Woody Allen speaks out

by NewYork44M 131 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  steve2

  To "divide" posts into those who defend Allen or Dylan is a distortion that shows how far the pendulum has swung. I have disclosed elsewhere and in an entirely different context that I was sexually abused by a "nice" older Salvation Army male when I was a kid alone on my magazine route. I know from firsthand experience what smoothly dangerous talkers they are and how I continued delivering magazines to him until he lost interest in me. I blamed myself for years that I must have been responsible and I felt dirty. I have mo doubt that man utterly distorted my moral compass. I was 9. I truly have no interest in defending these fu*king scumbags. So let's get rid of that notion right here. BTW, my JW parents never heard about it because I told no one until quite recently - but I had the satisfaction of knowing my predator went to prison years ago when other now grown adults pressed charges.

  My "argument" if you like, is that the media frenzy, and the endless using of public emotion to determine guilt or innocence is utterly unhelpful and questionably "therapeutic" to the now adult child. I have followed this closely - it doesn't make me a meaningful expert anymore than anyone else who disagrees with me. But to "reduce" this sometimes difficult exchange with innuendo about what is prompting those supposefly "defending" Allen is scurrilous. I would like to think that my focus has been, not on innocence or guilt (as if the media is a fitting platform to try an individual and determine guilt), but on a non-legal binding process that takes as its starting point a man's guilt. Even murderers standing trial are presumed innocent until proven guilty.Some people mistake strength of feeling for accuracy of assertions - both "sides" in this frenzy have done this - but there is something dangerous going on- if we can determine someone's guilt or innocence based on media coverage, why have law courts? Why not conclude that the odds are he's guilty and now needs to be hounded to his grave? I grant that based on personal revulsion alone, some have concluded this man is guilty as declared. It is that public trying - and not his guilt or innocence - that I have spoken to. Please read my immediately preceding post in which I articulate just some of the caveats regarding the quality of the evidence in the public arena.
• 

  Witness My Fury

  Steve2 well said.
• 

  sammielee24

  If it is an accurate overview of other adults, including Ms Farrow, her mother and an employee, who saw firsthand highly questionable, if not worrying, incidents involving Allen and Dylan, why did none of them at that time stop his contact with Dylan and alert the authorities?

  --------------

  Questionable actions as you say - often have people second guessing their own thought process.

  It is not at all highly unusual for people around a skilled abuser, to say nothing. If you had worked with victims and families of abuse of all sorts, you would not ask that question. How many people say 'I didn't know', when their sibling, parent, child is found dead from a drug overdose. How many people say 'I didn't know' when a child, many years later comes forward and tells of molestation by a coach, a leader in the community, a family member? How many mothers fearful of their own lives, think but are scared to actually know, if something is happening to their child?

  The world is full of people who suffer - does it make the victim any less a victim? No.

  Bear in mind that Woody is a rich man and that could have had a factor in why people didn't step up. Another factor could have been that as Farrow pointed out, when she questioned Woody and told him to stop - he questioned her mental and emotional stability in even thinking like that. This is a common tactic in abusive situations. This doesn't excuse anyone for not reporting these circumstances at all - but I'm just pointing out to you that this is more common than you think. Woody is a famous man and very powerful and wealthy - and his 'genius' or 'individualism' and 'quirks' are well known and accepted and even those who questioned him, may have been found to be insulting his very genius.

