Because We Need to Talk More About Woody Allen

“We live in a world that historically does not believe survivors over their perpetrators.” – Tavi Gevinson

When I read that, it hit me like a timely, beautiful, well-portioned sack of potatoes. “Yes!” I thought. “That is what happens.” It’s an apt description of what happened to me, and, as I read that, I realized that even I am guilty of it occasionally.

She continues: “This is made possible by a flawed justice system where 97% of rapists will never spend a day in jail, and informed by a culture that encourages survivors to be silent, as 60% of rapes go unreported. Let alone when the perpetrator in question is male, wealthy, famous and has offices of publicists working for him.”

I read more about the Dylan Farrow situation and, although I have never experienced what she did (thank God), the things I have experienced, thought, and been told line up neatly to the unfortunate experiences she has had in the aftermath of her trauma.

I was in an abusive marriage for years before I realized I was in an abusive marriage. And while trying to rebuild my life, forge friendships, and explore just what the heck happened to me, (since I’m still not entirely sure – if it had been clear, I would not have stood for it in the first place) one response I have heard several times is: “Well, I wasn’t there,” or “I only know your side of the story.” But here’s the thing: either I’m telling you a lie, or I’m telling you the truth. Of course, different people have different perceptions, but there is no sort-of being abused. It’s either abuse or it isn’t. And if it wasn't abuse, then I must be lying.

I would say that 99.9% of people in the world would never choose to fabricate something as painful as being abused. It’s not something people do, on the whole. Either I’m lying to you or I’m not. So ask yourself: Am I (or is Dylan, or is the person you know) a pathological liar? Do I (does she) have a history of accusing people of things that never took place?

If you’re a person living in a place that has people in it, odds are good that you know someone in an abusive relationship. And in terms of these people with whom you probably interact on a regular basis, generally, if you’ve gotten to know someone, a personality like that would be pretty easy to identify. It would also be a far, far more difficult breed to find than are victims of abuse.

As Ann Friedman said:

While all the caveats about not knowing the family personally apply, I do know several women who have experienced sexual violence that is not dissimilar from what Dylan describes. I don’t know a single woman who has made up lies about such violence in order to gain something. And, probably just as important, I don’t know any men who have been falsely accused of committing such crime. 

…‘If you are saying things like ‘We can’t really know what happened’ and extra-specially pleading on behalf of the extra-special Woody Allen, then you are saying that his innocence is more presumptive than hers.’ By this standard, a lot of people — many of them journalists — are frighteningly quick to presume women are guilty when they speak out against older, powerful men.”

Aaron Bady says:

Woody Allen cannot be presumed to be innocent of molesting a child unless she is presumed to be lying to us. His presumption of innocence can only be built on the presumption that her words have no credibility, independent of other (real) evidence, which is to say, the presumption that her words are not evidence. If you want to vigorously claim ignorance – to assert that we can never know what happened in that attic – then you must ground that lack of knowledge in the presumption that what she has said doesn’t count, and we cannot believe her story.

…We are in the midst of an ongoing, quiet epidemic of sexual violence, now as always. We are not in the midst of an epidemic of false rape charges.

He goes on to say:

All things being equal, the explanation that doesn’t require you to imagine a conspiracy of angry women telling lies for no reason is probably the right one.

In a rape culture, there is no burden on us to presume that she is not a liar, no necessary imperative to treat her like a person whose account of herself can be taken seriously. It is important that we presume he is innocent. It is not important that we presume she is not making it all up out of female malice. In a rape culture, you can say things like “We can’t really know what really happened, so let’s all act as if Woody Allen is innocent (and she is lying).” In a rape culture, you can use your ignorance to cast doubt on her knowledge; you can admit that you have no basis for casting doubt on Dylan’s statement, and then you can ignore her account of herself. A famous man is not speaking, so her testimony is not admissible evidence. His name is Woody Allen, and in a rape culture, that good name must be shielded and protected. What is her name?

Molly Lambert says:

Allen’s team has consistently pushed the idea that Mia Farrow is acting out of jealousy and some kind of scary womanly rage. The push to make Mia Farrow seem irrational is eerily reminiscent of what her character goes through in Rosemary’s Baby. Dylan Farrow lives in a world where people have consistently told her that her experiences didn’t happen, that her own memories don’t count. It’s what the system told her when she was 7, and now it’s what Allen’s defenders are doing again.

