Woody Allen and the Court of Public Opinion

12 Feb

woody

Let me say straight up that Woody Allen revolts me. Looking at him gives me the same feeling that stepping in a gob of snot with my bare feet might evoke.

Ewww.

Gross.

Ick.

Barf.

Repulsive little toad of a man. It’s not his littleness that offends me. It’s the whole snivelling ingratiating pseudo-intellectual package.

Ugh.

I hate Woody Allen. If it came down to me and Woody Allen as the last two people on earth humanity would be over.

And do you know what all of that is evidence of?

Nothing.

My feelings about Woody Allen and his epic un-fuckability are not evidence of anything. The most common word to describe the feeling Woody evokes is creepiness. I think he’s a creep. A man I do not want to fuck. Sexual attention from him would simultaneously disgust and infuriate me.

As if, you little toad.

I think a lot of women are as viscerally disgusted by Woody Allen as I am, but rather than understand that their feelings are their feelings, they are using those feelings to convict Woody Allen of child molestation in the courts of public opinion.

The case is complicated by several factors. Let’s take them one at a time.

Woody Allen married one of his previous lover’s children.

Soon-Yi Previn. Previn. Not Soon-Yi Allen. Woody may have been in a long term relationship with Soon-Yi’s mother Mia Farrow, but he was not her father. Soon-Yi says she never thought of him as her father. He was her mother’s boyfriend and eventually became her husband.

That hits lots of women hard. The idea of being usurped not just by a much younger woman, but by your own daughter carries a sharp barb. It stings. Getting tossed for a younger woman always stings. The fact that older men have sexual access to younger women is something that pisses off lots of women.

No fair! Men value beauty and youth and use their own assets of wealth and power to access that resource and there is fuck all older women can do about it other than piss and moan. Well, older women can also try not to be fat bitches, but that’s asking a lot, isn’t it?

The fact that Woody married Soon-Yi (a marriage that has lasted 15 years and counting) is not evidence of anything other than Woody apparently likes to live dangerously. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

Dylan Farrow remembers being abused by Woody

I have no doubt that Dylan Farrow believes she was abused by Woody Allen but that doesn’t make it true. False memories are very real and Dylan was so young at the time the abuse allegedly occurred she would have been particularly prone to incorporating those memories as fact.

This is precisely the reason we have courts of justice in the first place. The accusation carries such serious consequences that we must be completely unwilling to convict unless evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is presented. Dylan’s case was investigated and prosecutors declined to pursue charges against Woody.

Does that make him innocent?

Er, yes. Yes it does. No one is guilty of a crime, any crime, until they have been convicted in a court of law full stop. The alternative is vigilante justice and kangaroo courts and those tend not to work out very well for anyone.

The question is not did Woody Allen molest Dylan Farrow? The question is has Woody Allen been convicted of abusing Dylan Farrow?

He has not. Dylan’s accusation that Hollywood is lauding a child molester carries no weight because we do not give weight to feelings when it comes to crimes of this magnitude. Feelings are not relevant. Facts are.

Mia Farrow is a piece of work

So, at 24 years of age herself, Mia had an affair with a 40 year old musician that resulted in her becoming pregnant, Andre Previn’s marriage ending and Andre’s wife Dory ending up on a psych ward getting electroshock therapy.

Yeah, sure, Mia. Tell us how offended you are by younger women doing a bit of husband stealing.

Her Valentine’s Day card to Woody in 1992 is charming, no?

vday card

And letting Woody know through the media that she fucked Frank Sinatra and Ronan just might be Frank’s baby is super classy.

Mia Farrow also testified on behalf Roman Polanski who pled guilty to having sex with an underage girl. But somehow that one was okay. Mia had nothing to say about Polanski taking home the Oscar for The Pianist.

This all smacks of sour fucking grapes to me. Mia can’t stand the fact the that Woody has gone on to lead a happy and productive life without her.

Our favorite little feminist harpy Amanda Marcotte would like to see a new preponderance of evidence standard applied to men like Woody Allen. Why? Because creepy sleazy assholes make her feel feelings that are bad feelings and that is unacceptable.

