Dylan Farrow Responds to Woody Allen: 'Distortions and Outright Lies'

[seabeyond]

His op-ed is the latest rehash of the same legalese, distortions, and outright lies he has leveled at me for the past 20 years. He insists my mother brought criminal charges - in fact, it was a pediatrician who reported the incident to the police based on my firsthand account. He suggests that no one complained of his misconduct prior to his assault on me - court documents show that he was in treatment for what his own therapist described as “inappropriate” behavior with me from as early as 1991. He offers a carefully worded claim that he passed a lie detector test - in fact, he refused to take the test administered by the state police (he hired someone to administer his own test, which authorities refused to accept as evidence). These and other misrepresentations have been rebutted in more detail by independent, highly respected journalists, including this most recent article here:

With all the attempts to misrepresent the facts, it is important to be reminded of the truth contained in court documents from the only final ruling in this case, by the New York Supreme Court in 1992. In denying my father all access to me, that court:

Debunked the "experts" my father claims exonerated him, calling them "colored by their loyalty to Mr. Allen", criticizing the author of their report (who never met me) for destroying all supporting documentation, and calling their conclusions "sanitized and therefore less credible".

Included testimony from babysitters who witnessed inappropriate sexual behavior by my father toward me.

Found that “there is no credible evidence to support Mr. Allen's contention that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan or that Ms. Farrow acted upon a desire for revenge against him for seducing Soon-Yi. Mr. Allen's resort to the stereotypical ‘woman scorned’ defense is an injudicious attempt to divert attention from his failure to act as a responsible parent and adult.”

Concluded that the evidence "...proves that Mr. Allen's behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.”

Finally, the Connecticut State prosecutor found "probable cause" to prosecute, but made the decision not to in an effort to protect "the child victim", given my fragile state.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/dylan-farrow-responds-woody-allen-678552

_________________________________________


i am not participating in this thread. i am done. but, since woody has his last word, i thought it only fair, if any one is interested, to hear what dylan had to say. i felt that would be the very least we could do.

[Egalitarian Thug]

1. "i am not participating in this thread.", but I'm compelled to post it anyway.

Just go away.

More trash.

[Texasgal]

3. why is this trash?

Not being snarky, just curious.

[PDittie]

5. My opinion only

This topic and all its tangential discussions really isn't doing one single thing to help Democrats, point out the fallacies of Republicans, illuminate a social concern, or pleasantly entertain (as with the art, photo, cartoon, and yes, kitteh threads).

It's a lurid, back and forth, he said/she said with no positive outcome possible. We should leave it to those directly involved in the pathetic affair to sort it out.

JMHO YMMV

[Texasgal]

7. How does it not illuminate social concern?

is rape and pedophilia not a social concern?

[BainsBane]

9. It allows an exploration of rape culture

Last edited Sun Feb 9, 2014, 12:27 AM - Edit history (1)

An effort to expose the knee-jerk reaction to disbelieve rape victims and assume perpetrators are innocent. It is precisely that sort of reaction that leads to a mere 3 percent of rapes resulting in jail time while 25 percent of children and adults (mostly women) are subject to sexual assault.

People are now presented with evidence from a court ruling that the vast majority of what Woody Allen's publicity machine has pumped out is entirely without foundation or evidence. Yet despite that, too many remain intent to vilify the women in the story to protect the man, an accused pedophile. This exact thing plays out everyday in this country, and has taken place in the lives of a sizable number of women on this site. For some, our personal safety and equal rights are just as important as pointing out the fallacies of Republicans. Besides, most of the threads in GD that are political in nature focus on attacking Democrats.

Woody Allen's statement is in a very active thread in this forum. Why is it that you choose to condemn the statement of the victim herself? Many of us have been told to stay silent for far too long. I am glad that Dylan found the courage to speak out despite messages that she should stay silent. Women have the right to speak in public about issues that concern us, and the issue of rape and child abuse have been central to far too many of our lives.

If you want to look at exclusively political content, there is a politics forum.

[roguevalley]

25. I'm of the opinion I can think of more than one thing at a time and given the amount of

shit that women have suffered by the male gender the last few, this is front and central to me.

[delrem]

32. I see. The only thing that matters is whether IYO a discussion "helps Democrats". Cool. nt

[pnwmom]

138. There are serious issues here of whether Allen's power, money, and influence

kept the public and the Yale-New Haven team from taking these charges seriously.

Last I heard, Democrats and progressives cared about such issues.

[Egalitarian Thug]

8. For the same reason all of these posts are, this is entirely irrelevant.

It is simply a rehashing of an incident from over two decades ago being propelled by someone that is looking for a payday.

What did or did not happen then has absolutely nothing to do with any of us, just as any conclusion, if there were any possibility of one, would have absolutely no relevance to anyone not personally involved. This is nothing but a fucked up person trying to cash in now on a previously lost opportunity to cash in on reflected fame.

I have no opinion one way or the other. I think that Woody Allen's early work was funny, but after he got big it became neurotic and self-indulgent, just like he is.

I do think that there is gigantic problem with Americans being so obsessed with celebrity that they are happy to ignore real issues that will have real effects on their real lives, and that is a big part of this shitstorm of posts on what boils down to a family fight.

"Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people." - Eleanor Roosevelt

[BainsBane]

10. What payday?

There is no payday for Dylan. She is not cashing in. That is ludicrous.

It most certainly has something to do with some of us. A good number of members of this site have been victims of child abuse and rape. We have a right to talk about issues like this that have been central to our lives. I already explained this point here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4467972

[Texasgal]

11. I'm sorry you feel that way.

I personally find it important that victims speak out even if it has been 20 years. If we can discuss the issue of shame that comes with rape and pedophilia the more we try to understand it.

I wasn;t aware that Dylan is requesting money. Have I missed this?

[BainsBane]

13. She isn't.

[awoke_in_2003]

22. No, you didn't miss anything...

if she were going for money, people would be posting non-stop about it.

[Major Nikon]

70. Dylan didn't, Mia did

Mr. Dershowitz's testimony focused on a meeting last Aug. 13 in the Manhattan offices of one of Mr. Allen's lawyers. At that meeting -- held on the day Mr. Allen filed his custody lawsuit, and a few days before Mr. Allen made Ms. Farrow's charges public at a news conference -- lawyers for both sides had met to see if they could come to some agreement on the terms of a settlement.

The discussions, both sides agree, were centered on the issues of money and visiting rights for Mr. Allen for the couple's three children, Dylan, 7, Satchel, 5, and Moses, 14. Neither issue was resolved, both sides say. But one of Mr. Allen's lawyers, Irwin Tenenbaum, testified last week that two of Ms. Farrow's representatives -- Mr. Dershowitz and David Levett, a Connecticut lawyer -- had said that Dylan's charges could be made to "go away" if Mr. Allen made a lump sum of from $5 million to $8 million.

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/04/16/nyregion/dershowitz-says-farrow-involved-him.html

[pnwmom]

140. You linked to Alan Derschowitz denying under oath that such an offer was made.

That doesn't prove your point.

[Bonobo]

143. I read the link. It is a weasely non-denial to be honest.

But one of Mr. Allen's lawyers, Irwin Tenenbaum, testified last week that two of Ms. Farrow's representatives -- Mr. Dershowitz and David Levett, a Connecticut lawyer -- had said that Dylan's charges could be made to "go away" if Mr. Allen made a lump sum of from $5 million to $8 million.

Mr. Levett, testifying immediately before Mr. Dershowitz, denied that there was any connection between the monetary proposal and the charges, which remain under investigation by Connecticut authorities. Offer to IntercedeStop Inquiry

Asked by Ms. Farrow's lawyer, Gerald Walpin, whether the money was linked to an offer to drop the charges, Mr. Levett said: "Absolutely not. It was clear that was an independent state investigation. We had no control over that."

Mr. Dershowitz echoed Mr. Levett's testimony. But he acknowledged that a proposal was made to intercede in the child-abuse investigation in favor of a private settlement. He added that the offer "was not premised on any payments."

[Major Nikon]

165. Dershowitz's version is brilliantly pathetic

He portrays himself as just a friend trying to help people out of a difficult situation and save their careers (albeit a friend who no doubt takes his own significant cut from the payday).

So one way to look at it is you have arguably the most notorious walking/talking parody of the stereotypical crooked lawyer in America doing his good deed for the day. Another way to look at is he's telling Allen to pay them between $5 and 8 million or his career as he knows it will be over the next week.

[reddread]

160. just a smoking gun

that was some decent reporting there.
Those were the days.
Who brings in Dershowitz?
I mean, besides Claus Von Bulow, Leona Helmsley, Mike Tyson and OJ Simpson?

[red dog 1]

190. + 1

[Major Nikon]

161. You should read it again

First of all, Dershowitz is a shitbag lawyer that represents shitbags, so if you put a lot of stock in what he swears to under oath I'd say you're a bolder investor than I am. Note how Derschowitz claims he "isn't that type of lawyer" as if anyone is really going to believe that.

Next, Dershowitz does not deny an offer was made. In fact he specifically admits there was. His claim was there was no onus between the offer and Farrow dropping the matter with the police, as if Allen was supposed to pay her $8 million just for shits and giggles. If you believe that, I have a bridge for sale.

Finally, two other lawyers testified under oath that Derschowitz did offer that deal. So the evidence actually is there. You just selectively decided to believe Derschowitz who is far less believeable seeing as how his testimony and alternate explanation reeks of the bullshit. Had Derschowitz admitted to what is plainly obvious he would have been disbarred and possibly even prosecuted for extortion or conspiracy to extortion. Derschowitz might be a crooked shitbag lawyer, but he isn't a monumentally stupid crooked shitbag lawyer.

[reddread]

162. can I rec this post?

or should I rec the whole thread because you posted in it?
whats the proper etiquette?

[Major Nikon]

163. The only thing you can rec is the thread

[Bonobo]

195. So what is to be made of the fact that Mia offered her silence for 7 million dollars?

To me, it is clear cut that she is behind the abuse and behind the falsely recalled memories.

Minds are quite pliable at the age of 7 and if you grow up "remembering" (ie. coached) about something, the memories of the remembering BECOME the reality.

I have 3 kids, trust me. Anyone could do it if they applied themselves and I think Mia did.

[Major Nikon]

203. At least 3 different people said she was physically and emotionally abusive towards her kids

...which includes at least 2 of the kids themselves. When Farrow found out her romantic relationship with Allen was over, she also knew her time on the A list wasn't going to be too far behind. So from her perspective, Allen took one of her kids and the best part of her career. She had plenty of reason to want to get back at him. Both Soon Yi and Moses mentioned that you just didn't cross Mia or there would be emotional and physical ramifications. Now imagine growing up in that environment with such hate of Allen. Dissent wouldn't have been tolerated. This is what Moses said, "Pleasing my mother was very powerful motivation because to be on her wrong side was horrible."

