Open Letter From Dylan Farrow on Abuse by Woody Allan

[sunny]

As a man alone on the street at night you would be afraid of being raped and killed by a woman? How likely is it that a woman would even try such a thing? How likely is it that gangs of women are lurking in shadows, just waiting for the opportunity to rape a man? Now I grant you, gangs of men have been known to mug, and/or rape and kill other men but how does that make it any better? How does that make the danger and fear any less severe for women?

EDIT: what word?

Sunny,

I'm sorry for your loss.

I already told you the word. And it is all over, conspicuous even in its absence. I notice you left it out of this post. Is that better or worse.

I'm not going to get caught in an endless loop of having to explain my historically supported feelings and opinions. Read my posts. I've explained. It is my truth. Take it or leave it.

[minime]

I'm not going to get caught in an endless loop of having to explain my historically supported feelings and opinions. Read my posts. I've explained. It is my truth. Take it or leave it.

Agreed.

[justdrew]

minime, I have no idea what you're talking about. Could you restate your point?

justdrew,

Hello!

Truly, sir, all that I live by is with the awl: I meddle with no tradesman's matters, nor women's matters, but with awl.

I say sir, do you mean a pointed instrument used to poke wholes in things? What a typically masculine choice of metasemaphore. I say good day to you sir. good day!

[BrandonD]

The specific topic of this thread seems more acutely related to wealth and celebrity status and how this gives one a greater leeway to get away with misdeeds, but the subject appears to have gone off the rails into "the tyranny of the patriarchy".

The negative things associated with patriarchy are infused to some degree in all our social interactions, so of course it is not absent in this case, but it really seems that this topic is more specifically related to the exploitation of wealth and status, and our inane western worship of celebrities.

If the accused looked like the exact same creepy old man that he is, and yet he was not universally known as the great and wonderful Woody Allen, then this case would most definitely be perceived differently. Doesn't that fact alone tell us something?

Another case that comes to mind is Christian Bale. He was recorded being an absolute insufferable asshole to someone, and yet we all witnessed scores of people rush to his defense ("being an actor is so stressful", etc). If it wasn't the great Christian Bale, but some random guy in line at a Whataburger, no one would have sympathy for him at all.

Western society holds celebrities to a different standard than ordinary people, and I really think that is at the crux of this issue. If one of the individuals involved was not a "beloved American icon" then I can guarantee you that there wouldn't be nearly as much disagreement on the matter.

[minime]

minime, I have no idea what you're talking about. Could you restate your point?

justdrew,

Hello!

Truly, sir, all that I live by is with the awl: I meddle with no tradesman's matters, nor women's matters, but with awl.

I say sir, do you mean a pointed instrument used to poke wholes in things? What a typically masculine choice of metasemaphore. I say good day to you sir. good day!

Awl in all, what could be less pointed?

[sunny]

BrandonD, I tried to make the same point on page 8 of this thread:

@Nordic--"There is truth, and there are lies. There's no "gosh, maybe they both have a point". No. Either the girl is lying or she's telling the truth. She has no reason to lie, and "Woody" has every reason in the world to lie until he's in the grave. "

Exactly, which is why I chose to stay out of this conversation. One of them is lying and I choose to believe it's Woody Allen. End of story.

Bill Cosby has been accused of multiple sexual assaults, by the way. In case anybody should forget.

Just over the last few days, George Clooney has been revealed as a boorish, oafish, bullying, entitled frat boy 'prankster' who once smashed Nora Dunn in the head with an apple flung at her from 25 yards using a car antenna. Obviously this wasn't a 'prank' but an assault, but it's treated in the following linked article as if it were just another of Clooney's 'clever' jokes. Akin to that time he took a crap in his friend's kitty litter. Why did he assault his co-worker? Because she was 'heckling' him on the set of Three Kings. People are laughing at this behavior. 'Oh that George, isn't he charming?' He not only doesn't deny it he bragged about the shot he made rather than apologizing to Nora for assaulting and presumably humiliating her at her place of work.

http://www.vulture.com/2014/02/timeline ... nking.html

This is the kind of obsequious star fucker attitude, relentlessly fostered by the media, that allows WA to walk around unashamed after being accused of child rape.

I made it again, from a different angle, on page 9

Powerful men infantilize themselves by indulging their every whim. Inevitably, indulging sexual whims while frozen in a state of infantile emotional development involves damaging children, girls and boys. The damaged boys however are left free to grow into power--in whatever sphere in which they find themselves-- and to continue the cycle of indulge/infantilize/damage. The girls are simply left vulnerable, body and mind, to serving the needs of powerful men who are free to continue indulging their infantile sexual whims, not only because society has generally internalized the 'rights' of men to do so, but women specifically have internalized the 'rights' of men to do so.