More to the point, it’s worth saying to yourself that if a guy that creeps people out and is known for crossing boundaries that often is accused of rape—or if a guy who is a sleazy asshole who emotionally abuses his girlfriend/wife in front of others and who she seems to be scared of is accused of hitting her—it really, truly is okay to cut the strings and let him go and offer your support to the accuser instead. Doing so isn’t taking away his freedom.

In other words, consult your feelings and convict away. Shun that guy. He’s creepy! Always believe the victim. Tell her you support her unconditionally and there is no need for irritating little things like evidence and convictions.

There, there, sweetie pie. Did that bad man hurt you? We’ll ruin his life and make it all better for you.

Gee. What could possibly go wrong?

Ultimately, I don’t know if Woody Allen is a child molester. What I do know is the fact that he repulses me physically, married a younger woman and behaves in a way that I feel is creepy is not evidence of anything other than my own personal feelings.

Feelings are not evidence.

I refuse to see Woody Allen films because I find him a snivelling asshat who is not the slightest bit charming or appealing to me. I don’t like him.

By some miracle, I am able to live in a world with men I don’t want to fuck without declaring them guilty of some crime. I can be repulsed by Woody and still be capable of some objectivity when it comes to deciding if he is guilty of a heinous crime. I can find him stupid and annoying and be insulted by his preference for younger women and still consider him innocent until proven guilty.

Because ultimately, I am not owed a world filled with hot men who conform to my personal ideas about charm and wit and appeal.

It is not a crime for a man to not appeal to me.

And until Woody Allen is convicted in a court of law, I will not call him a child molester.

I will however call him an ugly skinny irritating little motherfucker.

Because he is.

And that’s not a crime.

Lots of love,

JB

79 Responses to “Woody Allen and the Court of Public Opinion”

  1. comslave February 12, 2014 at 22:36 #

    “It is not a crime for a man to not appeal to me.”

    It soon will be. Femitheist is working on that.

    Like

  2. Brian February 12, 2014 at 23:36 #

    “Does that make him innocent?

    Er, yes. Yes it does.”

    Er, no. No it doesn’t. It makes him “not guilty”. If you’re acquitted, that doesn’t mean you didn’t commit the crime. It just means that the court couldn’t prove that you did. Amanda Knox is looking like a good example of someone who is truly innocent who was found guilty anyway. Many people who did commit various crimes are found not guilty. The results of a court case aren’t definitive proof of what happened. They’re just the closest we can get with the evidence at hand.

    Bear in mind that in this case that the prosecutor chose to not pursue charges. Just like above, that doesn’t necessarily make him innocent of the crime, anymore than being creepy would make him guilty of it.

    Like

  3. javaloco February 12, 2014 at 23:48 #

    Femitheist…she’s still around?

    Like

  4. judgybitch February 12, 2014 at 23:50 #

    Those are good points, Brian, but highly impractical. If you have not been convicted of a crime, then the world is obliged to treat you as if you DID NOT COMMIT THAT CRIME.

    Ergo, you are innocent.

    You can’t refuse to hire someone because they were charged with X. You can only refuse to hire someone if they were convicted of X.

    The danger of thinking “not guilty” means “not enough evidence but you really are guilty” means that a simple allegation can have far-reaching consequences.

    Which group do you think will suffer the most for that?

    Hint: rape allegation
    Hint: men

    College rape tribunals are moving in exactly that direction. Lack of evidence does not equal innocent.

    That’s a big mistake. Justice will inevitably be miscarried. It happens. But it is dangerous to assume that it is always miscarried.

    It’s rare.

    An accusation of something as terrible as child sexual molestation needs to be substantiated. Substantiated beyond all reasonable doubt.

    Like

  5. caprizchka February 13, 2014 at 00:16 #

    Mia, in addition to being a celebrity somehow felt the need to have or adopt…what…24 children? How lovely it may sound to some that the children helped to “take care of” each other. I’m less than impressed by children forced to be adults prematurely and by Joan Crawford-like long-suffering sacrifice for them. Who licensed Mia as the abbess of an orphanage? How on earth could Mia have possibly mothered which should mean protected them all? What was she thinking or was this massive motherhood act simply to fan her own vanity and ego? I’m thinking the latter.