To me the most telling part is where she told the doctor about her doubts as to whether Allen did it or not. This was after she made the tape of Dylan. So I think she may have even made herself believe it. Convincing a 7 year old of it wouldn't have been that difficult and after time the story becomes the reality. Even adults are susceptible to this. Two social workers with advanced degrees interviewed Dylan multiple times and were convinced it didn't happen. Not just that it might have happened, but that it didn't happen. The judge that some put so much stock in wasn't convinced either, nor was the appeals court. Dylan also claims Farrow wasn't abusive which is very telling. She must have known about it. Farrow had no qualms about hitting her kids around the help. The idea that Dylan didn't also suffer physical and emotional abuse from her seems remote.

[Bonobo]

206. Furthermore, Soon-Yi knows the deal.

She was there and old enough to process it all.

If Woody was a pedophile and it WASN'T Mia that was the monster, do you think she would have stayed with Woody for 17 years and adopted kids with him?

Further, those who put SO MUCH faith in this one judge's words are the same ones that disbelieve everything the Yale investigative team say, disbelieve Soon-Yi, disbelieve Moses, disbelieve lie detectors, disbelieve Woody, disbelieve 60 minutes, disbelieve the adoption agencies that do full investigations before allowing adoptions, etc.

Apparently EVERYONE is to be disbelieved except for Dylan. And that is not blaming the victim. That is disbelieving someone who SAYS they are a victim. Saying something doesn't make it true. Especially when there are SO MANY reasons not to believe.

[Major Nikon]

211. It's an appeal to emotion fallacy made by those who have a hard time making an argument without them

I don't think it's even a matter of disbelieving Dylan. She may well believe it happened due to her mother's influence, but that doesn't mean it actually did happen.

Farrow is even less believable. She claims she suspected Allen of molesting Dylan from the time she was 2 or 3, yet allowed Allen to adopt her at age 6. So one of two possibilities exist. Either Farrow was lying about that, or she allowed her children to be adopted by someone she suspected was a child molester. Either way, what does that say about Farrow?

[BainsBane]

220. You obviously can't be bothered to read the court record

Or you wouldn't spew such nonsense. The judge ruled there was no evidence of the crap from Woody's publicity machine you keep regurgitating. Allen couldn't even present any. Even his own character witnesses wouldn't testify he was a good father. http://www.scribd.com/doc/205403621/Allen-v-Farrow-Custody-Ruling-June-7-1993
That legal finding of fact and ruling has been posted all over this website. How have you avoided reading it?

Your version of the story requires believing only Allen and refusing to believe the many witnesses who testified in court, including a therapist on Allen's payroll that Dylan told about the abuse; including the witness who say Dylan return from being alone with Woody (which he was already prohibited from doing by court order) with her panties missing. It requires ignoring the fact that Dylan told her story to multiple people at the time it happened. It requires believing Allen's publicity mill over the legal finding of fact that shows NO EVIDENCE of implanted memory or brainwashing.

The judge also lays out who was there in CT on the day the alleged assault took place. Soon Yi was not among them, so your point is demonstrably false. Nor was Moses.

The court record makes clear, Allen's entire story about Mia is a complete lie. The judge ruled him "grossly inappropriate" with Dylan and denied even supervised visitation. Read what Moses had to say at the time of the hearing. The judge includes a letter from him to Woody. His story then was entirely different from what he says now, whereas Dylan's is the same.

When Allen dies, which can't be soon enough, we will likely learn a lot more about his predatory behavior from Soon Yi and the adopted children in his home, but then people will accuse them of lying too. That is exactly what enables child rapists to offend and reoffend with virtual impunity, while 25 percent of Americas are sexually assaulted at children.

[MindMover]

18. Much more than a family fight ...

[Skittles]

23. just curious who is looking for a payday

since no one is being sued and there is no book deal

[roguevalley]

26. go to huffingtonpost and read the court ruling on this. Then apologize.

Eleanor Roosevelt would be the first to speak about this because she is one person in an epidemic.

[delrem]

29. So, I suppose, you consider other rehashings of incidents from over two decades ago

to be propelled by people looking for a payday? As for example the rehashings of First Nation child victims of the Roman Catholic Church in Canada, which stretch back two decades and more? I know a lot of people think that way - after all, the Roman Catholic Church has a certain power, a certain gravitas, and a shitload of money.

I know a lot of people think that we shouldn't look back, esp. to events of a decade, two decades, three and more decades ago, in an effort to learn the truth, because that impedes the momentum of the status quo. Yes, a lot of people think like that -- or in any event, they think like that when it's convenient for them, for the status quo that they admire and that they ride to victory on. When preaching to others they change their tune at will.

But that isn't an historian's way of looking at things. Nor is it an ethicist's way of looking at things, and it most certainly isn't a way of looking at things that's compatible with justice.

[sheshe2]

31. That's just sad.

You said.

I have no opinion one way or the other.

Yet indeed you gave one.

This is nothing but a fucked up person trying to cash in now on a previously lost opportunity to cash in on reflected fame.

This OP has every right to be here. It gives Dylan a voice.

[delrem]

35. I don't find it sad. I find it repugnant. nt

[Whisp]

81. repugnant and creepy.

[reusrename]

68. "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."

[pnwmom]

139. Do you feel the same way when a man comes forward twenty years later

and wants compensation from a Catholic priest?

There is a problem with celebrity -- and in this case, the problem may have been that neither the public nor some of the "experts" involved in the case took the girl's claims seriously, because of Woody's celebrity and his money, and influence.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

207. Excellent question! nt

[itsrobert]

2. I'll wait for Kathy Griffin's opinion on this

Thank you.

[Eleanors38]

85. No, let's talk Justin!

[Cha]

4. I'm sure as hell interested..

fuck woody allen and his last word.

from your link..

"From the bottom of my heart, I will be forever grateful for the outpouring of support I have received from survivors and countless others. If speaking out about my experience can help others stand up to their tormentors, it will be worth the pain and suffering my father continues to inflict on me. Woody Allen has an arsenal of lawyers and publicists but the one thing he does not have on his side is the truth. I hope this is the end of his vicious attacks and of the media campaign by his lawyers and publicists, as he’s promised. I won't let the truth be buried and I won't be silenced."

Bless her heart..

thanks seabeyond

[kickysnana]

6. I believe Dylan and I have been boycotting Woody Allen productions since the Soon-Yi outrage....

It makes my skin crawl to look at him now. So many ugly people on DU these days but there is some truth and this is some of it.

Thanks (and ignore the Woody Allen Cult members.)

[awoke_in_2003]

24. The whole Soon-Yi thing...

makes me lean toward believing he is a pedophile.

[CSStrowbridge]

46. What?

Soon-Yi was 20 when they started their affair. She was 22 when Mia Farrow found out. How does this have anything to do with pedophilia?

[Nye Bevan]

56. Marrying one of your children's siblings is very creepy (nt)

[Scootaloo]

66. "Creepy" is too shorthand

Woody Allen began a sexual relationship with a young woman who was his current girlfriend's daughter, and sibling to the children Allen was a parent to as much as anyone could claim to be. In doing this he displayed a startling lack of empathy towards his own family - to Mia, to the other children, and yes to Soon-Yi as well. It was an eminently self-centered act. More, it illustrated a lack of restraint, no concept of boundaries - apparently, no line was too broad for Allen to cross to get his dick wet.

I have no idea if he raped Dylan. That's true. I wasn't there. I don't have hard evidence. only these two people (and perhaps a babysitter, I'd heard? ) saw what went on firsthand.

That said, there are three things I know for certain.

1) Childhood fantasies do not remain "real" into adulthood. While you can convince a young child to believe something, they can and do grow out of it. They may retain the "memories," but they lack the depth and detail and reality of actual experience. i know this because this is some shit my parents tried to pull on my sister and I during their grotesque divorce. Kids can be coached, but they can't be programmed.

2) Women do not make claims of rape lightly, for reasons DUers have been making cery clear in these threads - they are called liars, they are accused of seeking payouts, there are allegations that they're living in fantasy worlds, or even that htye somehow invited the rape (luckily, DU seems to have avoided that one!) Basically a woman who comes out as a rape victim is setting herself up to be dragged through thorns and over hot coals. Coming out with it can be as destructive as the assault itself was, perhaps even moreso in some cases, as it can destroy entire families and relationships.

3) Woody Allen is a self-absorbed narcissist who is obsessed with sex. He seems to have no concept of other people, or the impact his actions will have on even those people closest to him - it's all about Woody's woody.

These three facts converge to make me stand with Dylan, at least to give her the benefit of the doubt. I find it far more likely that a girl told hte truth and the cops dismissed her because the accused was a wealthy and famous man, than woody's version where there's an enormous conspiracy aimed at him because Mia Farrow is jealous.

[awoke_in_2003]

67. Thanks Scoot...

you summed up what I was thinking

[reusrename]

69. Yep, it goes waaay beyond just being creepy. It's pathological.

My guess is that Roman Polanski's notoriety had a lot to do with his fixation about raping a child.

I've also come to the conclusion that childhood memories are much more robust than I thought.

[Major Nikon]

71. That works both ways

Mia is the one palling around with Roman Polanski.

Just sayin'

[reusrename]

73. Just curious, but did you think about what you just posted?

Hopefully this isn't some attempt at a joke. I'm speechless.

[Major Nikon]

74. I don't think you know about Mia's associations or you didn't put much thought into your post

If anyone was fixated on Roman Polanski it was Mia. She still considers him a "good friend" to this day. This is a man who actually admitted to and was convicted for drugging and raping a child. If this doesn't tell you something, I'm not sure what more there is to say.

[reusrename]

75. What is it supposed to tell me, exactly?

Mia goes for pedophiles, ergo Woody Allen must be one?

Something else?

[Major Nikon]

77. You're the one asking me if I thought about what I posted

I'm asking you the same thing.

[BainsBane]

78. What does it tell you?

About Dylan's truthfulness? Exactly nothing. All your distractions in this thread say exactly nothing about the case. Dylan accused Woody Allen, as the court record makes abundantly clear. Dylan is the one speaking out publicly now, which has nothing to do with Mia's request for child support or palimony.

As much as you or others might think Allen should not be responsible for child support or palimony, that is irrelevant to Dylan's charges in 92 or her decision go public this week. Pointing to Mia is only an transparent effort to distract from Dylan's accusations. That is indeed Woody's intent in promoting that story through his publicity machine. That you swallow it whole is unfortunate, particularly when there is a court record that proves that virtually none of what Allen claimed has ANY evidentiary basis. In fact, Allen himself was able to provide no evidence of any brainwashing or implanted memories in the custody suit he waged.

