The Me Too movement did bring Harvey Weinstein to justice. And it did (hopefully) make some men at least for a time more cautious in attempting to victimize vulnerable girls and women. But it was always going to be limited in its effects. If a man commits sexual crimes, he can only truly be brought to justice through the courts. Online call-outs to bring a powerful offender down, without evidence to back the crimes up, may have little effect. And through the informal call-out process, innocent men can have their lives ruined, and there certainly were Me Too cases where men who committed relatively mild offenses had their careers ruined. “Believe All Women” doesn’t really work because some women (like some men) lie. The Me Too movement confronted society with the frequency and the consequences of sexual harassment and sexual assault, and forced society to take it all seriously. That much was good. But it’s hard for me to imagine where it could have gone as a movement.
“But it’s hard for me to imagine where it could have gone as a movement.”
Well, it went into ‘affirmative consent’ legislation, for a start.
What was the purpose of smearing Brett Kavanaugh in this piece? He would be the example to use in demonstrating the damage done by nefarious use of MeToo. Instead, the author perpetuates the wrong done to him.
He wasn’t smeared. Here is what she wrote: “There was the emergence of grifters and hucksters like the now-disgraced Michael Avenatti, who first rose to prominence as the attorney representing Stormy Daniels in her lawsuits against Donald Trump, and later promulgated explosive (and ultimately discredited) allegations of gang rape by a then-teenaged Brett Kavanaugh.”
key words: “ultimately discredited.” No smear.
Three paragraphs prior to your citation she used his name in a less-than-flattering way.
Why mention him at all? He did nothing wrong.
I agree – the first paragraph about Brett Kavanaugh does smear him, and the retraction of the smear is only implied.
Why suggest that the Hollywood Reporter is an independent arbiter in matters concerning #MeToo ? Isn’t it the house magazine of the industry which has forever used the casting couch to decide which women and probably some men too gain fame and wealth from acting?
It is also worth mentioning that the #MeToo movement was hijacked by Democrat supporting actresses, who didn’t just use the publicity to further their acting careers but turned the movement into a political vehicle which protected Democrats such as Biden and exclusively targeted Republicans.
The demands that Weinstein and Lauer be punished were because the evidence in their cases was clear and the culprits were surrounded by people who were complicit at least in not reporting their crimes. For many women, the harassment was spoken and often not witnessed or perhaps made in a way that could be dismissed as a joke and not to be taken seriously or even simply just implied. Women often aren’t sure that an offer of promotion for sex was made until they see other women rewarded for accepting the same offer.
I blame it all on Ronan Farrow’s mother.
“à la the Yancys of this world”
Bloody hell, does no-one at Unherd know even basic French?
More generally, lol at the arc of the universe being long but bending towards everything being an Onion article: https://www.theonion.com/man-finally-put-in-charge-of-struggling-feminist-moveme-1819569515
Sounds to me as if Rosenfield is arguing that men are damned if they do (apologizing even for crimes that they haven’t committed) but also damned if they don’t (avoiding responsibility even for crimes that they have committed).
The primitive and profoundly cynical notion of “collective guilt” is inherently wrong and destructive. (One example is the belief that Jews of all times are collectively guilty for the crucifixion of Jesus.) This notion has been challenged effectively on moral and legal grounds over the last few hundred years–the results of which lie at the heart of every liberal democracy–but collective guilt remains attractive to many people on emotional grounds.
She isn’t arguing that at all. She certainly wasn’t promoting “collective guilt”. Are you sure you read the article?
She argues that men are guilty no matter what they say. That amounts to collective guilt.
Whereas you, sir, are innocent as freshly drifted snow?
Why the hostility? My comment was about a double standard. I neither said nor implied anything at all about myself. To make myself clear, though, I think that the notion of collective innocence is just as foolish and just as dangerous as that of collective guilt.
Lol at an article complaining that Ronan Farrow gets more credit than two NYT journalists for effectively the same scoop, which then fails to name the women who actually broke the story. More generally I find it absurd to attack Farrow for working on this important story and giving interviews about it. The fact that some other journalists were working on the story at the same time doesn’t diminish the importance of his work (nor does his article diminish the importance of theirs). Violence against women is an important subject for everyone, and discouraging men from speaking out about it and taking it seriously is not a positive feminist act.
Also surely Farrow was giving interviews about Weinstein because most (all?) of his sources were anonymous (and even leaving this aside not all rape victims are going to want to go on prime time tv to talk about their experiences). And because he was willing to go on the record about his belief in his father’s guilt.
There is no serious doubt in my mind that Woody Allen is the victim of Mia Farrow’s vicious false allegation.
Firstly because *four* child abuse expert instances, all working in Dylan’s best interest, thoroughly investigated the allegation and did not find it credible. Yale-New Haven, NY Child Welfare Services, the NY custody and appellate courts, and the NY adoption agency that granted Allen and Soon-Yi the right to adopt children after serious scrutiny. Moreover, not even the Farrows’ own hired expert and their attorney believed the abuse happened.
Secondly because the allegation itself stinks.
There is the absurdity of Allen picking this moment in his life to become a pedophile. Never before, never after. Precisely during these 20 minutes, when in a house full of people who were supposed to watch him like a hawk.
There’s 3 other reasons for my disbelief, having to do with the circumstances of Mia’s allegation.