    Both Mia and my own mother made poor choices of husbands–perhaps by mistaking “meekness” (with adult women, at any rate) for “gentleman”. Whether Dylan is actually remembering or misremembering is besides the point. The social construct of molestation is of course far more damaging than the actual molestation, and that social construct doesn’t actually require inappropriate touching to effect an abuse of power–whether by Mia, Woody, or both. Meanwhile, the trail has effectively gone cold.

    Ironically, if it weren’t for feminist identification with the overgrown perpetual little girl that is Mia, they might be better served to identify with the child-prostitute-turned Hollywood princess–a true rags-to-riches personification of the American Dream–which is Soon-Yi. Aspiring princesses take note: controlling one’s gag or nausea reflex may result in fame, fortune, and even a happily ever after (if 15 years is any indication). The Woody/Soon-Yi story is sort of a real-life reenactment of “Pretty Woman” with the streetwalker remade as the adopted child prostitute, and Mia’s role as barely-there abbess a euphemism for her passive role–by neglect–as matchmaker pimp. While I personally wouldn’t have recast Richard Gere’s role with Woody, it would seem to me that given the results, Woody should be paying Mia a “finder’s fee”! That’s the real slight to Mia, albeit actually paying it would stop their mutually stupid game of denial. Aren’t celebrities oh so glamorous?

    Like

  6. Spiralina February 13, 2014 at 00:17 #

    So it sounds like you hate both of them. I concur, which is why I haven’t been following this story much. I have no opinion on the molestation charges, as I wasn’t there and I don’t believe such matters belong in the court of public opinion. I do feel bad for the children (all of them) even though they’re adults now. What an insanely dysfunctional family.

    Like

  7. Richard Nikoley (@rnikoley) February 13, 2014 at 00:19 #

    JB Luv:

    “This all smacks of sour fucking grapes to me.”

    Thats all it is. Could have been a one sentence, one para post (but we don’t ever do that, right?)

    I cringe over your personal distaste of Allen, though. If you really detest everything he’s ever written or produced, that would be one thing. But I can’t really believe that about you.

    He’s a thinking man, and that’s how I see him. Or, as just a man who wasn’t endowed with anything physically remarkable and he did what men do. He produced in the only way he could. And because that has been so remarkably successful, the little man is as big a target as the biggest cock ever. Props? Maybe?

    I learned a long, long time ago that I couldn’t dump a hot women with a mind that captivated my attention for even better bod, but an incurious—or worse—mind.

    We’re humans. We had enormous brains and all the sex organs and abilities are awesome, but smart people have sex with minds that rock them.

    Would that People or some other mag base “sexiest” on mind.

    Woody wasn’t born with anything physical to attract anything but…well, you know. He made himself attractive to far younger women using what he had and making something of it.

    Sorry…. I mostly always love your posts and I love a good part of this one. Please feel free to come give me a spanking when I need it.

    Like

  8. judgybitch February 13, 2014 at 00:27 #

    Richard,

    I truly find him physically repugnant. Like a grossly obese person. He might be the smartest, most amazing man in the world, but I will not be able to get past the revulsion of seeing rolls of fat hanging off his abdomen.

    And Allen combines that with a personality that I find grating mostly because I don’t find it genuine. It seems like an affectation.

    It’s not that I require men to be paragons of physical virtue in order to find them attractive. Not at all. My secret Hollywood crush whom the merest thought of is guaranteed to produce a physical reaction?

    Philip Seymour Hoffman.

    Probably the most appealing man I have ever seen aside from my husband.

    Allen has just always revolted me, but I refuse to let the fact that he revolts me personally affect how I think about accusations of abuse against him.

    It’s not his fault I think he’s repulsive.

    It’s mine.

    Like

  9. dolf February 13, 2014 at 01:10 #

    to paraphrase the old adage “Repulsiveness is in the eye of the beholder”

    Like

  10. Jeremy February 13, 2014 at 02:33 #

    Woody Allen is fast becoming my favorite red-pill champion.

    1) He’s ugly
    2) He’s old
    3) He’s rich
    4) He gave probably the biggest neg to a woman ever (Yeah, I’m dumping you for your hotter daughter)

    He likely had a good reason for dumping his SO for her daughter. Frankly, there’s no recovery for her from such an insult. It is a direct and conclusive negative mark on her desirability as a woman to be dumped for her daughter. It says that she has no idea how to keep a man happy, so much so that a younger version of herself is more desirable.