This is the document from Woody Allen's suit for custody against Farrow. It lays out the facts of the case as much as anyone can know them without having been with Dylan and Woody that day. http://www.scribd.com/doc/205403621/Allen-v-Farrow-Custody-Ruling-June-7-1993

Dylan told her story several times independently, including to a therapist hired by Allen, who eventually reported it to NY Child service. Dylan told the story to the family doctor, who reported it to CT officials. A babysitter saw Dylan return from being alone with Allen, something already prohibited by court order--with her underwear missing. The babysitter told her employer, who then told Mia, who then asked Dylan what had happened. Woody's entire story is concocted. He presented the court with no evidence of brainwashing or implanted memories. None.

How ironic that you are more concerned about Mia's association with Polanksi than with Allen's involvement with underage girls, the sister of his own children, and alleged rape of Dylan. I don't know the details of her relationship with Polanski and nor do I care (though Redqueen did post a GD thread on it this week) because It has no bearing on Dylan's truthfulness. Additionally, I have seen rape survivors repeatedly make excuses for accused rapists. People are made up in all kinds of different ways, and some react to trauma by identifying with the abuser rather than other victims. I'm not saying that is Mia's situation at all, only that whatever professional or personal relationship she had with Polanski is not germane to whether or not Dylan is telling the truth. It says nothing about the charges against Allen.

The continued efforts to point to Mia demeans Dylan. They treat her as incompetent, as unable to speak to her own experiences. It is incredibly insulting and dismissive, particularly when the court record establishes that she was clear and consistent in her statements to authorities, as she was in her letter to the Times this week.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/205403621/Allen-v-Farrow-Custody-Ruling-June-7-1993

One thing I have learned through all of this. It does not matter one bit how much evidence exists against a famous man, or whom he harms, some will continue to dissemble, deflect, and avoid examining actual evidence to excuse him and instead vilify women and girls. That is the essence of rape culture and we have seen a stunning demonstration of it this week.

You may believe the story you repeat, but there is no reason to do so given the actual finding of fact by the family court judge. Woody's story is without evidentiary basis, recounted here as a result of gossip and the spin of a publicity machine. Woody Allen is not a convicted child rapist. That is a legal fact. But there is NO evidence that Dylan was manipulated or brainwashed into giving false statements. If you are going to defend Allen, you will have to call Dylan a liar.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

212. I'm trying to figure out what you just said or meant. nt

[Major Nikon]

214. If that's true...

then why not ask relevant questions on what you don't understand?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

216. What? nt

[pnwmom]

221. I think Mia was to blame, too,

for going ahead with the adoption even after Woody and the children began counseling because of his poor parenting skills.

Mia's problem seem to be that she's too loyal to questionable men.

[Major Nikon]

222. Allen loves therapy

He has had multiple therapists before, during, and after his relationship with Farrow. The fact that he was in counseling is not really all that significant. It wouldn't surprise me if it was his idea.

What I do find significant is that Farrow claims she suspected Allen was molesting Dylan from the time she was 2 or 3, yet agreed to allow Allen to adopt 3 of the children when Dylan was about 6. So either she lied, or she allowed her children to be adopted by someone who she suspected was a child molester. The former seems to be the simplest explanation.

[pnwmom]

224. Allen didn't initiate that therapy. A therapist in the house to see another child

saw Allen interacting with Dylan and thought his behavior was inappropriate. That's why they went into therapy.

If she lied, then many other people lied, too -- all the people quoted in the Vanity Fair article, including the grandmother who saw him applying sunscreen where no sunscreen ever needs to be applied.

I think he had been engaging in milder forms of molestation for years before the incident that finally caused Dylan to tell.

[awoke_in_2003]

218. I wouldn't let any of my grandchildren

within a mile of either of them.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

210. And he's been in therapy all his life, and he half admitted a penchant for 12 year olds

and he was considered by the babysitters to have engaged in "inappropriate" behavior with the kids, and he married the sister of his kids, whom he parented for over a decade. A sicko, no doubt, even if Dylan had said nothing at all.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

209. Yes indeed. nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

208. Same here. The whole thing about him taking nude pics of a girl he was playing parent to...

is quite vomit-invoking.

[AnotherMother4Peace]

12. Thanks seabeyond - I've read all your posts about this & find them therapeutic.

I'm not ready to share my "experiences" with a close family member, but suffice it to say it was very similar to what happened to Dylan: age, imposing figure of abuser, word smithing, grooming, etc. I worry that he has two adopted daughters right now...

[seabeyond]

16. jumping and hurtlin' over all the other posters and tacklin' you in

a bear hug.... you bring me to tears. and i sigh.....

i wasnt posting any more in these threads in gd. but, you, anothermother, i want a hug

take care of you and do what you need to do. i am glad that women's voice.... even that child so long agos voice, was good for you.

thank you.

[AnotherMother4Peace]

20. ....tears - that's all - tears.... Dylan is very brave & I'm glad she has her family's support nt

[seabeyond]

21. .

[pnwmom]

141. I was shocked to find that he had been allowed to adopt two more daughters

after losing visitation with Dylan. And then I read that in the case of the adoption of Dylan, Moses, and Ronan, that judge had been happy to waive the home study because he was so impressed with Allen.

I'm guessing that's what happened with the judge who allowed the other adoptions. He was so star-struck he didn't protect those children. What a disgrace.

I'm so sorry about what happened to you, AnotherMOther4Peace. I am close to a young woman in your situation, and I ache for her and all the others who hold a secret like this . . . and I can't imagine how painful it must be for people like you to view the backlash against Dylan.

[sheshe2]

14. Yes, I have seen and read some of those posts.

I refused to post on the others, so this my first. The rest has just pissed me off.

I stand with Dylan.

I won't let the truth be buried and I won't be silenced.

No, we will never be silenced!

Thanks for this, seabeyond.

[Whisp]

15. I believe Dylan and I believe Allen is a sick fuck that

should not be allowed to roam about the world.

Folks, this happens all the time - just because it makes you uncomfortable doesn't mean it's not true and especially because the pedator makes movies should not be a reason to Defend his Crimes.

SICKENED by the some attitudes here.

Child rape and molestation is a sad fact of life and a sad fact that it goes on IN SECRET until someone speaks out.

And when someone speaks out they get treated like dirt and the fucking criminal gets defended.

I just hope that it's not your close and dear ones that get predatorized by that sickness that is in Allen. And I also hope you would't tell her/him to just stfu about it

[Shivering Jemmy]

27. Why is there a need to believe anyone?

Two claims have been presented. I am unable to evaluate those claims. Clearly Dylan has suffered tremendously somehow. All i can do is wish her peace and healing. And even that is pointless, as I cannot grant it.

I don't understand why everyone picks a side in these things.

[Texasgal]

28. Really?

You cannot understand why people pick sides?

Kind of like people pick sides of the political aisle?

[Shivering Jemmy]

38. No, that I can understand.

Generally a given side in a political argument has policy positions that will impact me and those I know. And my support of a given side can help those policy positions become reality. My lack of support can similarly hinder them, even if the amount of impact I have overall is very small.

In a case like this, though, it begins to sound like people rooting for a particular sports team (a phenomenon I do not understand either). And given the personal consequences for people involved, that seems particularly ugly.

There is a lot of pain here. My joining in does nothing to alleviate that pain.

[Texasgal]

40. I find trying to understand

pedophilia and the impact it has is kind of an important issue even if people disagree with the victim. That's just my opinion.

[BainsBane]

41. One can choose to resist rape culture

rather than propagating it by assuming a victim is lying or unable to tell what happened to her. One can stop standing up for pedophiles and rapists and assuming they have more credibility than children and women. One can stop telling women to keep silent rather than giving voice to their experiences in an effort to spread awareness of child sexual abuse and rape culture, and the horrendous indifference there is to it. One can realize that Dylan is like hundreds of girls abused by family members today alone. One can care about their experiences and think about what they can do to encourage prosecution of sexual assault.

One can recognize that women and girls are entitled to basic human rights: control over their bodies and the ability to consent, as well as the right to speak in public about their experiences and concerns.

[Shivering Jemmy]

48. I support all that

I have been sexually molested myself. Being a nonverbal autistic at the time, telling someone was out of the question. I suppose my abuser must have found me the perfect target. Because telling someone anything was not even something I knew how to do. Once I started speaking,talking about the event was difficult, because talking to my parents about my legos was difficult. Processing and communicating feelings...I still don't really know how to do that.

Because of this, though, I support individuals coming forward about trauma. They should be able to make their claims without any kind of negative repercussion or assumption that they are lying. Communication is hard enough without others making it harder.

Maybe it is simply the way my brain works. But when someone tells me something about themselves, I do not believe it, I do not disbelieve it. It is simply something they have said to me. But I never believe someone is lying. If I am very close to someone I can sometimes move on to belief when I am told something. But that takes a level of intimacy that I can't have with a stranger and certainly not from a person who only exists to me through the media.

I know from my conversations with others that this is not how they process information. I suppose that this can look like indifference to most people. But it's really quite different.

[BainsBane]

52. It would be nice if people could come forward without negative repercussion

but that is not the nature of the society we live in. This week we've seen a first hand demonstration of why that is. We now have a legal record that shows the overwhelming majority of what Woody Allen claims is entirely unfounded, simply made up. Yet people do not want to read it. They do not want to read Dylan's testimony. They want to consider only information that exonerates Allen.
That demonstrates why it is so incredibly difficult to get prosecutors to act on child abuse and rape cases. The fact is we have a culture that enables rape and child abuse through disbelieving victims and even refusing to hear them. That's why I take a side. I have a tendency to believe any credible rape victim, but when I read the legal ruling from Allen's custody suit against Farrow, I was truly shocked at how much evidence of abuse their was and how so little of what Allen claimed was true.

I'm very sorry for you experience. None of us should have to endure these kind of experiences. I believe strongly in doing what we can to encourage people to think differently about sexual assault and especially victims.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

213. I think it's because money talks. People are impressed by power, fame and money.

Power fame and money can do no wrong (to some).

[LostOne4Ever]

44. I think we pick sides on things like this

because its a combination of human nature and power struggle.

Not only do the people (on both sides) keep pushing this because they think they're right, but because they want to lord it over those who disagreed with them.

It is not enough for these people to state their position and case, but to present their view as FACT and to attack anyone who dares disagree for any reason. Anyone who disagrees is evil or stupid in their minds. This dehumanizing their opponents allowing them to treat them as sub-human.

Oh if you believe this you must be stupid and didn't pay attention to the evidence, but ignore that guys evidence because its not valid. Oh if you believe that you obviously can't see through your own bias like I can.