But this conversation morphed, somehow, into accusations of the existence of a She-Women Male-Haters Club here at RI.--then it got personal. All women know what I mean when I say that each one of us struggles with our own version of the 'patriarchy'- men who consistently belittle our fears of the abuse of power all men have over women.. one way they use this power is gang up to hector--debate! endless debate about whether SHE is lying--- and belittle us when we try to express these fears. It is tiresome.

[BrandonD]

But this conversation morphed, somehow, into accusations of the existence of a She-Women Male-Haters Club here at RI.--then it got personal. All women know what I mean when I say that each one of us struggles with our own version of the 'patriarchy'- men who consistently belittle our fears of the abuse of power all men have over women.. one way they use this power is gang up to hector--debate! endless debate about whether SHE is lying--- and belittle us when we try to express these fears. It is tiresome.

Understood. Unfortunately those in a position of advantage and power will always perceive efforts to correct that imbalance as a direct assault upon them. Particularly if they are not conscious of an imbalance, then it just appears as a group of people "going after them".

A good example is rich white christian right-wingers, they think EVERYONE is out to get them. Because they've reaped benefits meant for others to such an enormous degree, everyone else is seen as an assailant out to take what is "rightfully theirs".

Unfortunately, there is a physical imbalance in men and women that will remain for a while to come. I think that possibly this imbalance exists as an impetus for humanity to change itself from the inside, rather than trying to bend the outside world to suit our whims.

My first "love" and I talked quite a bit about this subject. She talked about this fact of biology, about how even a skinny guy like myself is still a lot stronger than she is, and said that she was angry at god (or whatever) for making women in such a helpless state relative to men.

It does seem to be a pretty crappy position to be in.

Haha now I'm definitely going off on a tangent. And right after I was talking about going off-topic.

[FourthBase]

If a virgin diligently researches and compiles the most sensible sex advice ever written, then yeah, why not. The message counts; the messenger, not as much. You know who I definitely wouldn't want? A sex therapist or skydiving instructor who was so proud of having personal experience that they didn't bother even trying to engage with particular details anymore, instead coasting on that perceived advantage in experience.

You know what I'm proud of? My activism, and my scholarship, ... but proud of being a victim in itself? Of all the insults and dismissals you've hurled my way in this thread, that's the most vile, fucked up, twisted, and sick thing you've said.

Maybe you aught to take a time out and reflect on why your argument depends on attacking the integrity of your opponents.

I shall. I doubt I'll concur, though.

Meanwhile, perhaps you could dwell on the possibility that you are, obliviously, a passive-aggressive bully. This is not in the slightest meant to diminish the importance of your personal history, nor to suggest you are anything but very intelligent, nor to imply that you are not entirely capable of being entirely rational, objective, reasonable, respectful, grounded, patient, wise, etc. But here, and in certain other threads, you impose your will too often at the expense of deliberation, fairness, rigor. You are a profoundly positive presence, overall. But you are continually unfair to me. You have misread me somewhere along the way as an adversary, and that misimpression has persisted -- willfully, I suspect. You seem to want to see me as an enemy. In some ways, I am, if the enmity we're talking about is my distaste for the absolutist approach you sometimes take and to which you then passive-aggressively mandate conformity from others. So, it's not so much that you overtly demand obedience to The Only True Interpretation, or whatever. It's that whoever disagrees with you, or ever takes you to task for some discursive party-foul as we are all prone to deserving, you wind up caricaturizing the messenger as anti-victim, anti-woman, anti-etc. and then launching an epic guilt trip. Or, an attempted guilt trip, in my case. Because: I will suffer none of that shit. Not if I don't deserve it. And, quite frankly, in every fucking instance where you've attempted to guilt-trip me, I have deserved approximately none of it, and it has been both easy but also tedious to have to thwart your attempts to villainize me, as I have done every single time in recent memory, using nothing but endless reasonability and a healthy, arrogant dose of earned personal animosity toward you. I'm doing it once again, now. You claim I'm making shit personal, and you always claim that others are always the ones playing dirty with ad hominems, etc. And sometimes, you're right. Someday you may even be right about me, lol. I'm sure I've been a douche to you here at some point in the past, well, probably. I've been a dick to everyone here, at some point. But on the whole it is you doing the personalizing, and you doing it unfairly, first. And then being called on it. And then calling being-called-on-it an attack. This is why I was not happy about you + modship. But you seem to be respecting the line between being-a-regular and being-a-mod, and I have yet to see or hear about you abusing mod powers, not even once, so bravo. I do actually respect you, PW. A lot. The fact that I call you on shit so bluntly, but thoroughly, should be taken as the sign of respect from me that it really is. I have no intention of ever being conscendingly over-cautious or over-sympathetic around you. I respect you too much for that. I'm not going to euphemise any contempt I might feel. But, yeah, I do have contempt for some of the shit you pull. Don't take it personally, I despise something about everyone, and there is hardly a fucking shortage of shit I loathe about myself, not least of which is my occasional tendency to be a royal asshole to others, so I try to be sensitive to that, more now than ever before, but I have my limits, namely, if I feel the need to be an asshole back to someone else who is being one in some way, then I'll let myself be as much of an asshole as I feel is required. You earned it. But I'm trying to be relatively nice about it. It's ultimately not your fault. You might not fully realize that you frequently bully people, and since you probably take great pride in considering yourself an anti-bully, it's unlikely you'll wise up to your own ironic bullying anytime soon. And I'm okay with that. I'll just keep doing this, as patiently as I can, again, and again, until it's no longer necessitated. And I feel this to be a duty, because this is an anti-fascist board, and bullying is kind of synonymous with fascism, and fascism in the form of passive-aggressive coercion is still a kind of psychological fascism. If you were to begin recognizing the extent to which I'm simply observing and articulating shit as objectively as I can, not only for my benefit or the board's but also yours, then it might even occur to you to thank me. You're welcome, hypothetically, in advance.