    I hate to sound like an asshole, but if I had a chance to do what Woody did to that woman, and good reason to, I would do it. Women, beware, keep your man happy or things like this will happen.

    Like

  11. Eric February 13, 2014 at 03:45 #

    JB,

    I understand you have things to do, but man, I was going into Judgybitch withdrawal.

    This post spotlights a phenomenon that makes feminist influence on punitive procedures in the public (law enforcement, courts) and private (workplace, university) sectors especially dangerous: Women have a tendency to make false accusations, including very serious formal charges, based on visceral feelings, including but not limited to personal dislike.

    Granted, NAWALT, but in my experience, more women than men are inclined to this sociopathic behavior.

    Nice capture of the ‘creep’ thought process: “I think he’s a creep. A man I do not want to fuck. Sexual attention from him would simultaneously disgust and infuriate me.”

    That’s the tripwire. When women feel negatively, they tend to project the fault and manifest the feeling as an actual, particular wrong-doing by the other person, even when no such wrong-doing occurred.

    An example is the Jenny and Leif Erikson story that Dalrock is following. For years, Jenny praised Leif as a loving, mild-mannered (ie, textbook beta) husband on her blog, but since she ambushed him with a divorce last year, she’s done a 180, replaced their history, and now characterizes him as a callous, abusive husband from the start.

    The phenomenon extends to false rape, abuse, and harassment charges, and myriad other kinds of false reporting from women who harness Authority with intent to harm.

    Women don’t only do this to men. Women do it to other women. I witnessed a woman, our supervisor, abuse her power and ‘mean girl’ a female subordinate, my co-worker, in the workplace over a non-work, personal issue. My co-worker was repeatedly punished by our boss for petty infractions that I didn’t see, but neither could I prove were baseless.

    That’s part of the phenomenon, too. The false charges are often difficult to debunk because they come down to she-said, s/he-said.

    The common-sense approach is to give these charges a fair hearing, but to incorporate a healthy amount of skepticism, with grains of salt. Genuine social justice activism would be stigmatizing false accusations with an aim to reduce them in order to clear the way for legitimate complaints to receive fair treatment.

    Instead, feminists want to do away with the common-sense approach in the public and private sectors. They’re pushing to strip protections and reverse burdens and presumptions to grant all biases in favor of woman accusers as a matter of formal procedure, in spite of the female tendency of feeling-driven false accusations.

    This is dangerous and a perversion of justice. I’m not an MRA, but this is a law and policy issue that is calling out for MRAs to make a stand.

    Like

  12. human2stupidity February 13, 2014 at 06:26 #

    You beat me to it.

    I was writing an article about Woody Allen. Almost ready.

    In the mean time, a comment that sums it up
    taken from http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/04/barbara-walters-speaks-up-for-woody-allen/
    ========================================

    To believe Mia Farrow at this point you have to disbelieve: (1) her own son, Moses Farrow, who says the abuse never happened and he was there the whole time, (2) the Yale team, who investigated over the course of months and concluded there was no abuse (3) Dylan’s TWO therapists from that time in 1992-1993 who both had seen her for over a year and told the custody judge there was no abuse (4) Mia’s own nanny, who testified in an affidavit that Mia “set the stage to report the incident involving Dylan,” solicited her support to be “on her side” in making the claims, that it took Mia 3 days to videotape Dylan’s account, and that Moses told her back in 1992 that he knew then that it was made up (5) the independent court-appointed therapist during the custody case who recommended visitation because it was important that Mr. Allen be a part of Dylan’s life; (6) 60 Minutes the TV news program, who investigated and said the reports they read supported Allen and more.

    To believe Woody Allen all that you have to believe is that the custody judge (who refused to consider evidence points 2,3 and 5 above despite having no independent professional evidence to the contrary, and was specifically called out for erring on this point by the appellate court that reviewed his work) didn’t like him much and the CT prosecutor who said he could bring charges is naturally biased as a prosecutor, and that his statement was the equivalent of a defense lawyer saying his client was innocent.

    Once Moses Farrow said it was all a lie, I don’t know how anyone can seriously think the abuse happened. It’s a pretty final blow to the Farrow logic.