This in turn pushes others to take sides either for or against.

Just my 2cents.

[jaysunb]

126. +1 very well stated. n/t

[pintobean]

127. You're just trying to create a distraction

Actually, you nailed it.

[11 Bravo]

133. I value your 2 cents more than pretty much any other post I've seen on this topic.

You are exactly right.

[Democat]

99. If someone ever accuses you of molestation, pray others don't think like you

Anyone could, at any moment, call you a molester. At that point, will you become guilty because you were accused?

[Whisp]

113. Dylan's story is supported by others.

It's not an out of the blue accusation with no merit. The % of false accusations are miniscule, so this along with the history of this case convinces me Allen is a creeper predator sick bastard, but hey, he's rich and does movies and has all his finely dressed hollywooders praising him, so how could he possible be guilty.

I think what some want is an actually video of the crime so they can still find something to blame the child for, sit back and have some popcorn while watching.

[snooper2]

17. I've got the solution to this whole mess

They should all go on the Steve Wilkos show



State their stories, everyone takes a polygraph, the truth is known-

[HERVEPA]

36. Woody already took a polygraph.

[BainsBane]

37. You didn't bother reading the OP did you?

Dylan addresses that.

[CSStrowbridge]

47. Did she...

Did she address the fact that her mother refused to take one?

[Scootaloo]

65. Who is her mother accused of sexually molesting?

Oh wait

[reddread]

128. her brother, on the other hand, was sentenced for it

and if you were to simplify the notion of abuse being handed down, she may well have some experiences of her own,
above and beyond whatever age disparate relationships occurred down the road. If there was abuse, it should have been handled entirely at the time. If there was inadequate evidence, and that is still the case? Thats her failure.
lotta people seem to be opposed to systematic justice.
I continue to assert that if Woody is the monster people allege from the proximity of their keyboard, corroborating evidence will surface.
But it has not, has it?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

215. I thought he took only one arranged by his own lawyer, and refused the one the cops offered? nt

[MindMover]

19. The victim must be heard .. if we do not listen, we are a lost civilization ...

[TDale313]

30. Thanks for posting this.

She deserves to be heard.

[madinmaryland]

34. Aw, jeez...

Just stop.

[BainsBane]

39. This is the statement of a child abuse victim

It isn't about winning. It's about her having a voice. Go tell the people in the Woody Allen thread to shut up rather than being snarky in response to a victims voice. How long will people work to silence women and girls? Dylan is done keeping Daddy's little secret. Shame on you.

[madinmaryland]

45. Oh-kay. nt

Too bad Dylan is not done keeping Mommy's little secret. Shame on you.

[BainsBane]

49. WTF is that supposed to mean?

It's not the subject that bother you but that we dare post the victim's side? There is no Mommy's secret. The court record makes that clear. You want to believe the publicity machine of the rich and famous over a court record that very clearly states there was no evidence of manipulation or brainwashing on Mia's part, that's your problem. Only you're repeated crap that has been proven to be entirely without evidence in a court of law. You can be glib about child rape, or you can decide you do care about facts and that girls and women are not less important or less believable than rich and powerful men.

Legal Finding of Fact:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/205403621/Allen-v-Farrow-Custody-Ruling-June-7-1993?secret_password=2jgnvvvj4srefyj6ah9k

[Bonobo]

50. One person said there was no evidence of manipulation vs a team that investigated for months

and did multiple interviews with the child.

They CONCLUDED that the story was concocted and not true based on their experience.

A team of experts vs. one judge who did NOT do an investigation.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

91. The state commissioned the investigation and then discredited it when they didn't like the results.

Maybe he did it, maybe he didn't, but for anyone to act like they know for sure with all the ambiguity that surrounds this incident takes presumption to a level that can not be understood.

[madinmaryland]

58. WTF is that supposed to mean??

Apparently you want to believe the publicity machine of the rich and famous, so I guess that's your problem.

Has anything been proven??

[BainsBane]

64. Yes, it has been proven that Woody Allen's allegations against Mia are bogus

And that Dylan was aware of what happened to her and told multiple people. There was also a witness who saw her return with no panties from being alone with her father. You would know this if you had bothered to read the legal ruling.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/205403621/Allen-v-Farrow-Custody-Ruling-June-7-1993?secret_password=2jgnvvvj4srefyj6ah9k

If you want to claim Allen is innocent, then you need to have the guts to call Dylan a liar. Deflecting it on to Mia is a smokescreen that has no evidentiary basis, as ruled by the court.

[CSStrowbridge]

54. Silencing voices

I haven't seen anyone here saying Dylan can't speak out about what she believes happened. But we have to look at the evidence. If there were no investigation done at the time, then I would have been a lot more believing of her claims. Dylan claims the original investigators were loyal to Woody Allen, that's why they concluded there was no molestation. That's simply not true. They were an independent investigation done by the state of Connecticut. They concluded Dylan wasn't molested and was likely coached. And anyone who has taken even entry level university courses on memory knows your memories are not absolute. They can be changed rather easily. This is especially true with kids. Look up the Martensville satanic sex scandal. Cops can do this with adults all of the time, even by accident.

Additionally, Mia Farrow's behavior has raised a lot of red flags. If your daughter was molested, why would you support an admitted child rapist? If your daughter was molested, why would you allow your image to be used during the alleged molester's Lifetime Achievement Award? These actions don't make sense, unless Mia Farrow knows Woody Allen didn't do it and cares more about hurting him than protecting her children.

[BainsBane]

57. You aren't considering evidence

You are repeating what Woody Allen said.

Yes, he was not convicted of abuse. True. He is legally innocent. That does not mean he didn't assault Dylan. Very few child molesters are ever prosecuted.

There is no evidence of coaching. None. the court made that clear. You are not repeating facts. You are repeating the product of Woody Allen's publicity machine. You claimed the court record wasn't a primary source. That is complete crap.

I don't even know what you mean by "support an admitted child rapist" or the lifetime achievement award, but it is aside from the point. Mia is not the issue. The court was clear that there was ZERO evidence of coaching. None. She told multiple people from the start, including a therapist on Woody's payroll, and Mia was not present.

You are repeating a lot of nonsense and absolutely no fact.

So if you're going to claim Woody did not abuse Dylan, have the decency to stay on topic and call her the liar rather than trying to deflect onto Mia. That claim by Allen has been proved false.

Did you even read the Family Court ruling? Do you even care?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/205403621/Allen-v-Farrow-Custody-Ruling-June-7-1993?secret_password=2jgnvvvj4srefyj6ah9k

[BainsBane]

60. The court did conclude Mia was not a perfect mother

In fact, the judge said her primary fault was continuing a relationship with Allen and letting him near her kids. She made excuses for him for far too long. He was not allowed to be alone with the kids, according to the custody arrangement, even before the assault. He sued Mia for custody, yet not a one of his own character witnesses would say he was a good father. Not one. Not one recommended his suit be granted.

The judge spoke about how unusual it was to keep a father from visitation with a child. That the father is presumed to have that right, but that for Dylan's safety, he was prohibited from even supervised visitation. That is how damaging of a father the Judge believed him to be. His assessment of Mia was entirely different, which you would know if you had bothered to read the legal finding and custody ruling.

Family court ruling: http://www.scribd.com/doc/205403621/Allen-v-Farrow-Custody-Ruling-June-7-1993?secret_password=2jgnvvvj4srefyj6ah9k

[reusrename]

72. These kids that have been coached, they don't grow up remembering stuff that didn't happen.

Do they? I honestly don't know for sure, but I think that in every case they grow up without any trauma associated with the false memories.

In any event, Mia Farrow wasn't involved in whatever happened. She wasn't there. Her behavior doesn't mean a whole lot. And if she was making it up wouldn't she have a better story? I mean if we're going to speculate about her story, why wouldn't she say that he confessed to her or that he apologized or something? Wouldn't that be easier?

[liberalmuse]

42. Seriously

This family needs to get off of the Twitter and the Open Letter circuit and work their shit out. This is NOT helping abuse survivors.

[complain jane]

43. Amen.

[AnotherMother4Peace]

53. Dylan was violated & is speaking about it, how does this not help others in similar situations?

Hopefully this will help others find their voice and/or quit feeling guilty and/or know that they aren't alone AND heal a little from the damage. I admire Dylan very much, and her family. I wish I were as brave as she is, but I'm not... Pedophiles manipulate their young victims to ensure their silence. It takes a lot to speak out. Oftentimes the family doesn't want to hear about it, society doesn't want to hear about it. It just sort of messes things up. Intimidation is effective, and the perpetrator is free to offend and reoffend. Right now, I worry about Allen's two adopted daughters...

[liberalmuse]

62. It's a trigger.

And the manner her entire family is doing this is highly manipulative, which is another trigger for some.

She's a writer. I think if she were to tell her story through a book, that would be wonderful.

[cinnabonbon]

76. You'd be okay with it if it was a trigger warning on the articles, so you could avoid them?

Not trying to be snarky here, I know that triggers can be bad.

[liberalmuse]

129. No, not at all.

I guess what I'm trying to say, and very badly, is that I felt both Allen's and Farrow's open letters were very manipulative, and I detest being so overtly manipulated, thus the "trigger". "Now what's your favorite Woody Allen movie?" Well fuck, it was, "Sleeper", but I guess if I still like any of Allen's movies, I'm a pedo-lover who has contributed towards this woman's pain. Allen's open letter was no better in its condescension towards the Farrows and skirting his affair with Soon-Yi.

That being said, most open letters are manipulative screeds meant to sway the reader in a certain direction and/or point out the error of their ways. I'm uncomfortable with them, and with the entire inflammatory dialogue they've perpetuated, and need to look inside myself to find out the reasons why. Perhaps it's because I don't want to discount Dylan Farrow's very real experience, but I also don't want to point a finger at Allen, labeling him a "pedophile" without more information, and I really don't know how much more information that would take. You can't do one without the other, really. It's actually a horrible thing to not believe a victim who recounts sexual abuse, but it is also a horrible thing to call someone a "pedophile", so there you are.

[cinnabonbon]

131. I believe that survivors deal with trauma in different ways

Last edited Sun Feb 9, 2014, 07:04 PM - Edit history (1)

and writing it out is very cathartic. Some just want to avoid it altogether. Trigger warnings can help other survivors from dealing with scenarios they don't want to be reminded of, so in a way that is an arrangement that ought to suit both, while doing the least harm. I do not think that saying 'survivors should be silent because it bothers others' will lead to anything constructive in our society. It might encourage others to take advantage of vulnerable people, because they know that others will encourage them to be silent afterwards.

