You don’t have to take it to that extreme. It’s just the belief that you can decide that you meant ‘no’ after the fact, as this young woman is alleged to have done. I’m afraid that’s the message out there for young women, that you can decide you didn’t consent after the fact if you aren’t happy with the way it turned out.
Unless you tape all your encounters, of course…
“Grace” is in no crossfire, as her story was told anonymously. She faces no backlash or any sort of liability.
I thought the entire point of being an ally was to show support for a movement. How is someone supposed to show support for a moment if they are not to talk about being a supporter of the moment?
If she did go out and find the camera that he used for the purpose of impressing him, I don’t think it was to set him up for a public smear either. It was just to get him interested in her.
She wanted an encounter with him, and all the questions of the camera illuminate is how far out of her way she went to get that encounter.
Her identity has already been discovered, and she has been facing backlash.
She has no basis to complain about a backlash, she was perfectly willing to identify Ansari and let him face criticism. What’s good for the gander…
In the end I think there’s more blame to put on the journalist who publicized this story, and society for it’s many muddled messages about consent for both men and women. Even though I thought Ansari was a jerk before this all started up I’m not finding any wrong doing on his part. I think ‘Grace’ was poorly served by her friends and the journalist and did no wrong either up until she decided to publicly claim she was sexually assaulted by Ansari, something denied by her own words and actions.
We still need to educate men and women. Men are certainly hearing the ‘no means no’ message, but frequently ignoring it. The message to women to clearly say ‘no’ is either not being sent or being ignored also. I don’t hear much of a message to women that they can’t decide they were assaulted after the fact exclusive of compounding factors like physical trauma or intoxication. This affair has created a lot of controversy but is just obscuring the important messages.
Oh, I can see how what I wrote could be read that way. I meant that the acquisition of the camera suggests stalker-ish, obsessive behavior. She didn’t have any intent to smear him at that point because she thought she would begin a relationship with him, she’d be swept off her feet by a celebrity just as she began her career and social life in the big city, the sort of stuff that would be the subject of a Sex in the City episode.
It’s only when it became clear that there was going be to no relationship that, scorned, she decided to smear him.
I was not aware of that.
How did that happen? Did the reporter leak, or did Aziz?
Neither. Shortly after the date she publicly made a #metoo tweet accusing Ansari of being sexually aggressive with her. Her account was under her real name. Once the story broke, someone went digging and found the tweet. Since people put their lives on the internet, it didn’t take long for someone to find her instagram with pictures of her on the red carpet at the event where they met and links to her photography business. The attacks started coming and she locked down her account. So her identity hasn’t been confirmed, but all the pieces are there.
Ah, thank you for clarifying. I would have had a completely different reaction had Aziz actually outed her, that wouldn’t have been cool, even with him being under accusation.
I hope she doesn’t find herself in too much trouble over this. I do feel that it was the reporter who promoted the story far more than her for telling it that is at fault. She is entitled to her opinion, and if she wants to share, in private, that she felt as though she were sexually assaulted, that’s her right to do. But, to make it public, well, the reporter should have known better.
Good commentary from Samantha Bee: #MeToo Backlash | January 17, 2018 Act 1 | Full Frontal on TBS - YouTube
But this, of course, is the problem with the pervasive postmodernist notion that personal experience trumps all, that there is no objective reality.
Everyone is entitled to express their feelings, and to have those feelings “validated” when that means recognition of the reality (and perhaps anguish) of that internal emotional state.
But the idea that she is entitled to her opinion is actually nonsense, except in the trivial sense that nobody can control another person’s thoughts. A feeling is an internal emotional state, and nobody should ever deny the reality of someone’s feelings. But an opinion is a description of the real external world, and not all opinions are valid. If somebody’s opinion is at odds with reality, it is clearly not desirable to “validate” that opinion as a description of reality. And apparently that’s what happened here.