…Defending someone accused of a heinous crime with the platform “He’s always been cool to me!” is not an effective argument. Abusers don’t abuse everyone in sight, nor do they necessarily pick the most obvious targets. Abuse of power is extremely complex.

It’s about power imbalances between adults and children, old men and young women, men and women in general. It’s about whose voice gets listened to in a conversation, whose experience is considered more valid and why. “I know it’s ‘he said, she said,’” Dylan told the New York Times‘ Nicholas Kristof. “But, to me, it’s black and white, because I was there.”

It’s shameful that large numbers of people in our society are taking up the mantle of the abusive behavior that has already been poured on this woman for years – saving Woody Allen the trouble of having to waste energy continuing to abuse her himself. Crazymaking – pushing the belief that the victim is confused or unstable, that she doesn’t know truth from fiction, that she can’t be relied upon to accurately recall the events of her own life – is classic psychological abuse. So congratulations to all of the journalists and humans who have taken such an honorable position next to that man.

What does it mean when you say you don’t know both sides of the story? Why is someone needed to verify the legitimacy of someone else’s experience? Who else could speak to one’s own experience more clearly than that person? Certainly not someone accused of having purposefully and methodically harming another human.

And in any abuse case, what could the other person possibly say that would justify the situation? It’s not like “Oh, that was abusive… unless you did thus-and-such, in which case it’s not that bad.” That’s not a thing. It doesn’t matter what someone said, or how hurt you were, what her tone of voice was, how she looked at you, how much you think she was flirting with that other guy, how dirty the house was, or how cold your dinner. Nothing gives one human being the right to intentionally harm another human being, whether by word or deed. Just like it doesn’t matter what a woman had consumed, what she was wearing, how she looked at you, or how much you thought she was flirting with you. Nothing gives one human being the right to force themselves upon another human being. And stepping far aside from these two statements you take a poor 7-year-old girl in an attic with her father. But some people would rather take that girl and abuse her further, because they don’t want to have to change the way they look at someone else. I’m sorry (no I’m not – stop it S.T.) but that is selfish.

You are either actively seeking out ways to protect people who are being victimized – to help them find safety, protection, support, peace and healing, or you are seeking out reasons to disregard the pain and experiences of those who have been harmed. If you choose not to care, you are putting yourself in the second category by default. Because abuse cannot be ignored. Ignoring abuse is the same thing as tolerating it. You either want to help those who are hurt, or you would rather not.

And on the off-chance that Dylan Farrow reads this, I just want to say: I believe you. To every child who has ever been sexually abused in any way: I believe you. To any woman who has ever been raped: I believe you. To every woman who has ever, whether emotionally, mentally, physically or sexually, been abused by her partner: I believe you. It did happen. It is real (or was). Your pain is legitimate, and it matters. My heart goes out to you. Speak your truth, and from the ashes of whatever may have been destroyed, pull love, pull health, pull beauty, pull truth, pull compassion, pull resilience. Many things can be taken from us, but no one can stop us from taking destruction and constructing from it something taller, something stronger, something wiser, something more loving and even more pure.

Carry on. But carry on changed.


- S.B.T.



Find me on Google+

You Should Smile More

“Smile!”

“You should smile more.”

Those phrases have been the bane of my existence for what has probably been my entire life. In childhood, teenager-hood, and now adulthood, I can’t recall the number of times I’ve been told something similar. Actually, I get it less now that I’m an adult. Maybe I’ve gotten better at smiling, or maybe I’ve perfected an unspoken “don’t-tell-me-to-smile” vibe.

Being told to smile has always been a pet peeve of mine. I can’t remember ever not being bothered by it. Sometimes I’ve had to pretend I didn’t mind, and that it was in fact “good life advice.” When I was working, for example. And don’t get me wrong – I don’t spend my time scowling at everyone. At least, not intentionally. I’m not exactly in control of what I look like. Which is kind of the point. Some people are naturally smiley, and some are not. Some people use a lot of hand gestures, and some do not. Some people have naturally loud speaking voices, and others occasionally spit on people. I might be thinking of camels.

