Hardwick is denying anything worse than a flawed relationship with some shouting occurred. Anyone who doesn’t know either of these people and is staking themselves to a side at this juncture may feel free to explain.
She has a lot to lose by posting what she did, including being called a liar and shunned by people in power. She is not suing him or pressing charges for personal gain, but was telling her story as a way to help other young women. This is credible motivation and it fits with the long history of people writing about trauma to heal and to help someone else avoid what they suffered through.
His denial is expected, as he has a lot to gain from this being denied. Further, he doesn’t even have to be lying. Most abusers don’t think what they’ve done crosses a line or is that bad- that would make them overt sadists and monsters. He probably truly believes it was nothing more than a high-spirited and flawed relationship.
My $0.02, FWIW.
…take five minutes to check-out “Chris Hardwick” on twitter and you will find plenty of people who knew/worked with both Hardwick and Dykstra and every single one of them sides with Dykstra. There are people who have seen the evidence stand with Dykstra. The Nerdist even “memory-holed” Hardwick. In contrast: nobody has come out in support of Hardwick except Hardwick himself. (And no I’m not going to cite it: we aren’t in Great Debates, and if you are that interested in finding out “both sides of the story” you can go look it up yourself.)
Fatty Arbuckle is the first example that occurs to me (he was falsely accused of murder, and though acquitted (with the jury writing a formal apology to him!), his career was pretty much over. This is not a particularly recent example, however, since it occurred in 1922.
Same here, and then my thought was “I had to go back a century to find an example”.
What does that mean?
It means they’ve erased him, like he never existed. Somewhat strange, considering he started the whole thing, but it’s since grown way beyond him. Currently no mention of Hardwick on the site at all.
I believe what she wrote, but at some point we have to get across the message that if you are in an unhealthy situation, get out. That goes for relationships, jobs, school, friends, etc. If you stay in a situation where you’re not happy, you have to take some responsibility for staying. Especially in a case like this where there are no kids or any particular impediment to leaving. If the only discussion is around how Hardwick is an asshole, where is the empowerment for women to take control of their situation?
This statement ignores the reality of what many people must live in, whether a mental, emotional, physical, or financial reality. Sometimes you can’t leave a job, because you have to pay your bills. Sometimes you can’t leave an emotionally abusive situation, because there are dozens of emotional and practical factors keeping you there.
I would recommend doing some reading of materials from groups that try to help people in abusive situations. The vast majority of them stress that you cannot put blame on a person for failing to leave. There may be all kinds of obstacles, and the biggest one may be that when a person does leave, that is exactly the time he or she is most in danger of being murdered.
Posing this as a problem of “some people aren’t getting the message that they should get out” is an extremely condescending and blind way of approaching the issue, no different than “people should get the message that suicide doesn’t solve anything” or “people should get the message that you shouldn’t abuse drugs.”
More useful messages we need to be sending … you won’t lose your income if you get out of this situation, you won’t lose your reputation, you won’t lose your career, you won’t be shunned by your social circles, your school, your church, your family, you won’t be homeless, you won’t lose your health insurance, you won’t be buried in legal bills, you won’t become the target of a vicious troll army … if we can offer those kinds of messages, that would be much more useful
Except most of that would be lies. It’s not the message that needs to change but the reality.
Another defense against a libel suit could be that - and I know this is a crazy idea - maybe she’s telling the fucking truth?
And people wonder why many women never come forward, or come forward years after the fact. This is why. There will always be someone, usually multiple someones, who start screaming about libel and ruined lives and false accusations and why didn’t she this, and why didn’t she that, and on and on, instead of considering the possibility that she’s telling the truth. Nah, that couldn’t be it.
Eeeeeeeeeeexxxactly!
Fundamentally, this is not a problem of “some people don’t get the message they should leave an abusive situation.” Fundamentally, this is a structural problem in our society that furthers victimizes victims who speak up or try to improve their situations. Our society isn’t built to help people save themselves.