    In fact, there is a google book result for a textbook called “Family Law” that one can go find. In it, first it covers the Allen-Farrow case in detail. Then it says “In alarming numbers, parents are being accused of sexually abusing their children, usually during visitation. The issue can also arise during an initial custody proceeding… The level of bitterness generated by this accusation is incredibly high. It is the equivalent of a declaration of total war between the parties. The chances of reaching a settlement or mediating the custody dispute… often vanish the moment the accusation is made. Protracted and costly litigation is all but inevitable.”

    So, Farrow’s false claims are LITERALLY “textbook”!

    Like

  13. the 4th survivor February 13, 2014 at 11:03 #

    I’ve been reading your blog for a while ever since I heard about you on Free Jinger and I usually agree with what you have to say but not this time. Of course Allen shouldn’t be convicted with no evidence, but if someone says they were molested I will believe them unless there’s a good reason not to. 7 years old isn’t that young and I can fairly vividly remember what was going on in my life back then. If I had been the victim of something as serious as molestation or rape at that age, I would remember that. Now if she said she was only 3 or 4 at the time I would agree that she was probably too young to remember for sure what happened but 7 doesn’t seem all that young to me. Then again who knows what it would be like living with someone who constantly told you that you were molested? I’m sure you’d start to believe it whether it happened or not.

    Anyway people shouldn’t be judging him as guilty since they don’t know for sure but how can you expect people not to treat him any differently when he was accused of something so horrible?

    Like

  14. Bob Wallace February 13, 2014 at 12:15 #

    This sounds like the intersection of creepiness and vindictiveness. Yes, Allen is creepy and repulsive, and Farrow hit the Wall years ago. When those two things collide, you get something that will sell a lot of magazines. As far as I’m concerned, they are both repulsive people.

    Like

  15. human2stupidity February 13, 2014 at 16:17 #

    You missed an important part about Mia Farrow’s double life: her brother was just sent to prison for 25 years for child abuse. No Farrow family member tweets about a convicted child abuser having been around the kids.

    If Woody Allen is innocent, was Dylan Farrow’s trauma caused by a monstrous Mia Farrow implanting false memories (SAID)?

    Like

  16. Brian February 13, 2014 at 16:21 #

    So after O.J. was acquitted, everyone should have treated him like he was completely innocent?

    I’m making no judgement either way of Woody Allen in this statement. Just pointing out the logical flaw in your premise. Plus, justice is miscarried both directions quite frequently. Hell, spend some time reading Popehat if you doubt that. Prosecutors are rewarded for one thing, and that thing is not “exercising prosecutorial discretion”. They want conviction rates, as long as they aren’t outweighted by too much bad P.R. from going after wealthy or famous people.

    I’d be money that if Woody Allen wasn’t famous, he’d have at least been arraigned. But the time taken to pursue him could have also been used to take down 5-10 people without the money and clout to stonewall the prosecutor.

    Like

  17. human2stupidity February 13, 2014 at 16:25 #

    Read my article, linked to below.

    Her own son Moses said he was present, it could not have happened, they never had a chance to leave and to be alone. The maid testified that Mia tried to get her to support her allegations, though she did not notice anything. The shrinks of the girls agree that nothing has happened. A commission from Yale came to the conclusion that the girl was either coached or has mental problems.

    And everyone believes these liars? And nobody condemns Mia Farrow for continuing the charade, for having caused profound trauma to everyone involved, including the child?

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/27/the-woody-allen-allegations-not-so-fast.html

    http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/political-correctness-stupid-dogma/if-woody-allen-is-innocent-was-dylan-farrows-trauma-caused-by-a-monstrous-mia-farrow-implanting-false-memories-said

    Like

  18. judgybitch February 13, 2014 at 16:27 #

    The OJ Simpson case is a particularly egregious example that was deeply complicated by race.

    If Average Joe goes up on murder charges and is acquitted, then yes, we should treat him as if he is innocent.

    Murder is so extreme though. It’s scary because gosh – what if he is a murdering psychopath!?!

    Think more in terms of lesser crimes. If there is no evidence that a specific individual committed a crime, then we should assume he is innocent. Continuing to believe a person is guilty in the absence of evidence makes you either profoundly skeptical of our justice system or bitterly vindictive.