  sw
• 

  DJS

  Steve2, ditto to WMF. It would help the discussion if participants would at least qualitfy their rants. I don't defend Mr. Allen; I do not know whether he was guility, but so much of the tripe that people express as 'proof' or 'evidence' is just that. Tripe. This case, like any other, should rest on the facts, all of which will never be known. You did in your previous post what I have been avoiding; actually rationally addressing the hysterical 'facts' displayed by too many on this board. Based on my research, he had a sexual relationship (and took pictures) of an adult 21 year old Soon Yi. That is fodder for a couple of Jerry Springer episodes and it is major betrayal of his partner. And yes it suggests some ethical problems. But it is not a crime. (Please see the female lawyer's ridiculous diatribe in an earlier post that he 'obviously doesn't see anything wrong with it." - that's because, beeyotch, there isn't anything WRONG with it. Dating an 18 year old looking for a father figure is opprotuntistic (and suggests he likes young adult women, well effing duh), but it is not a crime. It is not immoral nor is it wrong. Making a movie about a 40 something and a 17 year old female (who has reached the age of consent I believe in almost if not all states) may not be one's cup of tea, but it is NOT, I repeat NOT a crime. And it does not make him a pedophile.

  Those railing against the age difference would do well to ask themselves if they feel the same pious (excuse me but I'm about to vomit at all of the judgmentail comments on this board) feelings towards Anna Nicole Smith, who married an octogenarian with one foot in the grave and one foot on a banana peel. Or those hot very young women who look for a sugar daddy (I believe there is even a website for such), or who read "how to marry a millionaire," or Courney Stodden who very knowingly and manipulatively married a much older man, hoping it would further her 'career.' And on and on and on. It is the way of the world, people. Get the eff over it. Life and all that is in it doesn't revolve or evolve around your petty little judgments.

  I also read in several report that the housekeeper recanted her story about hearing the abuse, stating Ms. Farrow pressured her. And folks, like it or not, passing a polygraph (you can't buy one of these at Walmart and get Bubba, your best friend, to administer it people) is strong.

  I'm sick of the judgmentalism on this forum. Let the facts be what they are. And also, in rebuttal to the lawyer's comments about the 'tired old story' about the mother fabricating abuse. I have reviewed lots of data the past few days; several long term studies of such accucsations during divorce battles suggest nearly 60 percent of such accusations have been deemed by the EXPERTS as FALSE. This 'tired old story' is neither tired nor old. It is relevant to the case.

  I would wish that the participants on this forum: become more intelligent; become more sophisticated; lose your judgmentalism; learn to rely on facts rather than your pre-conceived 'feelings' 'beliefs' 'prejudices' etc. Geeesh. Some of you were a good fit for the GB and the JWs. They didn't change you; you were moths to a flame.

  And Steve, again well stated and I am very sorry for your experiences and hurt.
• 

  Witness My Fury

  Yay! Sanity may just prevail over the hysteria, ... I'm far too slow at typing and far too blunt to come up with as elegant responses as steve2 and DJS have done. I just read thru all the vitriolic tripe before and was made sick by it.

  The man is a douche, that doesnt make him a predatory pedophile as some of you clearly want him to be and be lynched as such.
• 

  Gentledawn

  As someone who is married to a person who is nearly 20 frickin years older than myself: It is NOT about the age difference between Soon-Yi and Woody that is the issue.

  As a parental unit IN HER HOME at the time, he could/would exercise ALL of the prerogatives at his disposal over her, including authoritarion and POWER.

  That is why the relationship could never have been equal from the get-go.

  - That is why prison guards cannot "date" (have sex with) prison inmates.

  - or a school teacher with a student.

  - That's why cops who are caught on camera boffing some hapless female on the hood of her car cannot claim it was consentual, when he just wrote off giving her a ticket for whatever it was he initially pulled her over for.

  No matter what brush you try to use in regard to his relationship with Soon-Yi... he was her FATHER. Thus, it was non-equal and unbalanced from the get-go.

  Woody Allen shows a piss-poor regard for boundaries, whether those be familial or respectful towards those who came to love him.
• 

  adamah

  SammieLee said- Perhaps when she saw the accolades and applause being heaped on her abuser, she felt cheated out of a childhood, her innocence and perhaps she saw the possibility of repetition in the man who now has two little girls.

