I don’t see that. There isn’t a criminal case here - being an asshole isn’t illegal. And I really don’t see Hardwick suing for defamation, there is no way he wants every person he has ever been shitty to to get up on the stand as a witness for Dykstra to say “yeah, he’s an asshole” - that isn’t going to help his career or his marriage. Unless he’s a saint, and if that were the case, there would be a lot more people coming to his defense than the bland “withholding judgement” from his colleagues.
Its fandom, Dykstra’s attorney will get contacted by a hundred women willing to say that Chris Hardwick leered at them in their Poison Ivy costume or pressed against their ass in a crowded elevator. If Hardwick is particularly unlucky, some of these women will have been underage at the time.
(I was also active in fandom about the time of my rape, and one of the effects of the rape is that I don’t do conventions any longer, because its full of men leering at you and being “handsy” - the last time I went to a con it was for a memorial - I was nearing 50 - and I still got leered at and “accidentally” groped in the elevator)
Especially when the predator seems like a nice guy. I guess that’s the part I’m having trouble reconciling with Chris Hardwick. He just doesn’t seem like your average abuser—in fact, he seems very woke. Of course, all we see is his media personality, but still.
I imagine your view of Chris Hardwick would be shaped by your own experience. I imagine “nice guys” aren’t always what they seem. And neither are abusers.
And to me, Chris Hardwick has never seemed like a nice guy…he seems like the kind of guy who hits on the drunkest pretty girl at a party because she’s vulnerable. Which is one of those things that a lot of women see, and a lot of men don’t - because they don’t need to.
I have a friend who is 24 years old - very pretty - and a black belt. One of her students was male and didn’t get it, she took him to a frat party (this is when she was still in college). She said watch - then scanned the room - pointed out four guys - and then said - they are all about to hit on me. Acted drunk and started dancing - and all four of those guys hit on her. It takes a while - sometimes too long - but our predator radar develops and we perceive things that you as a guy don’t ever need to be woke to.
You know how when you are on the road and you see someone driving - and something about the car and the way it moves - maybe even a glimpse of the driver - tells you he drives like an asshole. It only takes a few seconds for you determine that is likely (not CERTAIN, but hey, you don’t want an accident today). And you keep an eye on him and drive a little more carefully around him - because he’s the type of driver who is going to cut someone off. And you can’t really explain to a new driver how to spot these idiots, its something you learn over time…? That.
That makes sense the way you explain it. The assoholic driver is a good analogy. I have definitely developed a sixth sense for those guys. And to be honest, I have a sense for which men are predatorial, truth be told. I just never got that sense from Chris Hardwick, but I can understand why you see him the way you do.
This really does happen, and it’s good that people are talking about it.
“Abuse” is the right term to use for the too-many cases in which one partner appears to be kind and empathetic at the beginning. And then for career or other reasons, the couple moves to a location at which the other partner is without friends or family or resources—and then the ‘rules’ show up and possibly physical violence, too. Maybe there are small children in the relationship, which makes it even more complicated to leave. And the abuser may have been working all along on destroying the self-esteem of the abused person, who, for that reason and because of the actual isolation, sees no way out.
That’s abuse. It happens all the time. And the stories of what can go down in these situations get suppressed way too often.
I’m not sure that what Dykstra accuses fits with ‘abuse,’ though. She describes the man as listing his ‘rules’ before they started dating. She had an opportunity to walk away that doesn’t occur in abuse scenarios–she wasn’t isolated or without contacts that could help her.
Without knowing Hardwick, but just from looking at his busy career, it seems fair to say that he’s a “Type A,” hard-driving, ambitious guy. Many hard-driving Type A men (and I suppose some women) have histories that include serial marriages (or relationships). One spouse or partner gets older, so you get a divorce, then you get a younger spouse or partner. Repeat as long as your resources hold out.
Are these serial-relationship Type A individuals “in love” with the people they marry? Well…possibly not. Safer to say that they make a sort of bargain with the partners–‘you’ll get X, Y, and Z as long as I’m happy with you, and when that time ends, you’ll get some compensation’ or what have you.