    And In Mia’s case, I’m gonna go with vindictive.

    Like

  19. Spaniard February 13, 2014 at 16:54 #

    Mia is hotter than Soon Yi. By far.

    Like

  20. John S February 13, 2014 at 18:56 #

    Wow!

    Innocent until PROVEN guilty. So, yes, O.J. Simpson was, in fact, innocent. The fact that he was then sued civilly and found guilty was a miscarriage of justice. It ended with him being setup and convicted of kidnapping.

    For the record, I’m a white middle aged man from Malibu and am intimately familiar with the area and O.J. did not have time to commit those murders. Period. No Bronco could fly through those streets, stash the clothes, clean up the blood (while getting almost none in the car) and get to LAX without attracting massive attention and most likely crashing, but no matter, his acquittal should have been entered into the civil case and the matter ended, but instead he was convicted by an all white jury from Santa Monica who also know he couldn’t have actually wielded the knife.

    White people seem to have a serious disconnect in understanding that O.J. was both framed by the police AND he most probably guilty of conspiracy as Mr. Cowlings is likely the actual killer, but was to stupid to wait until O.J. was actually on the plane. Also, the judge violated the constitution by allowing the illegally seized evidence from his estate on the basis of the assertion that he was not a suspect at the time they hopped his fence in order to “assist him,” when EVERYONE knows that when a spouse is killed, the most likely suspect is the husband, especially in this case as Officer Fuhrman had previously arrested Simpson on domestic battery charges.

    I raise all this because Mr. Simpson is the ultimate case of why Innocent until proven guilty means Innocent.

    No one will ever know what really happened at Bundy and no one but Woody and his daughter actually know what happened between them, but convicting the man in the court of public opinion is the antithesis of what the this country is supposed to be about.

    Like

  21. feeriker February 13, 2014 at 19:49 #

    It probably speaks volumes about Mia’s bitch-princess quotient (BPQ) that Woody threw her over for her less-physically-attractive daughter. Many of us would feel instant attraction to a physically gorgeous woman – until she opened her mouth to reveal that the only things to ever come out of it are shallow juvenility, emptiness, and bitchy snark. After that, she might as well be the Elephant Man’s twin sister. Woody either had blinders on that eventually fell off or he has an incredibly high BPQ tolerance threshold that Mia eventually exceeded.

    Like

  22. Dr. TARICO February 14, 2014 at 02:05 #

    Wow. I thought I was the last white guy who thought OJ could not have physically committed that crime himself (limited time, could not have cleaned up that efficiently and that fast, etc.). How people forget that the number one forensic investigator in the world showed how the splattering from the blood drops leading away from the bodies must have been dropped while the bleeder or blood-dropper was motionless. So why would you be running away from some murders you just committed, but then stop every few feet to drip a drop of your blood? DNA matched up perfectly though. Police admitted to swinging by Bundy with blood drawn from OJ while he was in a holding cell, which was against protocol, they were supposed to take it directly to the police frig.

    Like

  23. ScribblerG1 February 14, 2014 at 03:51 #

    There is a lot wrong with this commentary:

    1. The differences between illegality, immorality and truth. Nobody is suggesting that Woody Allen be prosecuted for anything at this point. What is being suggested is that his character is in serious enough question based on the facts known about him that he should not be defended by AVFM or honored by the film industry. We are absolutely free to make moral judgments about him and to judge whether he should be defended.

    2. The supposition that Dylan Farrow’s report of sexual abuse by Woody is an implanted memory is complete crap. First off, she made the complaint at age 7 right after it happened – it didn’t come out as an adult an so there is no way it’s an “implanted memory”. That only applies when a blacked out or repressed memory is claimed. As well, the official court record of the family court proceedings made many troubling aspects of Woody’s conduct with Dylan. Numerous witnesses spoke of Woody’s inappropriate behavior toward’s Dylan. Woody was seeing a psychiatrist about it, in fact. While criminal charges were not pressed, the family court judge very clearly stated that Woody’s behavior was not safe for Dylan. There is nothing about Dylan’s complaint or the corroborating evidence that suggests she made it up. In fact all the evidence points the other way.