But the way I was born, the way I have always been, and the way I may very well continue to be throughout my life, is as someone who doesn’t naturally do a lot of smiling and laughing. Of course, I do both of those things, just not as often as some people would like. To which I respond with a rousing shrug. I’m stoic; sue me.

As I sit thinking about this issue, I realize that while I’ve been told I need to smile more countless times by peers and adults as I was growing up, never would anyone younger than me venture to recommend what I should do with my face as I go about living and being alive. And it’s not too difficult to figure out why. Someone who is notably younger than me, for the most part, is going to assume that I know what I’m doing – that I’m doing what I’m doing for a reason, even if that reason is simply “this is who I am and is what my face looks like.” Generally speaking, they would never presume to tell me how I should look. Or feel. I’m not exactly sure which one smiling is more indicative of.  

I tell you this so you understand that how irritated I was in the past in no way compares to how I felt when I heard someone mention that they have never heard that happen to a male. Never. And neither have I. In fact, as I tried to imagine a male being told to smile more, it simply didn't make sense in my brain. And that makes me mad. Just try wrapping your head around the implications that contains. I’ve tried doing so, but I get interrupted by my stomach wanting to uppercut the thing I’m trying to wrap my head around.

When I boil it down, the only concept I can find is that women are basically mood lighting. Not only are we decorative, ornamental, but we exist to alter the atmosphere to whatever is most pleasing to others. And by others, I mostly mean men. As I sit here typing this, I’m trying to scroll through my memories of this occurring, and even though most have been lost in the fog of childhood/adolescence, and then shrouded by the annoyance that inevitably followed, I’m pretty sure that at least a majority of the people who have said this to me have been male.

What could possibly be going through the minds of people, especially adults, especially adult males, to make them think they are qualified and welcome to comment on a young female’s facial positioning? The burden of pleasing others with all of one’s nuances should not be placed on any young girl. It is no one’s job to alter the way they feel or look to please those around them. If you see a young girl absorbed in books, interested in engaging in thoughtful conversation, lost in thought, or simply people-watching – observing the world, wouldn’t your words be put to much better use affirming her mind, her process, her attention to the world or to ideas, rather than on commenting on what you think her face should be doing?

And let’s take for a moment the possibility that wanting a woman to smile could have more to do with how she feels than how she looks. How much more presumptive is it to tell another person to change how they are feeling? And these comments usually haven't come from people who are super close to me - not uncommonly from complete strangers. And these comments usually only come during casual interactions. Are a female’s emotions so small, so throwaway, so not-her-own, that they can be directed at will to whatever most pleases everyone with whom she crosses paths? 

And I have yet to ask why it is so much more important for females to smile than males. Do we still see males as, basically, more serious – and following the trail of illogical assumptions: more intelligent and useful in the world? Are women still the charming side-kicks, useful for their luminosity, their breath-of-fresh-air-ness, their cheerful hugginess? Should I add in a reference to pies? (And I am a fan of baking.) Not that any of those things are bad, of course, but why is that our job? Why can’t it be our job to ponder and question and wonder and process and delve and disagree and organize and change and build and create and expand and sustain?

I’m sure there are people reading this who can feel my pain. And if you can't, please think a little bit (or a lot) next time you want to tell someone else what expression they should be wearing. Think about what the purpose of that other person is – what their actual purpose may be, and what purpose you are ascribing to them in relation to yourself, the environment you're both in, and the world at large. Think about the burdens you intend to place on a gender, on the next generation. Maybe there are a few things you are not entitled to, a few things you should be asking for less, and a few other things you should be looking for more.

It is no one's job to soothe and uplift everyone with whom they interact, and it is a very presumptive thing indeed to make someone feel insecure about how they appear, especially based on how happy it's making a random passerby. 

If you feel like smiling, then by all means, do it to your heart’s content. And if you do not, don’t worry about it. Go on doing whatever it was you were doing that brought you enjoyment and fulfillment. Your job is to be you, regardless of how others feel about it. If they aren’t enjoying their feelings, that’s theirs to tend to.  

- S.B.T.


Find me on Google+