My reading of Dykstra’s account is that she thought she could make him fall in love with her, but that didn’t happen, and as a result she felt…used.
And apparently it was a short jump from ‘I was used’ to ‘I was abused.’
But they aren’t actually the same thing. I don’t fault Dykstra for wanting to put her feelings into words. I do fault her for using the term “sexually assault.”* I gather she felt she was covered, legally, by using it in the context “I…let him sexually assault me.” But my opinion is that if you are going to say someone sexually assaulted you, regardless of fudging about ‘letting him’ do it, then you should bring charges or at least discuss bringing charges.
Yes, I realize that women without friends, family or resources to escape their abuser genuinely have problems with reporting sexual assault. I’m not criticizing them. I am criticizing Dykstra, who was not without friends, family and resources, and who willingly entered into a relationship with a man who presented a set of rules even before they dated.
I’m not saying she shouldn’t have published her account. I do question whether she was abused, and I do question her use of the “sexually assault” term. My sense is that she felt dirty and used and humiliated.
And while she may have been genuinely happy to provide information to other women that could help them, I believe that her motives for publishing the account were not entirely pure and altruistic.
You are very thorough in your analysis. Impressive. I think you underscore many important points, one of which is that according to her own account, she was presented with the rules (expectations) right from the start, as opposed to the kidnap and play mind games patterns that other abusers might take. I think she is not sure what she expected from this essay, but it has certainly brought her boatloads of attention and attention to the nature of relationships in general.
I would say that if you leave a situation feeling dirty, used and humiliated, and the person you are with has done things that a reasonable person would say contributed to feeling dirty, used and humiliated, abused is a valid word to use. We aren’t looking for a legal definition here. Hardwick did not treat her well, that is believable. She may have agreed to it to protect his sobriety and make him comfortable, but over time, she saw it as manipulative and controlling.
And relationship rules should be negotiable even once you are in the relationship. The rules from the start is how it is isn’t how a loving relationship works. When I got together with my husband, one of our rules was separate checking accounts, and you labeled your books. Those haven’t been necessary for twenty years. But other rules have come into play - like once we had kids, it was somewhat important that we discuss any plans - and he couldn’t take off for a weekend when they were really little - now that they are teenagers, I’m back to being informed he is taking off for a weekend with friends - and he’s being informed when I do that same.
The other thing about being in a relationship with someone is you watch out for them and anticipate what they need. I might not say “I need lunch with my girlfriends” or “I need help getting the house cleaned.” But my husband sees the state of my mind and suggests or pitches in. That sounds like it went one way here - Dykstra was expected to anticipate his needs, but Hardwick never seems to have been bothered by hers - and therefore, would have never seen a need to change the rules.
If you are in a relationship with someone where its “my way or the highway” - that is abusive. Sure, some things are non-negotiable - one rule of our relationship is no extra-marital sex - that’s been there from the start, but those should be pretty close to boilerplate for most people’s relationships.
Also . . .getting in a relationship with someone who has very low self-esteem and abandonment fears and then leveraging those issues to get everything you want, even though it’s not in any objective way a fair balance, is not cool. There are people who are so broken that they will accept all kinds of bullshit because they think that’s what they deserve. Finding someone like that doesn’t mean you’ve won the relationship jackpot because they will give you so much and ask so little in return. Committing to someone like that means you are signing up for a hell of a lot of work because you have to worry about being fair to them even though they won’t insist on it: you have to fight them to make their happiness a priority. I personally wouldn’t get in a relationship with someone like that–not the kind of work I’m willing to sign up for. But I also wouldn’t exploit them.