Her friends, and the journalist, did her a great disservice by validating her opinions along with her feelings. They gave her a “safe space” for her to recover from an unpleasant experience; but the problem with safe spaces is that they don’t test opinions to see if they hold up against alternative viewpoints and against reality. This led to the terrible decision to go public, where her opinions are inevitably being tested against reality and found wanting. I’m sure “Grace” is not enjoying a public backlash that should never have happened if she had better friends and a less unscrupulous journalist.
It can be “actually bad,” and he can have been a total asshole, and it still may not be (was not, IMO) a sexual assault.
Right, but in the prior sentence she says she eventually decided it was sexual assault rather than just an unfortunate experience, so clearly by “actually bad” here she does mean actual sexual assault.
The whole article is a mess, but it reads to me as thought her first instinct was probably correct, that this was just a bad experience, a mistake; but that she was egged on into upgrading it to sexual assault by overenthusiastic sympathy from her friends and a crap journalist.
I thought that was a pretty useless commentary that lumped alt-right and MRA types with many people expressing sensible opinions about this. Her main points were:
(1) Of course we all know the difference between rape and lesser crimes or just generally boorish but legal behavior.
Sure we do, except when we don’t. That’s why it’s not a “backlash” against the entire movement to point out that Grace’s accusations are unfounded.
(2) Hey, men, it’s not about you!
That’s a ridiculous statement. The movement is about assuring women’s agency and autonomy, ensuring that men respect that, and that men who violate that autonomy (to whatever degree) are brought to task. If that article was not about Aziz Ansari, why am I seeing his name plastered all over the news?
Of course, the primary goal of the movement is to give a voice to the many women who have been victims of sexual coercion. But it is also about specific accusations of specific men, including criminal accusations. When that’s the case, it’s not just the subjective experience of the women involved that matters.
Do you think Grace believed a crime was committed against her?
I mean, that’s not what she meant when she said “it’s not about you” but on the literal reading your point is fair enough.
Do you think Grace could have a reasonable belief that a crime was committed against her? I think maybe after her friends and the journalist were done with her she might have believed a crime was committed, though it sounds like that took some convincing, but I don’t see any reasonable belief here. Her own words (or at least what was reported as her words) don’t describe a crime.
I didn’t have the patience to listen to Samantha Bee. Did she somehow say why it was important for ‘Grace’ to name Aziz Ansari when she described the events of a bad date?
What would you think if the foot was on the other hand and it was Aziz who made a public account of this, identifying ‘Grace’ and telling about how this young woman was stalking him, coming on to him, starting to engage in sex with him, and then left because she changed her mind? Guys do that kind of thing privately, and occasionally publicly, warning other guys that she’s a ‘cock tease’ but doesn’t ‘put out’ (I may be sounding old here). There’s an outrage whenever that’s publicly disclosed.
Big time organized sports advise their athletes (almost exclusively men by definition) on protecting themselves from ‘groupies’ and scammers. Want to have sex with that young thing? Make sure she says yes, use a condom, keep the condom. Frankly, I’d tell them to get a signed statement from the woman giving her consent to sex too. They’ll have plenty of takers. Does every male celebrity have to resort to this kind of thing or can we have people be more honest and discrete about their private non-criminal activities?
She claimed to be a victim of sexual assault. Sexual assault is a crime.
If she doesn’t think a crime was committed against her, she has a funny way of showing it.
Grace’s belief is not a matter of opinion, unless the article is fabricated. She told us that she believes she was a victim of sexual assault. Are you asking if I think she is sincere? Yes, I have no reason to doubt that. I think she is sincere in her belief, but mistaken based on the facts she has presented.
You have asked me a similar question before, but then failed to explain what your point is in asking.
What did she mean, then, that makes any sense at all? The context was the publication of a list of specific men with a history of bad behavior. Sure, the primary motivation was for women to be cautious around them. But it’s only not “about” them in the sense that a warning not to drink bleach is not about bleach.
There is a point that we should not be listening to MRAs who say the bigger problem is falsely accused men. But perhaps the best time to make blanket dismissals of that is not when somebody has just been falsely accused?
No…?
I mean… why do you think she thought a crime was committed?
I understand, she is very shrill.