I sincerely doubt Lemur is suggesting otherwise. I think he was just pointing out that Dykstra not naming Hardwick( initially )was not out of fear of potential libel as people were alleging - she could be sued regardless, because he was instantly identifiable. In other words madsircool’s argument that not naming him directly was somehow weasley kinda falls flat since there is literally no one this could have been.
Here you’re using the word “can’t”. Respectfully, that’s not true. You can leave a job, relationship, family, location, etc. There may be consequences which aren’t fun or are uncomfortable, but that’s a choice the person is making. If someone stays in a $100k/yr job that they hate and gives them panic attacks, that is a choice they are making. I’m sure in someone’s mind they may feel “can’t” is reality, but that’s shackles they are creating themselves. That’s the message I want to get across. If you’re in a situation you don’t like, get out and deal with the consequences. Or at least understand why you are not changing the situation. It’s not helping if we encourage a sense of helplessness to change.
I also worry if this viral social media world is encouraging this kind of victim mentality. Which story would get more likes and shares? One in which someone went out on a date, the other person was a jerk, and they left? Or one in which the person endures through long-term mental and sexual abuse? If someone wants attention and fame (infamy?), they may see this as one way to do it. Forge ahead through a tough situation to make a good social media post.
These “uncomfortable circumstances” are not trivial. And they aren’t the result of some natural law. They are the result of the ways in we have chosen to order society. We’ve set up a set of rules and institutions that force people to choose between insecurity in one dimension and insecurity in another dimension.
This is an attitude that reflects a lack of respect for other people’s lives.
This right here basically amounts to a fuck-you to your fellow human beings. When we can anticipate negative consequences caused by societal institutions and rules, it’s our duty as members of that society to change those institutions and rules, or to set up structures for ameliorating those negative consequences.
That’s why we have created insurance. That’s why we have created strict liability regimes for product liability. Because we understand that it’s unjust to make some individuals suffer disproportionately from a system that other people are benefiting from.
What doesn’t help is blaming people for the failure to make the choice you think they should have made.
This is such a disrespectful, dehumanizing phrase. What it amounts to is a weapon for defending the status quo.
Institutions and rules didn’t kept Chloe in that relationship. People break up all the time for all kinds of reasons. Like pretty much everyone, she has had relationships with many people that have ended for one reason or another. No one tried to keep her in those. If she was dating Joe Normal and broke up because he was boring and didn’t light her spark, no one would care or force her to stay. The same is true here. She could have broken up with Chris long ago and he would be just another name in her list of exes.
She got out of that relationship. It sounds like you’re blaming her for something further.
Not getting out fast enough? Do you believe that people are incapable of being tricked, intimidated, fooled, or mentally abused to the point of having a distorted view of the world around you? She clearly sets out how Hardwick systematically cut her off from any friends and supportive relationships. You’re essentially blaming her for the effectiveness of Hardwick’s ability to abuse her.
And almost certainly, at least some of that effectiveness must have its origin societal concepts of relationships between men and women, what men are allowed to demand, and what women should be willing to submit to. We still live in a world in which there are legal systems that say that a married woman doesn’t have the right to deny her husband sex. There are women in America still alive today who lived under such a legal regime. There are large religious movements in our country now demanding that women should be taught to “submit” to the will of their husbands and fathers.
Cases like this are full of the influences of societal institutions, rules, expectations, and assumptions.
But let’s look at the bare bones facts of this one case. Chloe Dykstra was in an abusive relationship. She got out of that relationship. She wrote a piece exposing her abuser. As a result, the public will have a better idea of what kind of person Chris Hardwick is and whether or not they want to enter into professional or personal relationships with him. It doesn’t seem to me that this series of facts should result in any criticism of Chloe Dykstra.
IF she’s telling the truth. Why do you assume she is? Is there any corroboration to her version of events? She doesn’t even name her abuser, which strikes me as odd. He denies any abuse. It’s a she said/he said story. Did she accuse him of anything illegal? Wanting to limit her contact with other males may be a dickish move (if it happened) but it is not illegal. Sounds like a relationship between two consenting adults that went sour. What does she wish to accomplish by making her story public?
Perhaps they are both right. Perhaps they both behaved badly.