I worked with a lady whose marriage was falling apart with excruciating slowness. Every fight she recounted (for ten long years–I was young myself and didn’t know how to shut this shit down) ended with "And I finally got him to admit that . . . ". In her mind, everything in her marriage was “fair” because they talked about everything and he always “agreed”. But she forced agreement through coercion–even if was just the coercion of not letting him sleep or talk until she agreed with her entirely, and always making the stakes high: end of the day, he had to do everything her way, or leave. Being utterly unwilling to compromise and letting the person know they can just get the fuck out whenever they want because you’re always going to pick your “rules” over them is not being forthright and honest: it’s abusive. If you don’t give a shit about about person or their happiness, if you’re only keeping them around because they are willing to live by your rules and you’d cut them loose if they didn’t, cut them loose now and let them find someone else.
ETA: Nine times out of ten in those relationships, the one with the power isn’t actually willing to cut the other one loose. If it really came down to it, if they really had to, they’d compromise. But they’ve learned the other person fears the threat too much to risk it, so they are free to wield it and then say “I told them from the beginning how I was. They agreed”.
This seems to stretch the word “abusive”. A spouse can’t have any rules or anything that would be the line over which a breakup is imminent without it being “abuse”?
It’s abusive when you are “my way or the highway, you agreed when you signed up” on everything. People change, they adapt, they agree to things that overtime they find more onerous than they thought. You’re abusive when you know that your partner will always give in because they don’t trust you not to leave, and you use that advantage to get your way in everything. You are abusive if you never “give in” when you didn’t have to because you put their happiness above your own. You’re abusive if you make sure you always get your way, and tell yourself that’s okay because negotiating in a relationship is like negotiating for a used car and the person that’s better at it deserves to have their way and if you don’t take any responsibility for your partner’s misery because “they agreed”.
That seems like a technical distinction and I anyway I don’t have any problem changing my statement to ‘give her points because she’s an accuser of sexual misconduct against a man’. You’d have to stretch yourself into more of a pretzel to claim it’s also about all the cases where that’s not so.
As covered in a previous exchange there are no statistics on the accuracy of subjective claims that somebody’s behavior in a relationship, which did not involve physical violence, constituted ‘abuse’. There are only statistics indicating that accusations of criminal sexual misconduct are proven never to have happened a small % of the time. Link was given with stats (2-10%) and definition from National Criminal Victimization Survey summary of the topic.
But the basic disagreement is simple. I don’t think one should give any more credence to a subjective accusation of this kind than a denial, between two people you don’t know, arising out of situations you know nothing personally about. Of course other facts could change that (more people come along and make similar accusations against the same person, specific credibility undermining facts about a single accuser, etc)
An unconvincing exercise in setting up and knocking down the straw man that a accused person’s life is necessarily ruined.
And the non-fact based bias toward accuser is not that ‘slim’ IMO in a lot of posts on this thread. It seems to be used in some cases to try to shut down discussion of potential problems in her accusation on some pseudo-moral basis. For example the line “…let him sexually assault me. Regularly.” I find that problematic based on the more concrete things she said (and hasn’t said). It seems to be using a very serious term loosely and/or metaphorically. That’s something which should be heard, but criticized IMO. To a lesser degree ‘abuse’, but that’s a looser term.
IOW another problem here is ignoring the nature of the allegations and lumping everything from rape on down to anything that upsets somebody into the same category. That tendency is shown by the misapplication of the stats on false reports. Also by the confusion which arises at the lower levels as to what it means to ‘believe’ accusers ‘slightly more’ (though again doesn’t actually seem slightly in many cases). Believe what in this case? That Dykstra genuinely feels mistreated by Hardwick, or that we have any real evidence of behavior by Hardwick we should consider the public’s business to the point of pressuring his employer to fire him. The difference in criminal cases isn’t just that they slot into an accepted formula of ‘innocent till proven guilty’ if the state is to punish somebody. It’s also that they are (relatively) objectively defined acts of wrongdoing. Which some non-criminal ‘me too’ accusations might be also. But this one is problematic in that regard, IMO.
Well, lets see - improper use of something - using your girlfriend only for sex (when can I have sex with her being the question you ask after an ectopic pregnancy) seems like the improper use of another human being.
Cruel and violent - I don’t remember any accusations of violent, but restricting her access during conventions seems cruel.
Insulting and offensive language - that seems to have been there.