I am not comfortable with the letters either, because they do not follow the social contract that I grew up with. They are rude. If she was lying, it would be dangerous. If he was lying, it would be dangerous. Society tells us all that we shouldn't be comfortable with women talking too loudly about being assaulted - they're probably lying, and they're rocking the boat, they're destroying his bright future etc. But I am working on dealing with my knee-jerk reactions, asking myself whether those ideas are rooted in fact and logic... Or if keeping people from talking about sexual assault is actually just maintaining a hierarchy of power, where the survivors are at the bottom. If so, who benefits from us wanting the alleged victim to stop writing about her past in public?

I don't think this case has much to do with Allen at all. if she had been molested by someone else, I think people would have reacted in the same way. Hell, if the victim had been someone else, I think a lot of us here would have wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt, because it sucks when survivors are treated like liars.

(ETA: Also! Since we both were uncomfortable with the letters, I looked online to see if anyone had broken some of them down so I'd be able to see why they bothered me. I only found someone who broke down Allen's letter, but she manages to catch some of the things that bothered me and point out why they're problematic. You might enjoy reading it, too!

http://freethoughtblogs.com/ashleymiller/2014/02/08/a-thorough-analysis-of-woody-allens-letter-in-the-nytimes/ )

[AnotherMother4Peace]

102. Allen is the only one I see being "highly manipulative" & he has been for a long time.

And as for the term "Trigger" - This triggers memories of my own similar situation, and it triggers reminders that pedophiles work in similar ways, and that rich & powerful pedophiles have more resources. I agree, I do wish she would write a book. A book that will shine a light on pedophilia, and the damage it does. That would be a good thing.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

51. I see this thread has made some people very uncomfortable. That is a good thing.

I hope they continue to get Very UnComfortable as we get closer and closer to Election Season.

Women and Children have rights.

Get Used to it.

[mzteris]

55. Some of us

Become more uncomfortable than others.

It just occurred to me - I was speaking from one perspective, but maybe some of the supreme discomfort, and scoffing and jeering, and outright dismissal may come from a different perspective altogether.

And as I type THAT, I realize the reasons for the second may well be the same as the first.

Denial. Acceptance. Rejection. Remembrance. Sorrow. Outrage. Disbelief. Anger. Incredulity. dismissal. Loss. Hopelessness. Fear. Shame. At some time or other some of us or another feel all of thes things. For the same, opposite, or different reasons.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

59. yes, the turmoil, the pain. I see it, too -- yanno what they say:

The truth will set you free but first, it hurts like hell.

No Pain, No Gain.

The unsettling realization that all is not what it seems.

The questioning.

The upsetting of the Status Quo.

Old White Men are being challenged and it is scary to/for them.

I seek to overturn Patriarchy not for Matriarchy but, for Fraternity.

That we all become kinder one to another.

[mzteris]

61. Sometimes it hurts too much

And you can never truly be free.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

63. True. I believe I am watching that happen to someone on this site. They are chained

because the pain is too much. They have rewritten the past so that it is comfortable.

I wish them well but, I can't hang around.

They are asleep. Their eyes are closed.

I am awake. My eyes are open.

I am moving forward and they are standing still.

[Waiting For Everyman]

79. This is old news.

The only thing new is Woody Allen's film award recently. This controversy is nothing more than an attempt to detract from that. Thus, regardless of the past, Dylan is the abuser now.

I never was a Woody Allen fan, I didn't like most of his films long before this controversy came up the first time, but regardless of what he did or didn't do, I don't think Dylan, Mia, and Ronan are any better.

This current episode is total bullshit and a manipulation of public opinion. The timing of it tells the whole story and shows it up for exactly what it is.

If Dylan had a case it would've been won in court at the time. She does not have a case. As far as the court of public opinion is concerned, it has all been heard before in the past. This is nothing but a rehash. This is Dylan's problem, not mine or any of the public's, and the behavior of her and her faction recently hasn't made me any more sympathetic to her. It also hasn't made me think any worse of Woody Allen than I did before, which is clearly what she was going for in doing this -- turning his public against him. Nice. That's hardly what someone in the mindset of a hurt little girl victim would do, that's a deliberately destructive action out of hate, and yes, hate will sometimes dare to falsely accuse. What we're being asked to just take on faith is that her hate comes from an an allowable reason, and it also comes off as very similar to her mother's behavior and m.o. in the past -- also looking to attack the public's opinion about him... frankly, I wouldn't be shocked if this whole thing largely originated in the first place out of Mia's jealousy of WA's career success.

This won't cause me to go see a Woody Allen film that I wouldn't have seen before; it also won't keep me from seeing a Woody Allen film that I would've seen before. There is no other involvement I have in this, other than whether I see or don't see his films, same as the rest of the public. So to me, this whole effort by Dylan was a fail. His achievements in film are a fact, and that isn't going to be erased by her no matter what whe says. And that is as it should be.

She is attempting to assassinate his lifelong work, and that is just as bad as what she's accusing him of.

[BainsBane]

80. "Dylan is the absuer now"

Little girls are supposed to keep daddies little secret and not speak out. God forbid a pedophile be deterred from continuing to offend. Make sure to shame victims so they learn to keep their traps shut. What does her life compare to a rich man like Woody Allen's anyway?

Are all those people talking about the priests who abused them also the abusers? How about the boys Jerry Sandusky molested? Do all abuse and survivors need to keep their mouths shut? Or is it just the female ones? Or just the ones whose rapists are rich and famous?

You haven't even bothered to read the record. You have no idea of the facts in the case, and here you are attacking cruelly an abuse survivor. I've seen a lot of insensitive comments about child abuse victims, but yours takes the cake.

[Waiting For Everyman]

82. And yet, nothing you said addressed the point I made.

I guess in all that angst, you forgot to.

Btw, what makes you think you know what I have read, or haven't read? That is such an odd thing to say. Well actually, all of it was weird. And/or factually wrong. It's par for the course, and only what I should expect by now, I suppose.

[BainsBane]

84. Which points of victim blaming did I not address?

I can tell you haven't read the court record from your comments. Actually I assumed. Perhaps you did read it. Perhaps you know that Woody Allen, while prohibited by court order from being alone with any of the children--returned with Dylan, and a babysitter saw that Dylan's panties were missing. Perhaps you did know that it was that babysitter--a witness--who then told her boss what she saw, who then informed Mia. That Dylan then told a family doctor and a therapist on Allen's payroll. Perhaps you know that her story was the same throughout as it remains today. Perhaps you know that the judge took the highly unusual step of denying Allen even supervised visitation with Dylan because he believed him a threat to Dylan' safety. Perhaps you know that the judge ruled Allen's behavior toward Dylan "grossly inappropriate" at the very least. Perhaps you know that Allen sued for custody of the children yet not a single of his own witnesses would say they thought he was a good father or should gain custody. Perhaps you know that the judge ruled Allen to be an exceptional bad father who endangered his children in a myriad of ways. Perhaps the actual facts simply do not matter to you.

Perhaps you do know that abuse survivors are human beings and not lesser than rich men. Perhaps you simply don't care. So you are right. I don't know what you know. I only know you have written the most cruelest statement about Dylan that I have seen throughout this entire situation. I only know that you demonstrate no compassion or concern for her as a human being. I know that your post blames Dylan and calls her the abuser. That is what I know.

[Waiting For Everyman]

88. If the court thought he was so guilty, the court should've charged him.

I don't recognize freelancers to the justice system.

What I do know first hand is my fair share about divorce and custody battles, and this story is one that very commonly arises in such cases. Lots of those charges are untrue, just as lots of charges of being an unfit parent are untrue too.

[Jefferson23]

83. Uninformed, completely and your claims are without merit.

She is attempting to assassinate his lifelong work, and that is just as bad as what she's accusing him of.



That is a new low...seriously, reconsider.

[Waiting For Everyman]

86. No.

(BainBane's comment was odd, and now here is a second odd one from you.)

Are you under the mistaken impression that you are a judge, or that you dictate my opinions?

[Jefferson23]

87. Cut the bullshit, I am not the judge, I read what the judge decided. I read the record.

If you like, I am prepared to go through each line of what you wrote in your post I responded to.

Line by line...would you like to do that?

[Waiting For Everyman]

89. Cut it yourself, and I don't care what you do.

[Jefferson23]

90. Typical dump and run. n/t

[seabeyond]

92. shameful calling an abused child, the abuser. she has the right to speak the rest of her life. every

person that has been abused as a child, now reads your posts... and those words echo. if they have not gotten past it, let it go, speak out about it in adult life, that now makes them an abuser.

grotesque.

we are better than that, regardless of our position on the issue.

[Waiting For Everyman]

93. That is so logic-challenged.

Similar to: if a dog is not a cat, and a giraffe is not a cat, then a dog is a giraffe.

[seabeyond]

94. seeing how i received a pm from another duer saying how hurtful your post was,

expressing exactly what i am sharing with you, i will say you are incorrect. not thinking this thru, what you posted. or maybe just uncaring.

i was out of this thread. not participating. at all.

and received the pm from a poster, that was hurt by your words.

take it for what it is worth.

[Waiting For Everyman]

98. Maybe that poster should've pm'd me, and not you.

However, I know for sure that I didn't make or imply any statement whatsoever about any poster here, so it should be crystal clear that nothing about any DUer was any part of my post.

ONLY YOU claimed I meant any such thing. YOU. You are the one being hurtful to any poster here.

I am just as entitled to my opinion, which I have clearly stated according to the rules, as you are. Or as the hypothetical poster you claim you heard from. Or any other DUer.

This is not a protected forum, this is GD. If you wanted this discussion in a protected forum, maybe you should've posted your thread in one.

[seabeyond]

101. the issue is not about a protected forum. it is about considering others

[Waiting For Everyman]

109. If you thought the topic was so painful, that considering others is a priority

over discussion, then you shouldn't have posted an OP about it.

This is about your effort to eliminate views that differ from yours. It won't work.

[seabeyond]

110. how many people addressed you about exactly the same thing? about me? hmmmm

[Waiting For Everyman]

111. What is that supposed to mean?

Is English a second language?

[seabeyond]

112. ahhhhh, you went to the little groups popular little diss, when no other "comeback" is available.

too sweet.

k

i am outta of this thread again woman. you have a number of people that have told you how offensive and hurtful your comment is. you ignore them, and instead, in this little subthread, try to make it about me.

whatevah...

[Waiting For Everyman]

114. No, there is YOU and BainsBane who claim such a thing.

I still have heard from NO ONE about it, strangely enough.

Disagreeing is a different thing from being offended; disagreement is expected on a discussion board. Your claims are so bogus and so transparent.

Btw, don't call me "woman". It's similarly offensive to calling someone "girl", in case you are unaware.