  Sure, but if there were even a shred of concern for the safety of the adopted daughters of Soon Yi and Woody (where Dylan describes Soon Yi as "dead to her"), then WHY would Dylan NOT step forward to ensure that charges were filed against Woody AFTER she hit 18, or even before the statute of limitations expired two years later? That doesn't add up, and given that the couple has had no allegations of anything remotely similar, it seems like some want to admit that as dysfunctional as the relationship may be, it seemingly works for both.

  Talesin said- A bunch of ex-Jehovah's Witnesses arguing over whether a celebrity is an accused child molester.... when we KNOW how clever they are.... how even the poorest ones are able to cover up their crimes against children ... and here we have a rich man, a powerful man ..

  I have been following this story since its inception ,,,,,,, yes,,, all these years........ many facts have been distorted in this discussion, in the defense of this person who I see as despicable, and why? Because he is famous and you like his movies? Yes, I *was* an Allen fan.... and since the 90s, when the events first came to light, I have been unable to watch one of his movies without feeling queasy.

  and here is Adamah,,, and others ... to defend him!

  So, what would you have US DO about it? What do YOU actually propose we do?

  Woody's a white Jewish guy from NY City:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgrGyR6EYbY

  Gentle Dawn said- No matter what brush you try to use in regard to his relationship with Soon-Yi... he was her FATHER. Thus, it was non-equal and unbalanced from the get-go.

  Technically, he was Soon Yi's 'father figure', since her adopted father was Andre Previn, not Woody. BTW, Soon Yi's actual age is a mystery (she was abandoned by her Korean mother, a prostitute), but from bone scans she was estimated to be 18-20 at the time of the physical relationship began with Woody.

  I find it interesting that no one seemingly worries about the fact that Mia reportedly physically-assaulted Soon Yi with a chair (which broke from the force of the blow) after learning of the affair: is that kind of lack of boundaries acceptable to some, as well? Any other person did that, and they'd be in jail for assult and domestic violence (and since Soon Yi's age is indeterminate, whether it's child abuse or not is another question... But that sword cuts both ways, since it's hypocritical to not hold Mia accountable for physical child abuse of Soon Yi while claiming Woody was guilty of sexual child abuse for sleeping with Soon Yi).

  Adam
• 

  adamah

  Oh, on this:

  DJS said- And also, in rebuttal to the lawyer's comments about the 'tired old story' about the mother fabricating abuse.

  Lisa Bloom, the lawyer who wrote the pro-Mia/Dylan article is ALSO forced to disclose this little tid-bit in the footnote, due to ethics of journalism:

  [1] Ronan Farrow, Dylan’s brother, who supports her claims, will soon host a show on MSNBC, where I am a regular contributor. I have never met or spoken to him or anyone else involved in this story.

  These events are staged media campaigns, and the public gets played like fiddles, buying into it all. It's ALL suspect when big-media conglomerates get involved in staging publicity stunts, where this whole thing has likely been planned for months designed to generate a controversy by riding on Woody's coat-tails of a lifetime achievement award (which was no secret).

  Vanity Fair is owned by Conde Nast, a large media company where on-air talent often works for MSNBC (the writer of the Vanity Fair article just happens to be the widow of Tim Russert of NBC news, and MSNBC is a division of NBC Universal).

  The average citizen don't understand how much "interlocking media deals" actually determines what they are currently gossiping about, or determines the guests they see on network talk shows, etc since it's highly-controlled by media conglomerates. This ain't conspiracy theory stuff: it's just the way media works, and HAS worked for the last century!

  So the need to question all claims with a skeptical eye applies not only to reading WT/Awake! (esp THEIR footnotes, where they actually disclose that the scientists they 'cherry-pick' quotes from to challenge evolution actually BELIEVE in evolution!) but to what you read and see elsewhere.
• 

  new hope and happiness

  Such a long post.

  FATFREEK205 your reply on page 3 of this thread says it all thankyou, it took courage.
• 

  Finkelstein

  Woody Allen shows a piss-poor regard for boundaries, whether those be familial or respectful toward those who

  came to love him.

  Well said Gentledawn

  .

  Agree with that as I mentioned on a previous post.