I am wrapping my head around some of the disconnect, here. So, let’s break it down. In my world, the specific actions being alleged are credible- because they are not uncommon, especially given the context we are given regarding the two principals here. Now, whether these actions constitute abuse, that’s a separate issue. But I get the impression that some folks have decided that since, in their opinion, the actions described don’t constitute abuse, she must be a liar for coming to that conclusion.
And if part of her coming forward was to point out how these ‘normal’ behaviors can constitute or contribute to abuse, then what’s the problem? It’s a good discussion to have. Hardwick was called on some shitty behavior, had to lay low for…a month? and collect his checks, and now he’s back. I’m sorry, I don’t feel bad about it. Especially given the alternative of her being quiet about it.
Same with the words “abuse” and “sexual assault.” They should not be twisted to mean whatever it is you want them to mean. They have very specific legal definitions. That is why the statement, “I let him sexually assault me” is nonsensical. Either you “let him” (making it consensual) or he “sexually assaulted” you (making it non-consensual. It can’t be both.
And what do you think of her timing? Was an impending 30th birthday really the best incentive for “getting your story out there” four years after the fact? How about her accuracy? The precision of her language? Should she perhaps have checked with legal counsel prior to using a loaded term like “sexual assault”?
Abuse is a common word, sexual assault has common usage outside of the legal realm, defamation is a legal word that explicitly denotes legal action. There is a difference.
This isn’t actually what she wrote though, is it.
It fascinating to see what happens when you google the phrase “i let him sexually assault me”.
I only get 177 results. All of them Dykstra related. All of them making the very same argument as you. All in comments sections, forums or on twitter.
What she actually said was “…Including let him sexually assault me. Regularly. I was expected to be ready for him when he came home from work.”
Why do you feel the need to change what she said? Materially it makes no difference. So why do that?
Sexual assault is generally described as “unwanted sexual contact.” Allowing or letting someone have unwanted sexual contact with you does not necessarily make it consensual. To put it in as blunt terms as possible:child sexual abuse doesn’t stop being child sexual abuse because the child chooses to go home after school every night.
“Women should speak out more to prevent this sort of thing from happening.”
…
“Not like that.”
As a lawyer, I am acutely aware of terms that have both legal and lay definitions. There’s not much confusion to her actual story, and you quibbling over these definitions (while being fairly free with language yourself) strikes me as disingenuous at best.
Because in this climate of mass hysteria, calling for even-handed common sense leaves one open to being accused of being a defender of Harvey Weinstein and the spawn of the devil.
There is never absolute proof in a situation like this. What it demonstrates is the present climate for over-reaction based only on one-sided claims and innuendo, and how an entirely different judgment is rendered if and when the accused has an opportunity to defend himself – which in the present climate of militancy many do not.
Welcome to the real world, where an embittered woman’s emotional essay probably contains all of those elements, plus quite likely selective recall, hyperbole, and absence of context. Because … why not? She’s pissed, no one is going challenge her, and she knows she’s going to get lots of support.
Many others:
Last Friday, Lena Dunham and Jenni Konner, co-showrunners for the series Girls, issued a statement defending Murray Miller, a friend and writer on the show, against allegations that he had sexually assaulted the actress Aurora Perrineau when she was 17. (Miller has denied the allegations.) **“During every time of change there are also incidences of the culture, in its enthusiasm and zeal, taking down the wrong targets.” **
No one needs to be banned and nothing needs to be censored. This started as a social value and it should end as one, namely, we need to stop having hissy fits every time someone posts an accusation on social media.
See above. There is a growing groundswell of disagreement with that sentiment.
It’s an anecdote about the self-evident difficulties of defending oneself against smears in social media when the social media is exploiting a meme that has virtually turned into mass hysteria. I didn’t ask or expect you to judge, but I note that you did anyway. It’s not hard to tell who you think the guilty party is.
Losing your job and reputation is not a neutral situation.
Do you not pay attention to the context of the posts you’re responding to or did you literally forget what you wrote? You’ve consistently accused Biffster of discouraging women from speaking out simply because he thinks the doctrinaire notion of “believe the victim first, ask questions way later” sets a bad precedent.
Also, my post was not solely directed to you. I also quoted GuanoLad.
By this logic bad sex would qualify as sexual assault, no? Your example of child sexual abuse as an analogy is way off base for the simple fact that minors below a legal age threshold are considered incapable of consenting to sex in any context. Chloe is not a child. And she was not under any form of duress that would compel her to have sex against her will. If you’re choosing to have sex you don’t want to have, you’re not a victim of anything other than having bad decision-making skills. Quite frankly, I find it insulting to lump her in with legitimate victims of sexual assault who truly had no say in what happened to them.
Awesome post. I’ve been searching for that interview with Tarana Burke to post earlier; the posters aggressively arguing “believe the victim first, no exceptions” need to step back and realize what it means when the founder of of the #MeToo movement thinks it’s gone astray in its rhetoric.
