could put an alcoholic’s sobriety at risk. But maybe this tangent is more fitting for another thread.
> [@](#):
>
> Well, as to the specific phrasing, he is reacting to her drinking a glass of wine in front of him. If she had no idea he was an alcoholic, that’s a pretty dickish way to break the subject. If she knew he had a drinking problem, that’s not really cool on her behalf.
According to her, this occurred before they were dating. Perhaps they were dining in a group and she ordered wine not knowing that this could be an issue for him (not every alcoholic has a hard time with others drinking around them). But bottom line, if it was a problem for him and he wanted to make that known before they started officially dating, there are a lot less assholelish ways of communicating that then making her mundane glass of wine out to be a problem that she is required to fix. Rather, it’s a problem that he has that he should be asking—not telling—her to help him with. That, in my mind, makes or breaks whether this is red flag for controlling, domineering behavior or not.
---
### Author:  [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)
#### Post date: [June 19, 2018, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153/324 "2018-06-19T13:03:38Z")
> [@Miller](#):
>
> **Dangerosa** ’s got a really good point about the other habits that go along with addiction, and that’s something you have to be aware of if you’re getting into a relationship with someone with a history of substance abuse. But the specific issue of the addictive substance needs to be granted a pass in that sort of judgement. There’s a legitimate, non-controlling-asshole reason to have that sort of requirement in a relationship.
You are going the wrong direction - or at least it needs to go both ways. Many people don’t have the knowledge of addictive behaviors to be on the look out for it. Many people who have first hand experience with it as co-dependents also have lousy habits. The addict, unless the reached sobriety on their own, at some time through rehab or AA, learned about their impact on others. If they did a twelve step program, they made amends. Its at least as much the addicts responsibility to check his or her behavior for manipulative and controlling as it is for people around the addict to protect their boundaries.
---
### Author:  [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)
#### Post date: [June 19, 2018, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153/325 "2018-06-19T13:39:35Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#):
>
> According to her, this occurred before they were dating.
I don’t think it’s entirely clear, but it’s among a list of rules laid down early in their “relationship,” which implies that it’s gone beyond just dating.
---
### Author:  [@Gatopescado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gatopescado)
#### Post date: [June 19, 2018, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153/326 "2018-06-19T17:45:19Z")
> [@Acsenray](#):
>
> Why shouldn’t someone who has behaved like this in private be publicly humiliated?
This is a terrifying idea.
---
### Author:  [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)
#### Post date: [June 19, 2018, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153/327 "2018-06-19T17:50:20Z")
> [@Acsenray](#):
>
> I don’t think it’s entirely clear, but it’s among a list of rules laid down early in their “relationship,” which implies that it’s gone beyond just dating.
No, it’s pretty clear:
> [@](#):
>
> As he was sober, I was not to drink alcohol. **Before we began dating** he said, “I noticed you have a glass of wine with dinner. That’s going to stop.”
(Bolding mine)
---
### Author:  [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)
#### Post date: [June 19, 2018, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153/328 "2018-06-19T21:05:10Z")
> [@Slash1972](#):
>
> No, it’s pretty clear:
>
> (Bolding mine)
Ah, I misremembered.
---
### Author:  [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)
#### Post date: [June 19, 2018, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153/329 "2018-06-19T21:08:39Z")
> [@Gatopescado](#):
>
> This is a terrifying idea.
I’d be interested in some further explication on this point.
Is there no private conduct that justifies public exposure and criticism?
If some private conduct does justify public exposure and criticism, then why is the conduct described in the Dykstra essay not so?
---
### Author:  [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)
#### Post date: [June 19, 2018, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153/330 "2018-06-19T23:42:19Z")
> [@madsircool](#):
>
> We have no evidence to decide either way so yes.
Duh.
> [@madsircool](#):
>
> Because I remember many a time when innocents have been swept up in hysteria. The Salem Witch Trials. The McMartin case and the hysteria over abuse in pre schools. The McCarthy hearings.