[seabeyond]

115. jefferson, la taz and starry do not count? ha ha

[Waiting For Everyman]

118. Covered that, guess you didn't read the post.

Shocker.

[seabeyond]

119. uh hu

[seabeyond]

116. it is offensive to call a woman, a woman. OMG....., lmao. par with calling a victim the abuser?

[Waiting For Everyman]

117. Oh, I forgot, you're such an expert on English usage.

You don't make any mistakes of that sort, do you?

Well then, I guess I can only conclude that when you use that term you are being offensive on purpose rather than by accident. I thought so, but it's better to have it admitted.

[seabeyond]

120. another uh hu, and a resorting to the same old diss. ba hahaha. sad

[seabeyond]

121. i guess if you were a man, then being called woman would be offensive.

[BainsBane]

124. Interesitng isn't it

That she find being called a "woman" more offensive than referring to an abuse survivor as "the abuser."

[seabeyond]

125. ya know. what a fuckin' hoot. ya. nt

[BainsBane]

95. Far from it

She points out that your post is hurtful. It tells survivors that it is THEY who are the abusers rather than their rapists. It tells them they have no right to speak about their past abuse and they must be quiet because they are less important then the men who raped them. It shows an insensitivity toward the hundreds of members of this site, some in this thread, who were abused as children. It tells them the shame does not rest with their abusers but with they themselves should they dare to speak out.

Your posts in this subthread contain no logic. They show no understanding of the facts of the case. They show no understanding of not only the difficulty of prosecuting child abuse cases but that they are so difficult to prosecute because victims are shamed and disbelieved. They show no understanding of how child sexual abuse affects survivors lives and the long process they must go through to heal. Your posts show only your antipathy toward Dylan Farrow, a girl who recounts being held down and forcibly penetrated by her adult father. You invoke logic while using none. I marvel at the restraint with which Jefferson23 and Seabeyond have responded. I only wish you cared enough to understand why what you have said is so troubling. I am still in shock that anyone here on DU could say what you did.

[seabeyond]

97. as always, you say it much better than i. more thorough. me? call it out and walk away. thanks. nt

[Waiting For Everyman]

100. Oh baloney, see post #98.

I commented on Dylan Farrow, not "survivors". One person, not all. I think the difference is clear to most adults with average intelligence, so don't even try to play that.

[Democat]

103. You assume Woody Allen is guilty rather than innocent

Pray no one ever accuses you of a crime you didn't commit.

[seabeyond]

106. i do not need to pray i will not be accused. i do not behave grossly inappropriately with children,

nor do i take them off alone, when i know i have supervised visits because i behave grossly inappropriately with a child.

responsibility goes where it belongs, on woody's shoulder. not shifting to a child, accusing her as an abuser.

amazing you jump on to defend woody, while a poster declares the victim the abuser.

[JTFrog]

130. It's unreal.

Thus, regardless of the past, Dylan is the abuser now.

I never was a Woody Allen fan, I didn't like most of his films long before this controversy came up the first time, but regardless of what he did or didn't do, I don't think Dylan, Mia, and Ronan are any better.

I can't even wrap my head around this kind of thinking. Even if he did do it, Dylan isn't any better than him. I am not parsing shit here. I can't believe than anyone actually would believe that. It seems to me that someone is much more interested in a fight than actually holding those beliefs. Anything else would be, well, just unfuckingbelievable.

[BainsBane]

132. It is the single worst thing I have ever read about this case

Or on this website. I wish I thought she didn't believe it. A host of ideas run through my mind as to how someone could possibly believe or say such a thing. Then I wonder how a jury could let is stand. Someone had an OP hidden for calling people out for not donating to DU. But calling a survivor of child rape an abuser in a thread full of child abuse survivors is deemed acceptable. The insanity of it all astounds me.

[seabeyond]

134. if goldmans father kept talking about his sons murder by OJ, would he be as bad as the murder?

i can not get this one out of my head. how a person can say.... even woody molested, raped his daughter, because she spoke out about it 20 yrs later she is as bad as he is.

i gotta ask. is this not EXACTLY what we discuss as the rape culture that would suggest the molestation of this child is not that big of a deal. it is inevitable, lie back and enjoy.

we would do the with NO other crime.

[BainsBane]

135. A particularly egregious example of rape culture

Truly shocking. I was stunned for hours today after reading that.

[nomorenomore08]

136. Maybe the worst part is it makes sexual abuse seem like a trivial thing, no big deal.

Whereas I highly doubt anyone who'd actually been abused would hold that opinion.

[Starry Messenger]

96. And the Academy Award for most twisted abuse defender goes to...

[Waiting For Everyman]

105. A personal attack, how original.

[Le Taz Hot]

104. The victim is now the perpetrator???

Holy shit! I've heard it all now. Worst case of fanboyitis I've ever seen.

[Waiting For Everyman]

107. You don't think one person could possibly ever be in both roles?

I'm sure your imagination can stretch that far. Or are people only all good, or all bad, in your world?

[Le Taz Hot]

108. This is me

fake smiling and slowly backing out of the room.

[treestar]

122. There's the First Amendment

Dylan has a right to talk of it any time. Geez, this is a terrible post, one of the worst ever.

[BainsBane]

123. At least six people have said as much

Yet she simply does not care.

[pintobean]

145. I didn't see where anyone claimed that

she didn't have the right to talk about it. I see someone questioning her motives.

[BainsBane]

167. Actually she said

Regardless of what happened when Dylan was a child, Dylan is now the abuser, not Allen. Great comment to be sticking up for.

[pintobean]

171. I can read. I assume you can, as well.

You're completely twisting the meaning of my comments and Waiting For Everyman's comments. It's what you do.

[BainsBane]

199. Bullshit

I quoted her comments directly, and she repeated them. Everyone has understood her quite clearly. The only one doing any twisting is you. Then you go on to claim the only people being offended are "from the same group," which isn't even true. So you go on and back up Waiting for Everyman's comments: "regardless of the past, Dylan is the abuser now." That says everything there is to know about you.

[BellaKos]

137. Well, I, for one, am gonna' stick up for you, WFE

Your comments seemed logical and thoughtful to me. Wow. I said it. Out-loud, too.

The evidence concerning Farrow's allegations ... all that can be confirmed as fact and all the speculation about the truthfulness of Allen and the Farrows and all the assumptions about motivations -- has been adjudicated in the courts. Period.

The issue today is Dylan Farrow's public comments made recently and Allen's response. I believe it would be illogical and distracting to consider these recent comments in making a judgment about: 1. victim/survivor issues concerning child molestation; 2. the credibility of experts in their assessments of victim's truthfulness; 3. whether or not the judicial system handles these kinds of allegations well; and 4. whether or not I appreciate either Allen's or Mia Farrow's past work. As far as the individuals are concerned, I don't know them personally so I am not qualified to assess their characters.

Beyond that, what I see in the ongoing "discussion" here at DU is hard to articulate. And I've seen it before in discussions about the progress or the lack thereof concerning the roles and status of men and women today and how the two genders interact with one another.

It seems that there are a few women here who are venting their pain concerning past injuries perpetrated by men -- whether it be injustice, emotional and physical abuse, and/or egregious crimes of rape and child molestation. They vent their pain -- their emotions -- in the guise of rational argument. This is a perfectly normal thing that people do all the time. (By the way, this is the same kind of thing that the Teabaggers are doing -- except their pain is because of economic reasons, mainly.)

This is fine. As long as the emotions are not vented as personal attacks. Or as long as emotions don't become so overwhelming that they affect the individual's well-being.

I realize that I may have pricked a nerve, so I'll say now that I'm not going to be lured into an ongoing debate about my observations. I know that those who are seeing the Allen/Farrow issue through the prism of their personal experiences won't hear me anyway. Nor will they be persuaded by my pointing out that judgment from afar is not judgment atoll, but rather an indulgence in gossip. Again, that's fine. And again, it's not an unusual activity among us regular folks. It's just not the way actual court cases are adjudicated. And our court system is all that we have to wrestle with accusations and allegations and crimes -- the truth of which may be ultimately unknowable.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

142. I like this part where you say:

As far as the individuals are concerned, I don't know them personally so I am not qualified to assess their characters.

and then you go on to do that -very- thing with your fellow DUers.

That was funny stuff right there.

I really did chuckle.

Thanks, I needed the laugh.

[BellaKos]

144. Well, I'm glad you enjoyed your laugh.

But I fear that I am misunderstood. Observations based on people's comments alone is not the same as generalizations about their character.
Okay?
Cheers

[Tuesday Afternoon]

154. oh, observations, is it?

more like obfuscation.

Now, I see you made the Greatest Page.

Let me go read.

I hope to get educated and enlightened.

Perhaps, I will state -my- observations about your comments.

[seabeyond]

146. that was the in my face i picked up too. all the evidence ect... cant judge. people he knows

nothing about has done a full psychoanalysis about.

[seabeyond]

148. i re read it. that was so god damn insulting. in the "guise" of rational thought. nt

[BellaKos]

152. Rational thought

Or should I say, "reasoning," requires an examination of facts. The facts in this case are unknowable. The Yale experts ... the judge's conclusion ... the testimony ... are all subjective to one extent or another. That's the nature of evidence in our court system. Had there been physical evidence, that would add to the weight of the accuser's testimony, but studies have shown that even eye witness accounts are not reliable. (That doesn't mean that I *believe* that Dylan is lying. That doesn't mean that I *believe* that she's telling the truth.)

So ... to attempt to adjudicate a case in the context of internet chat serves no purpose, whatsoever. Having said that, I condemned George Zimmerman and Casey Anthony to life without parole. In those cases, I followed the testimony closely. And in both, I vehemently disagreed with the verdicts. Naturally. I screamed and wished "hellfire and damnation" on both of them. But I accepted the verdicts and moved on. No, I wouldn't trouble myself to spit in Zimmerman's face if I ever saw him. And I'll never *believe* in his or Anthony's innocence.
My opinion doesn't matter one whit, however. And regardless of how many facts I can recall or present for discussion, I am still not engaging in a process of *reasoning* as stringent as required when obligated by law to consider each fact in evidence rationally and without prejudice.

So ... I'm not here to insult anybody, but I am calling out those who attack others for disagreeing with them. If one is intent on listing the facts as they perceive them to be about this particular case, then there's no need to address anyone in a hostile manner who may question those facts or add to those facts or simply disagree. That's what I meant by the "guise of rational thought." Reasoning .. the process of reasoning ... cannot be influenced by prejudice or emotions or even past experiences. If the process of reasoning is not that clear and unfettered, then it is not rational thought. Not. That's all there is to it.