A lot of feminists who fully back empowering sexual assault victims to speak up think the movement is treading in dangerous territory with the way accusations devoid of evidence are treated as factual and “mob justice” is swiftly meted out before the accused’s innocence or guilt is proven. It leaves the door wide open for vindictive individuals to spread career-ruining lies against the men they hold a grudge against, but expressing this concern, as you pointed out only invites accusations of rape apologia and victim blaming. Even on Straight Dope it seems a rational discourse on this matter is nearly impossible.
You don’t need a disclaimer every time you speak. Especially on a moderated messagboard.
There is no “climate of over reaction.” There is no “climate of militancy.”
“Embittered” is not a neutral word.
You claimed “Yes, we do know enough about Dysktra’s allegations to know that they were false.” Yet you concede that some of Dysktra’s allegations are not false. I should be welcoming you to the real world, a world where nuance is allowed to exist, not the other way around.
And nobody was going to challenge her? Of course people were going to challenge her. Just read the fucking thread. Hardwick is a popular celebrity. Of course people were going to challenge her and they did.
Bold assertion. I think a bit of context is in order.
Here is the talk.
From about 40 minutes onwards.
It is crystal clear (both from the question that was asked and the response that Burk gave) that Burke was talking about things like “pay equity” and things like “gender parity”. Should #metoo include things like “equal pay for equal work?” No I don’t. I think that would be taking things too far. Burke agrees with me. Dykstra wasn’t asking for equal pay. So I don’t think what Burke is talking about is relevant to this thread at all.
You’ve cited a debate. Debates have two sides. Often in debates people will take a "devil’s advocate position. So I’m not sure why this cite will be useful for me.
I’m well aware that there are a lot of people out there that hold the same opinion as you do. That doesn’t mean that your opinion is objectively correct.
What is this cite supposed to tell me? You do note that later on in the article Dunham apologized for defending Miller?
The “blind-spot” is a characterization made by the article, nothing to do with the hashtag at all. The blind spot belonged to Dunham and Konner and Dunham admitted it and apologised for it.
Yet another article Just Asking Questions. You are citing Page Six. The guy who wrote that article also wrote the articles “Celebs are ditching St-Tropez for Ibiza and Mykonos”, “Jennifer Aniston can still throw punches”, “Art exhibit features photo of Stormy Daniels as the Virgin Mary” and “S&M-loving Hollywood exec keeps job after man dies in his sex dungeon.”
The article starts with “The #MeToo outrage seems to be subsiding. The signs were everywhere this week.” As evidence “the #Metoo outrage is subsiding” he cites Hardwick going back to work, Al Franken suggesting he might run again, Aziz Ansari might get a season three for his series, and the stars of Guardians of the Galaxy have come out in support of James Gunn.
What a mess of an “article.” What a bizarre thing for you to cite in defense of your position.
And how exactly are you going to do that?
What sentiment?
There is no mass hysteria.
How the fuck did you conclude that I came to a "judgement? How on earth could I come to a judgement based on a few random sentences about a third party where I know none of the facts of the case?
I made some comments based on the information you provided. If some of the allegations were physically impossible, and if the minor claims really were minor, and if he really did loose a lucrative position and if we accept that he lost that position even though the company knew the allegations were physically impossible, then the fault lies entirely with the company that made the decision not to offer him the lucrative position. Because it appears they had all the information at hand to make the “correct decision” but they chose not too. That is their fault. Not the fault of a hashtag.
For starters I do not hold to nor do I defend the doctrine of “believe the victim first, ask questions way later”. So to assert that I have consistently accused Biffster of discouraging women from speaking out because he thinks something that I don’t necessarily hold to “sets a bad precedent” doesn’t hold water. It means you haven’t been paying attention to anything I’ve said in this thread.
Secondly, in context my post was refering to an earlier post by Biffster, this one here:
My question to Biffster was:
Biffster’s response, as you can see, is to assert that is is the former. And he bases that on a fairy tale.
My contention is that a “cry wolf routine” is not what stops people coming forward with their stories.
Getting branded as a liar is one of the things that stops people from coming forward with their stories. There is plenty of evidence to back that assertion up. So I’m entirely comfortable with what I have claimed in this thread.
If you were only responding to GuanoLad then only quote GuanoLad.
But you quoted me. So here I am, responding to you.
It wasn’t “logic.” It was a “general statement.” There exist subtleties and nuances. If you would like to examine the subteties and nuances then google is your friend.
It isn’t “way off base.” Its extreme and its extreme on purpose to hammer home the point.
“If a battered wife chooses to go home to a husband who beats her every night you’re not a victim of anything other than having bad decision-making skills.”
Should I care if you “feel insulted” by my choice of analogy?