>
> Lets wait to see if the facts support the allegations before we destroy a persons life.
Yeah.
---
### Author:  [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)
#### Post date: [June 19, 2018, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153/331 "2018-06-19T23:55:10Z")
I mean, campers, there’s a point where one needs there needs be a point where one requests the slightest modicum of protoof. Yes, those actions were not admireable. Prove it.
---
### Author:  [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)
#### Post date: [June 19, 2018, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153/332 "2018-06-19T23:57:38Z")
> [@madsircool](#):
>
> We have no evidence to decide either way so yes.
Her essay itself is evidence, and in most instances like this, it is the only and best evidence there ever will be. Saying that this is not evidence amounts to saying that men should be allowed to get away with whatever they do behind closed doors.
---
### Author:  [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)
#### Post date: [June 20, 2018, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153/333 "2018-06-20T00:23:10Z")
> [@dropzone](#):
>
> I mean, campers, there’s a point where one needs there needs be a point where one requests the slightest modicum of protoof. Yes, those actions were not admireable. Prove it.
When did this become a court of law? We have two stories. You can choose to believe either justifiably.
---
### Author:  [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)
#### Post date: [June 20, 2018, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153/334 "2018-06-20T00:53:55Z")
> [@dropzone](#):
>
> I mean, campers, there’s a point where one needs there needs be a point where one requests the slightest modicum of protoof. Yes, those actions were not admireable. Prove it.
What do you think “proof” means when it comes to human actions? If these acts had been crimes, this would be enough proof to convict someone. Well, maybe not a rich white man. But certainly a black man or a poor man.
Why should the standards for social judgment be more rigorous than what is demanded from the government to punish someone?
---
### Author:  [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)
#### Post date: [June 20, 2018, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153/335 "2018-06-20T01:04:03Z")
> [@Acsenray](#):
>
> Her essay itself is evidence, and in most instances like this, it is the only and best evidence there ever will be. Saying that this is not evidence amounts to saying that men should be allowed to get away with whatever they do behind closed doors.
You make zero sense. Anyone can claim whatever they’d like—doesn’t make it true. His denial is also evidence according to your logic. Saying his denial is not evidence amounts to saying that a woman should be able to say whatever she wants about a man with impunity. Why should her version of events automatically count as truth in your world?
---
### Author:  [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)
#### Post date: [June 20, 2018, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153/336 "2018-06-20T01:05:27Z")
NM
---
### Author:  [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)
#### Post date: [June 20, 2018, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153/337 "2018-06-20T01:23:16Z")
> [@Biffster](#):
>
> His denial is also evidence according to your logic.
…of course its evidence. Who is disputing that?
---
### Author:  [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)
#### Post date: [June 20, 2018, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153/338 "2018-06-20T01:49:49Z")
> [@Biffster](#):
>
> His denial is also evidence
Of course it’s fucking evidence. We look at the evidence, we look at the people giving the evidence, we look at how convincing they are, and we decide which one we believe. That’s how fucking evidence works.
That’s what happens in a court of law. Accuser speaks in front of the jury. Accused speaks in front of the jury. Jury decides who is more believable. That’s how the majority of these kinds of cases—if they ever get to trial—are disposed.
And we’re not in a court of law, so we don’t even have to be that rigorous.
---
### Author:  [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)
#### Post date: [June 20, 2018, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153/339 "2018-06-20T01:55:27Z")
I skipped to the end. I accuse every poster in this thread of sexually assaulting me.
Is it my duty to prove that, or is it every poster’s duty to refute it?
---
### Author:  [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)
#### Post date: [June 20, 2018, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153/340 "2018-06-20T01:59:06Z")
> [@UltraVires](#):
>
> I skipped to the end. I accuse every poster in this thread of sexually assaulting me.
>
> Is it my duty to prove that, or is it every poster’s duty to refute it?
It’s our duty, nay privilege, to not give a shit.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153.md?page=16)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/and-now-chris-hardwick-domestic-abuse-allegations/816153.md?page=18)