[vanlose kid]

He said lol. That makes it ok. Now say thank you. Don't be a fascist. Come on.

*

[vanlose kid]

Good thing all the woman in here have such a manly man to keep them in check. Can you imagine...?

*

[FourthBase]

Right, right. Reduce me to my gender. Great idea. Very forward-thinking of you.

[FourthBase]

Oh, and...

He said lol. That makes it ok. Now say thank you. Don't be a fascist. Come on.

*

That makes WHAT ok? What the fuck are you actually talking about? Did you actually have anything substantial to offer? Or just self-satisfied low-rate snark that's meant to be for you and your clique to enjoy amongst yourselves like sanctimonious insiders behind battle lines you've drawn as if this is war not dialogue? I am the Other to you, am I not? And my perspective must be invalidated, right? And you're...not being a bully? Why? Because I'm an obnoxious man who clearly deserves it? I mean, please, go on. This is more amusing to me than aggravating. Keep exhibiting the oblivious depths of your hypocrisy.

[Spiro C. Thiery]

The specific topic of this thread seems more acutely related to wealth and celebrity status and how this gives one a greater leeway to get away with misdeeds, but the subject appears to have gone off the rails into "the tyranny of the patriarchy".

One could say that this thread is about whatever any given commenter thinks it's about. I'd say it was off the rails when it started.

The negative things associated with patriarchy are infused to some degree in all our social interactions, so of course it is not absent in this case, but it really seems that this topic is more specifically related to the exploitation of wealth and status, and our inane western worship of celebrities.

While we're at talking about the exploitation of wealth and status, let's not forget worship's twin, the obsessive denigration of celebrities. Or, more simply put, making celebrity a test-case for society at large.

If the accused looked like the exact same creepy old man that he is, and yet he was not universally known as the great and wonderful Woody Allen, then this case would most definitely be perceived differently. Doesn't that fact alone tell us something?

Confirmation bias might lead one to believe that "the accused" is perceived as nothing but a "creepy old man". An objective perception would reveal that he is seen as both "great and wonderful" and creepy and old.

Another case that comes to mind is Christian Bale. He was recorded being an absolute insufferable asshole to someone, and yet we all witnessed scores of people rush to his defense ("being an actor is so stressful", etc). If it wasn't the great Christian Bale, but some random guy in line at a Whataburger, no one would have sympathy for him at all.

Horseshit. Plenty would have sympathy for him all the same. Every jerk has his defenders, it's just smaller scale and you don't hear about it. And a crapload of people think Bale is just an ass and nothing more, and have no sympathy for him. The common denominator, whether you have heard about the alleged behavior, or not, is that you do not know the person, or anyone else involved, personally, yet feel perfectly free to declare your opinion about it once you catch wind of it.

Western society holds celebrities to a different standard than ordinary people, and I really think that is at the crux of this issue. If one of the individuals involved was not a "beloved American icon" then I can guarantee you that there wouldn't be nearly as much disagreement on the matter.

Wrong again. People love to pass judgement. You could say we live for it. I daresay that "if one of the individuals involved was not a 'beloved American icon'--and it were being discussed on this forum--the results would be much the same.

[alwyn]

Right, right. Reduce me to my gender. Great idea. Very forward-thinking of you.

Projection much?

[FourthBase]

Right, right. Reduce me to my gender. Great idea. Very forward-thinking of you.

Projection much?

Great contribution.

Please elaborate on how this...

Good thing all the woman in here have such a manly man to keep them in check. Can you imagine...?

...did not reduce me to my gender.

(Edit: Or perhaps I'm misinterpreting, and you're suggesting that I myself reduce other people to their gender? If so, name where, and explain how.)