Okay, at this point I can no longer assume your arguments are in good faith. This is like arguing with someone in the Mary Sue comment section, where the endgame is winning the upper hand and being “right” no matter what. I’ll just bow out of this thread for now since no new information has arisen regarding the Dykstra/Hardwick affair and we’re just going in circles with the same arguments and no one’s perspective budging an inch.
I think you’re confused about the whole topic of consent. Your battered wife analogy also does not work. Chloe never suggested that Chris battered her; in fact, in some of her video blogs from the same time period she describes what a wonderful boyfriend he is. Either she’s lying in those vlogs or she’s lying in her essay. One way or the other, she’s lying. As far as consent, how exactly do you “let someone sexually assault you”? If she consented, it wasn’t sexual assault. It may not have been very satisfying sex, but it wasn’t sexual assault. You seem to ignore these rather important points.
Thank you, but going back and forth in this thread feels mentally exhausting when no fruitful discussion is being achieved here. Hopefully this story concludes with definitive clarity on what actually happened, because this cloud of suspicion that’s hovering on Dykstra and Hardwick hurts both parties and isn’t the least bit helpful to the discourse on #MeToo, whatever it means at this point.
After seeing the leader of your country get nearly torpedoed by incredibly vague and old accusations of sexual misconduct seemingly dug up out of nowhere with highly questionable timing, you become acutely sensitive to a well intended movement put at risk of being reduced to a vehicle for political/personal revenge. That’s absolutely not what we need right now.
…for what its worth: your commentary posts are amusing, but your characterization of posts that you disagree with as “loaded” and as a “shitstorm of emotion” really are a distortion of what is being posted in this thread. What you characterize as “island’s of sanity” and “well researched” really are nothing of the sort when you actually take a closer look.
I don’t have the temperament or patience right now to go through point by point, but I just want to highlight two responses that are particularly breathtaking in their fatuousness.
What Burke is talking about in the Atlantic article is clearly, absolutely, dead-on exactly relevant to this thread because ALL of Dysktra’s complaints and accusations – every single one, without exception – were all in this new extended periphery totally unrelated to the original #MeToo movement, this new “big tent, flinging its flaps ever wider”, as the Atlantic describes it. Yet such is the mass hysteria that the movement has whipped up that Dysktra’s little essay engendered all the shock and awe of the sexual predation charges against Cosby and Weinstein.
Sorry, I’m not going to go through a YouTube video looking for someone giving one response in the context of one question when an excellent summary of the whole matter has already been provided by a reputable journalist writing for a highly reputable magazine, and it’s clear that Burke feels the inappropriate expansion of the movement she started extends to much more than just “pay equity” – it in fact extends to everything that isn’t sexual violence, and thus everything that Dysktra was complaining about. From the article, with emphasis by me:
Under its broadened banner came conversations, wide and narrow at once, about complicities, and celebrities, and pay disparities, and power structures, and whisper networks, and affirmative consent … It is a common phenomenon, this impulse to crowd many things under a single tent that goes from big to bigger.
… #MeToo, that vast and disembodied and ongoing protest march, has been subject to similar dynamics: the big tent, flinging its flaps ever wider; the entropic impulse as both a matter of promise and a matter of peril … Has #MeToo, reconfigured as a broad attempt to rectify a broad host of wrongs, lost the plot? Has it dilated to its detriment?
Tarana Burke says, emphatically, yes. At the Aspen Ideas Festival, co-hosted by the Aspen Institute and The Atlantic, Burke pointed back to Milano’s October tweet—which was not, Burke noted, about pay equity, or representation in the workplace, or power dynamics in a misogynistic culture … but about sexual violence, full stop. “Part of the challenge that we have right now,” Burke said, “is everybody trying to couch everything under #MeToo.”
It’s supposed to tell you that Dunham and Konner believe Miller is innocent and went on record to say so.
The last bit is fascinating and I’m glad you mentioned it. After standing up for Miller, Dunham did apparently tweet an apology, and the basis of the apology was not that she now doubted his innocence, the basis of the apology was that women needed to stand in solidarity when an accusation like that is made. It’s a rather startling validation of exactly the point I’ve been making here: she was in effect saying that she was sorry that she cast any doubt on the politically correct presumption that Miller should be considered guilty as sin. Apparently the correct default presumption is that he should be stoned to death in the town square. It’s enough to make your head spin. And having made that tweet, she apparently promptly deleted it. She sounds like a very conflicted woman.
Or was there something different I was supposed to get from all that? :rolleyes:
So there are two things clearly going on here, well highlighted by those two points:
[ul]
[li]#MeToo is a big tent getting bigger and bigger, flinging its flaps ever wider, encompassing all manner of male transgressions large and small.[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]Any accusation made under this vast banner must always be considered the full and absolute truth, the accused male must be promptly vilified and cast out into the darkness, and the accuser must be made to feel welcome with a round of applause, a complimentary cocktail, and a gift basket.[/li][/ul]