[seabeyond]

153. none of that has anything to do with what the 6 or so people in this subthread was talking about.

right?

none of what you posted, is what any of us were talking about.

simple

do you believe

IF allen raped dylan, and she speaks out today she is AS BAD as allen.

that is the ONLY things we are talking about in this subthread.

and you did insult. you can say you are not here to insult, but you did.

[BellaKos]

156. My initial post was a response made directly to Waiting for Everyman. n/t

[seabeyond]

158. your initial comment was.... i am going to back you on this. to wfe.

implying that the 6 posters or so that called her out, you were coming in to back her.

the only comment those of us had with wfe was her stating.....

IF allen raped dylan, and dylan spoke out 20 years later, she is AS BAD as allen.

my only comment to you, besides calling bullshit on being emotionally damaged is... do you stand with that comment?

[seabeyond]

147. then you believe, even if allen raped dylan, for her to speak out now makes her just as bad?

just to be clear.

oh... and am i one of these damaged souls you have decided to psychoanalyze in dismissing what we have to say? i mean, might as well just call us hysterical and be done with it. just as effective, short hand, well used.

the "guise" of rational argument?

what an insulting piece of garbage that was. very offensive.

[BellaKos]

149. No insult meant.

I think the key word is "believe." The truth about what actually happened is unknowable at this point in time. All that can be relied upon is the outcome of the court cases. That's over and done with. Way over.
What I was talking about is when people allow their emotions to overwhelm them to the extent that they lash out at others in a hostile manner. Like: "what an insulting piece of garbage that was."
I know that high-spirited and even mean-spirited banter is the current fad on the internet, but I don't play.

Just so you know .... I *believe* there's such a thing as karma. It's not so much a philosophical belief as it is my observations over time. The justice of God grinds slow, but fine. It truly does. So, whatever happened between and among these individuals .... the price will be paid one way or the other. I've seen it too many times.

[seabeyond]

150. people in this subthread spoke out because it was stated that even IF allen raped her, her talking

now made her just as bad.

people called the poster on that, and that alone. if you are going to back that comment then fine, but do not create an argument that is not there. it is that simple. people are offended that the poster would say.... even if woody raped the girl, for her to speak out now makes her just as bad.

are you suggesting we are not allowed to call out such an horrendously outrageous statement without being "emotional".?

you say when people lash out in hostile manner.

when you basically say there are women on here that are emotionally damaged, and basically the same old, man hater, you say it "nicely" but it is still an insult, right? you did not lash out in anger. you insulted harshly in guised rationality.

no insult meant? insult made. regardless. right?

karma? ya... i am into all that. and part of the zin of it is to recognize and acknowledge, take it to the highest of vibration in stillness, so action/reaction is not created.

[BellaKos]

155. seabeyond

Well, for one thing, the poster you referenced did not say that Dylan didn't have the right to have a voice. I don't know that anyone here has asserted that. My interpretation of what he said was that the accusation of being a pedophile was just as egregious as being molested. I disagree that it's just *as* bad, but I agree with him in that being falsely accused of something so vile is a damn bad thing to happen to a person -- especially if he's innocent.

Anyway ... I don't know if there are women here who are emotionally damaged. How on earth can I know that? But I will say that women here have described their own experiences with molestation among other similar traumas -- which would lead me to suspect that they are damaged. How could they not be wounded? The process of healing from such events takes a very, very long time.

But ... I can assess strictly from the language used in the course of the disputes here when a writer is coming from a perspective that is influenced by past experiences and emotions. Yes, call people out, but even then, I bristle when I see someone misunderstood and then attacked and insulted. And if one is presenting an outline of the facts for discussion, then rational argument is muddied when emotional language is used. The case, then, cannot meet the standard of "rational thought" if it is apparent that the writer is coming from an emotional perspective.

Excuse me. I just have Mr. Spock sitting in my head. Cain't hep it.

[seabeyond]

164. she said whether true or not. whether he molested or not. so he molest... what dylan did is AS bad.

we are not having a discussion about an accusation that is not true. each one of us called our the poster saying.... even if true, she was as bad

she is as bad as him molesting.

you are right. you do not know if a persons voice is the cause or influenced because they are emotionally damaged, yet... you tied it in with women speaking out.

if you have all this rational thought, spock reasoning, i do much better.

cause this is very simple, yet you have made it very complicated, and creating stories that are not relevant to this subthread.

the only thing the 6 in this subthread addressed was her saying that if allen molested dylan, her speaking out a 20 yrs later makes her as bad.

spock reasoning, remember

that is saying she must stay quiet, or she is as bad

i am not gong to pretend the original poster did not say what she did. it is offensive. you say stand up for someone misunderstood? she had 6 people she could have clairifed. she has edit she can take out

even if he molested dylan, she still cannot speak out without being as bad as him

this is really very simple

[seabeyond]

151. and to make it really clear. telling me i have been hurt by men, hence this is why i

am oh so mean to the men with what i say is garbage.

that is not lashing out.

you decided you had the right to literally throw shit at me to see if it would stick. it is not the reality in my life. i get to call you on the shit you throw at me.

not lashing out. calling it out.

i have had decades, a lifetime of wonderful men and boys in my life to love and be loved. it is so insulting and offensive to have you and others tell me and others, that the reason we fight the battles we do is because we are emotionally crippled from experiences with men in our lives.

it offends me. but much greater, it is such a damn insult to every man and every boy in my life that loves and is loved.

i really hope you think twice, before giving someone this garbage, with as offensive as it is.

[BellaKos]

157. I'm not playing. You can reference my previous responses if you like. n/t

[seabeyond]

159. i am not playing. but i see you refuse to take ownership, too. nt

[BainsBane]

168. Calling an survivor of sexual assault an "abuser" is also emotional

Additionally, considering the facts of the case are entirely irrelevant to the poster, she is operating not based on logic so has nothing to draw upon but emotion.

In terms of hostility, that statement of victim blaming against Dylan, knowing full well this site and this thread has many abuse survivors, is far more hostile than the reactions Waiting for Everyman has Received. It sends a clear message that if anyone dares to speak about their assaults, people are ready to shame and insult them in order to defend an accused abuser.

Your lecture is entirely out of place in the context of a callous insult levied at Dylan and by extension other abuse survivors.

[Waiting For Everyman]

166. What a nice surprise,

I was expecting only another can of strawmen. They know that only misstating what I said one or two times isn't very effective, so a few will do it over and over to make a sufficiently-big-enough-looking (i.e. they just can't believe what an egregious thing I said, oh my!) clusterfuck out of it. It's standard procedure. I don't bother rebutting all of the strawmen because it's simply a waste of time. I just do it once maybe twice, and then let them agree with each other in their echo chamber after I'm done. Thinking people get what's going on, the rest don't or won't, it's that simple.

Btw, I'm a woman, who often disagrees with this cast of commenters, so I'm used to it.

But even so, it's still always good to meet a gutsy DUer somewhere in the pile on, especially one who'll step in for the reason you gave. Thank you, BellaKos!

[BainsBane]

169. Strawmen?

Look up the word. People have repeated your own words to you. It would be difficult to come up with a strawman to make your comments appear any worse than what you yourself said

Regardless of the past, Dylan is the abuser now. . . .

regardless of what he (Woody) did or didn't do, I don't think Dylan, Mia, and Ronan are any better.

"Regardless," meaning even if Allen raped Dylan, her speaking out about it makes her "the abuser now."

You claim not to have meant the comment about DUers. Does that mean Dylan is the only sexual assault survivor not allowed to speak out and that others can? Or that any survivor who discusses an assult is "abusing" her or his rapist? If not, what is particular about Dylan that means she should keep quiet? Are you suggesting that if one's rapist is rich and powerful that precludes a victim's right to speak about her assault? Or do all victims need to keep their mouths quiet so as not to disturb the more improtant well-being of child abusers and rapists?

No one erected a strawman. Your words were bad enough. The questions above are about the implications of your statement and to whom you think they apply, whether simply to Dylan, to some abuse survivors, or all, and why.

[Waiting For Everyman]

172. Do you see the words *I* *don't* *think* in that sentence you quoted?

Last edited Mon Feb 10, 2014, 06:42 PM - Edit history (2)

...which indicates a PERSONAL OPINION OF MINE. That's a personal opinion as opposed to making a statement as to a fact. I think I'm still allowed to have a personal opinion if I choose to? Next, about what...

Do you see *3* *specific* *named* *individuals* there? Not all survivors, 3 specifically named individuals. Do you understand the difference?

Yuppers, I'm allowed to have a personal opinion as to my estimation of a given individual, same as any body else. Newsflash: I don't have to like anybody, and guess what else? I don't even have to have a good reason, or any reason at all. It's my prerogative, same as anyone else. Are we clear on that too, now?

Next, Dylan is the one who attacked Allen's reputation, which is what the news reports reported, to bring her name back into the news lately. Note the word "lately" I just used there, meaning very, very recently, not 20 years ago. She attacked him. She is the one being abusive NOW, in current time.

Do you see the word "NOW" which I *italicized for emphasis* in an effort to be extra-clear on that point, in that sentence of mine that you quoted? Here it is, for convenience:

The only thing new is Woody Allen's film award recently. This controversy is nothing more than an attempt to detract from that. Thus, regardless of the past, Dylan is the abuser now.

I never was a Woody Allen fan, I didn't like most of his films long before this controversy came up the first time, but regardless of what he did or didn't do, I don't think Dylan, Mia, and Ronan are any better.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024467818#post79

Just to be clear, there are no current news reports of Allen attacking her or her reputation in any way in any recent time frame. Do you understand that difference? We are talking about -- let's make it easy -- within the last year. She has attacked him within the last year, and he has not done anything aggressive against her within the last year. She is the one deliberately trying to damage his career and reputation as much as possible. So she is the abuser NOW. She is being abusive to him now.

So... he may or may not have abused her in the past. She damn well for sure IS being abusive to him in the present, there is no question about that (meaning that she is doing it in the press, openly, without any dispute as to what is being done and by whom). Hence, my opinion. I'm not an admirer of any of them, as I stated the first time I wrote it.

So does this mean that anyone who does exactly the same thing is an abuser too? Point #1: go to the top of this post and read it again; Point #2: as I have already said, that would be a completely different matter which I have no opinion on and did not comment on; Point #3: please see post #93 in which I replied to the same thing by seabeyond, waaaaay the hell up the subthread. And I referred you there too already, so you already know that; Point #4: refer up the thread to my other earlier responses to the exact same things. It is not up to me to repeat myself for each person one at a time who doesn't even bother to read.

Wow. Talk about sad. Don't ever again expect to get your nonsense unpacked for you, because I won't waste my time.

[BainsBane]

174. More evasion

Your comment:

Thus,

regardless of the past, Dylan is the abuser now.