1. On July 12th, Mia announced to the world that Woody was now out to molest Dylan. On Dylan’s birthday, she hung a note on the bathroom door that read “Child molestor (sic) at Birthday Party! Molded then abused one sister. Now focused on youngest sister. Family disgusted”. Three weeks later, she invited this Terrible Child Abuser to Dylan’s home, left them together, and ‘went shopping with a friend’.
What mother does THAT?
2. Mia ‘suddenly’ ‘discovered’ the abuse on Aug 5th. One day before she was to sign a hard-fought custody agreement with Woody, that had been months in the making.
But according to Mia’s attorney Martin Weltz, she had called him on the evening of Aug 4th (!) and told to not send the papers because of ‘disturbing news’.
Was Mia clairvoyant, eh?
3. There were only 20 minutes between Woody’s arrival at the house and Mia’s return.
All three nannies who were allegedly told to watch him, decided on that very moment to leave Dylan alone with him and ‘went to drink tea in the kitchen’.
A nanny who claimed to witness some kind of abuse, did and said nothing. Not to Woody. Not to the other nannies. Not to Mia when she returned.
Are you gullible? I’m not.
In sum, ZERO credible evidence was found for the alleged abuse; indications were found by the Yale-New Haven experts that Mia had ‘coached’ her daughter, and even Mia’s own hired expert testified that Mia had ‘set a tone for a child about how to answer’ to her videotaped ‘interview’ questions. And the above ‘circumstances’ 1, 2 and 3 should make any rational mind think twice before attaching any belief to Mia’s allegation.
An allegation, I should add, for which Mia and the other Farrows have *always* evaded legal responsibility. Mia never went to the police, Mia agreed to *not* prosecute Allen (but smear him in the media), conveniently evading testimony and possible perjury, and neither Mia nor Dylan or Ronan have ever taken their father to court. Not even to civil court, with its much lower evidentiary standard.
Only the gullible and the hateful will continue to present Allen as guilty, ignoring all the above facts. It is a bloody shame.
Bitter, resentful and jealous.
You refer to “they” numerous times… the willing participants in the poisoning of MeToo.
The “they” category includes most women.
This disjointed complaint is very similar to a high-pitched whine.
Probably one of the best examples of left, elitist, progressive hypocrisy – their defence for decades of a bloke, Allen, who shags a girl he raised from childhood. They still acted in and lauded his films until recently. They still stuck up for the child rapist Polanski until recently.
And even setting aside the accusation that Allen groomed her in childhood, as alleged by Farrow, it’s just so ‘flicked’ up that this daddy/daughter relationship came about at all. They just won’t call out the nakedness of their emperor-heroes.
I don’t believe that it is by any means certain that Woody Allen did those things some accuse him of. I believe that Ronan Farrow’s sister, for example, disagree with him and says that Woody didn’t do anything.
Men are bad, women are good. What don’t you understand about that?
It’s the brother, Moses Farrow, who credibly maintains nothing happened and it’s all down to Mia Farrow’s quest for revenge.
Allen deserves to be defended; his vengeful ex-girlfriend has committed a form of child abuse by inculcating false memories into her adopted daughter and blackening Allen’s name to his biological (in theory) son (who happens to resemble Frank Sinatra).
Pedophiles have previous and go on to commit further crimes. Allen has no previous, nor has anyone else accused him of pedophilia.
His affair with Soon-Yi showed very bad judgment but he’s made up for it by marrying her and staying married for the past several decades.
Woody Allen is innocent. That’s what you have stated in previous articles.
Of course you are going to attack Ronan Farrow.
But as a survivor of father-daughter incest – committed by a man beloved by his community – I know how impossible it is to know by appearances who is or is not guilty of raping their own children.
Because Ronan Farrow stood by his sister – a troubled and unknown young woman (incest has a tendency to make one “troubled”) – instead of standing by his rich famous and powerful father (which would certainly have been much easier) he will always be a hero to me.
But you believe that Woody Allen is innocent, so of course you would dump on Ronan Farrow.
Woody Allen’s guilt insults the vanity of upper middle class professionals. He’s the R Kelly of your class (R Kelly also married one of his victims to obscure his crimes).
#MeToo succeeded in many ways, and it has helped society evolve away from normalizing sexual abuse.
But this article is not really about #MeToo.
This article is about your belief in Woody Allen’s innocence, and by extension, your own.
Your personal history has coloured your view of events. Dylan Farrow’s story does not ring true in any way, shape or form. And nobody else has accused Woody Allen of any perverse behaviour, before or since. That isn’t how pedophiles behave.
There is no reason for us to believe you really are a victim of incest. You may be, you may not be. But it doesn’t make your point any more valid. You seem to think you can recognise guilt that others can’t. Presumably this is because of your past. But what is your evidence?
“I know how impossible it is to know by appearances who is or is not guilty of raping their own children.”
Thats fair statement, so then live by it.
In a criminal trial, someone who had previously been a victim of a similar crime would never make it on to a jury. Objectivity is impossible. Not just because their trauma potentially blinds them, but also because they will use their trauma to effectively bully other jurors into accepting their conclusions. If you don’t agree with the judgments of the former victim, then they will carry on as if you are further victimizing them. We see this play out all over the media in the age of ‘me too’ – believing an alleged victim becomes virtuous in itself.
Please read my other, long reply. I explain why it does not make sense to believe Woody Allen is guilty of the alleged abuse. It is a belief based on zero evidence, and in total ignorance of strong refuting evidence and totally suspect claims made by the Farrows.