I never was a Woody Allen fan, I didn't like most of his films long before this controversy came up the first time, but regardless of what he did or didn't do, I don't think Dylan, Mia, and Ronan are any better.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4468935

Obviously it's your opinion. Everything anyone writes on a discussion board is their opinion. Yet few express opinions that show greater concern for a child rapist than his victim. Most argue he is falsely accused. To you that point is less relevant than the now adult child has the nerve to speak publicly.

I asked you a direct question: If Dylan's actions are so horrendous, does that extend to other survivors of child abuse? If not, why?

I will repost this insightful post 93 you think answers everything. Seabeyond noted that other abuse survivors felt wounded by your comment because if you make that claim about Dylan it must apply to other survivors. Your response:

That is so logic-challenged.

Similar to: if a dog is not a cat, and a giraffe is not a cat, then a dog is a giraffe.

You again showed your capacity for compassion by calling her crazy for asking if you had considered how other survivors might feel.

I asked you to think about the implications of what you said. You refuse. You insist even asking you to consider the meaning of statement is an outrage. Do you commonly decide one person should be deprived of the rights all other human beings enjoy? What is unique about Dylan that sets her apart from every other girl raped as a child, that is 20% of the US population? Even that, you cannot or will not answer.

Questions logically arise from your comments that you have refused to address: Do you consider child rape too insignificant to warrant disclosures years after it occurred? Why exactly must a victim keep silent if her abuse occurred when she was a child? Does it depend on how wealthy or famous her rapist was? How about Jerry Sandusky's victims? Is he being horribly abused by having to sit in jail for the crimes he committed years ago? The prosecutors didn't act on the first allegations against him. Does that invalidate his victims right to speak? And all those abused Catholic priests. Or is it somehow different if the victim is male? Are girls and women somehow worth less? Or are child rapists always more important than their victims? You say you don't indict anyone else, yet refuse to say why Dylan should not have the right others (may or may not) have.

Here's a newsflash. Denouncing a violent crime is not abuse, nor is it a crime. No person with a conscience believes speaking out about child rape is worse than raping a child. You made clear the question of whether Woody Allen raped Dylan is of lesser importance than Dylan's alleged "abuse" in speaking publicly. Is it also irrelevant that he currently has two small children in home whom he may be molesting? Are they also restricted from speaking out about any potential abuse in the future because their assaults happened when they were children?

You gave your opinion, an indictment of Dylan Farrow. My opinion is that your statement accusing Dylan of being the abuser "regardless of what happened" is the single most odious thing I have ever seen a person write on this website, and it may well be the most reprehensible comment I have ever seen in my life. I remained stunned that anyone could say such a thing, let alone continue to repeat it days later while feigning outrage that anyone would take offense.

[Waiting For Everyman]

175. The most ridiculous overblown drivel ever posted on this board.

Not worthy of more of my time. For the last time:

You can't even prove that Dylan was abused in the first place. And I stated very clearly that I was neither stating nor implying anything whatsoever about any other human beings on this planet.

Do you understand English? You're done now.


ETA for clarity as needed, even though it's in this same subthread:

(Yes, this not post 93, it's part of post 98, both are applicable as are all the replies you apparently only read enough of to misrepresent... there is no need to argue about that now, as well.)

However, I know for sure that I didn't make or imply any statement whatsoever about any poster here, so it should be crystal clear that nothing about any DUer was any part of my post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024467818#post98

Just in case this point still isn't clear enough for you: That goes for other non-DU survivors too, anywhere in the universe they may exist.

[JTFrog]

176. Stating that regardless of whether Dylan was abused or not,

that she was no better than the guy who may have abused her is really fucking offensive. Especially to those of us that this hits home with. If you can't see how offensive what you said is, then "You're done now".

You posted the words. Everyone can read them. We understand English just fine. Do you?

[Waiting For Everyman]

177. This is why people say that women's issues can't be discussed on DU.

If anyone didn't understand that, this thread has several perfect example subthreads.

[JTFrog]

179. I guess that's true if you can't discuss the issues without being horribly offensive.

[Waiting For Everyman]

180. Is your name Dylan Farrow?

Is Dylan Farrow on this board? Yes or no?

If no, then you and your pals have no point. If yes, then see my initial post to this thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024467818#post79

[JTFrog]

181. Did you send a letter to Dylan Farrow?

Or did you post a horribly offensive message stating that the woman was just as bad as her accused abuser whether said abuse happened or not on a public message board?

My point is crystal clear to those who have an ounce of compassion.

[Waiting For Everyman]

182. Your point was nonexistent and beaten to death yesterday.

Dylan Farrow can pm me if she's steamed about my post.

[JTFrog]

183. And I can tell you how offensive your post was.

That's how a public forum work. You say something, people respond.

You don't like it, stop posting offensive shit.

[Waiting For Everyman]

184. From two days ago, addressed twice.

...
This is not a protected forum, this is GD. If you wanted this discussion in a protected forum, maybe you should've posted your thread in one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024467818#post98

109. If you thought the topic was so painful, that considering others is a priority
over discussion, then you shouldn't have posted an OP about it.

This is about your effort to eliminate views that differ from yours. It won't work.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024467818#post109

Beaten to death. Nonexistent point. Did I say that already? Yep, I think I did.

[JTFrog]

185. "Beaten to death."

The more offensive the post, the more callouts you'll get for it. SEVERAL posters have told you how offensive that shit was and you just keep on keeping on in your little "nonexistent" bubble. Like I said before, I can't really believe that you are interested in anything but stirring shit.

[pintobean]

186. And the offended are all from the same group.

It's déjà vu all over again.

[JTFrog]

187. No they weren't.

But nice try at that group bashing you are so fond of. It's a nasty little habit by the way.

Do you think folks are too stupid to look for themselves? FFS.

[BainsBane]

196. We are all human beings

That is all that is required to find her comment offensive.

[Waiting For Everyman]

205. Are you saying the jury was not human?

Yikes! I don't think the jurors on that post will appreciate your comment.

[Waiting For Everyman]

188. As a "shit stirrer" I'm small potatoes.

Your pals opposing me in this subthread post a lot more than I do, in a lot more places, and a lot more offensively. Case in point, I don't believe I exceeded the hidden post count this year. Nope, I checked, I sure didn't, none the last 90 days. (and only a few ever)

Another swing and a miss. Got anything else, or are we done finally now?

[JTFrog]

189. All of your angst toward my "pals"

might be a cute deflection of the point in hand, but you don't get to tell me what offends me.

And if you want to compare hidden posts with me, I'll take you up on that any day.

Now we are finally done.

[Waiting For Everyman]

192. "Angst", that's funny.

Judging by the way this thread looks, that would appear to be on the other foot.

Me tell you what offends you, wha? WTF? Don't flatter yourself.

Compare away! Big friggin' difference, I'll bet. Fact is -- you're the one who brought up shit stirring, you're the one who's siding with the big leaguers of that, which would indicate an affinity for it.

[JTFrog]

194. You're entitled to your opinion,

but not your own facts.

And yes, I'd bet there is a huge difference. But all of your distractions aside, I really am done with this circular argument. I don't expect you to ever see the offensiveness of your post, so what's the point?

[BainsBane]

200. That your post wasn't hidden

Shows how little that means.

[Waiting For Everyman]

201. Shows it wasn't offensive to the community.

[BainsBane]

198. You said "regardless"

Meaning, whether she was raped or not, she is now the abuser. You couldn't have been clearer.
I understand English, but you don't seem to understand what you yourself write. You haven't explained once why what you said should apply to Dylan only.

And it is not only Seabeyond who had that reaction. Many people did. The thing is, most people don't make up different opinions and rules for every single person in the world. Most people don't think, it's not okay for x to commit murder but it's fine if y and z do. They don't say Mary has a right to healthcare, but Tim, Celia, and Jenny don't. They have consistent beliefs. You haven't even bothered to think about who does and doesn't have a right to denounce abuse "regardless." The absence of logic is yours entirely, and that isn't all that's lacking.

No need to answer this or any other post of mine again. Your comments in this thread have revealed more about you than I can stomach.

[Waiting For Everyman]

202. (sigh)

You haven't explained once why what you said should apply to Dylan only.

Because I referred to her, her brother and mother, specifically by name. I did not anywhere say it was ok to make a sweeping generalization of all survivors out of that. Nevertheless, you and seabeyond, and others joining in, did it anyway. That is your thought then, not mine. Is this clear to you now?

It's ironic, because in another current OP in GD by BellaKos, your faction is repeatedly and dismissively complaining about sweeping generalizations being made by BK.

And then you actually even use the word "consistent" above. Really???

Pot, kettle, bye now.

[Waiting For Everyman]

219. Oh, and there is also this.

In reply to you. Two days, and 100 posts ago:

100. Oh baloney, see post #98.

I commented on Dylan Farrow, not "survivors". One person, not all. I think the difference is clear to most adults with average intelligence, so don't even try to play that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024467818#post100

[bettyellen]

173. "regardless of what he did or didn't do, I don't think Dylan, Mia, and Ronan are any better. "

Ouch, there's no walking away from that turd.

[red dog 1]

191. + 1

[geek tragedy]

204. "dylan is the abuser now"--this entire post is a projectile vomit of rape culture nt

[Gothmog]

170. If Dylan Farrow was lying, then Allen could sue in court for defamation

It appears that Allen does not want to testify under oath.

[Upward]

217. Dyland Has Until Approximately Age 48 To Sue Woody in Connecticut for Sexual Abuse

Which is the proper way to go about this, rather than the court of public opinion.

Ronan's gonna have great ratings.

[RedstDem]

178. i have no idea who did what to whom, if at all

but, damn, Mia farrow looks like she's looney tunes.

not that there's anything wrong with that.

[btrflykng9]

193. I'll chime in

As someone who has been abused, I have no problem agreeing with WFE on this. As other posters here have said, the point seemed to be to question the motives behind rehashing this case at his late point in time.

If all court cases were tried based on public opinion rather than proof, we'd all be in trouble.

[BainsBane]

197. How do you know what her motives are?

And who are you to decide she shouldn't speak out? She was deprived that right as a child.

[redqueen]

223. The reason Dylan wrote the letter now is because seeing that piece of shit honored

brought all of it back. It had her curled in a ball in tears. This is an experience most survivors know well.

She decided to speak out, and openly ask all those who still treat this unrepentant asshole with adulation just how they'd feel if it was their daughter he was caught with his face in their lap. If it was their daughter he was in therapy discussing his inappropriate obsession with. If it was their daughter who told her doctor that he had molested her.

These assholes all know of his body of work. They know how common a theme incest and pedophilia are.

They, like so many others, just DO. NOT. FUCKING. CARE.