    3. Soon Yi – Funny how Judgy Bitch doesn’t mention that Soon Yi was developmentally challenged. Due to suffering much neglect and abuse before Mia adopted her at somewhere between age 5-7 (her age is unknown due to the neglect). She was emotionally immature and socially awkward. And while it’s true that Woody was not a “father figure” according to Soon Yi, he functioned as a the father figure in the family system she was part of and was a father to her siblings. So this entire relationship is highly questionable from the outset due to the family structure. It was never about age solely, although given Soon Yi’s issues, it seems quite possible that Woody was emotionally exploitative. And given his behavior with Dylan, he doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt.

    So, yeah, stop defending this scumbag based on standing up for “men’s rights” – I’m an MRA and feel no solidarity with him.

    Like

  24. RS February 14, 2014 at 06:03 #

    Moses’s word doesn’t actually count for much. I was abused for several years and had two brothers who knew nothing about it. No false memories here. I didn’t tell anyone until I was 27 (to protect the children of my abuser) and everyone was shocked, but supportive. I was lucky though, my abuser didn’t even deny what he did. He just disappeared– luckily for his kids.

    I don’t know if Woody Allen is guilty or not but my opinion isn’t swayed by Moses’s testimony at all. If Mia wasn’t such a train wreck I’d believe the daughter.

    Like

  25. RS February 14, 2014 at 06:19 #

    Actually let me amend that. I think Mia is a narcissistic nut job and I believe her daughter. My mother is kind of nuts and tends to be overdramatic like Mia to compensate for failing to protect me as a child. This all seems familiar, and strangely authentic to me.

    Like

  26. ScribblerG1 February 14, 2014 at 06:28 #

    Indeed, Mia’s own issues don’t really have a thing to do with Dylan’s allegations or Allen’s conduct. The evidence is quite substantial, enough to make it absurd to rise up in defense of Woody Allen as some act of solidarity with men and for men’s rights. It’s funny, Judgy Bitch doesn’t see how her own femcentric views are leeching through. Assuming that the low opinion of Allen is based on him being unappealing and unsexy – I’m a man, it has nothing to do with that. He does come across as a creep though – and that should not be seen as evidence in his favor. But in her women-shaped world it does. Getting more and more tired of women ‘femsplaining’ the Red Pill view to and for men.

    Like

  27. ScribblerG1 February 14, 2014 at 06:36 #

    The judge in the family court proceedings didn’t buy the “Yale team” who didn’t even testify or submit to cross, and only one doc submitted a carefully worded deposition taken by Woody’s team. In fact, the judge found enough evidence to keep Dylan from Woody. Yet you use the same “expert” testimony as exculpatory.

    You also bring up Moses negative testimony while ignoring several other witnesses who testified to Allen’s inappropriate behavior with Dylan – and oh yeah, Allen was seeing a psychiatrist about his sexualized and far too intimate behavior with Dylan.

    The real point here, however, isn’t to litigate these accusations, the point is whether it’s wise to stand up for Woody Allen as a proxy for men who are falsely accused in general. He’s a very bad case – at best, and likely a scumbag as his later dalliance with Soon Yi – a developmentally disabled young woman and part of his family system and a teen when he began his sexual relationship with her.

    Like

  28. ScribblerG1 February 14, 2014 at 06:44 #

    Wow, see how she just rejects the distinction you made. Just like arguing with every other woman on earth…

    Of course there is a difference between being charged and found guilty in a court of law and actual guilt or innocence. Funny how Bitchy just won’t acknowledge this. What this article mostly reveals is her biases and poor critical thinking skills more than anything else.

    The point is not to litigate Allen’s behavior on a blog, the point is whether standing up for Woody is an appropriate thing for the MRM to do when there is so much evidence against him.

    Like

  29. Erik Norén February 14, 2014 at 13:50 #

    And no other men might get convicted in the court of public opinion?

    Like

  30. ScribblerG1 February 14, 2014 at 14:51 #

    What do other men have to do with this situation? Woody Allen is likely guilty and there is plenty of evidence to at least make the allegations against him that have been made. To defend such a person as a victim as though MRAs should see him as a cause to back based on “innocent until proven guilty” is absurd and quite stupid actually. We make character judgments about people all the time without judicial proceedings, and in fact, judicial proceedings are designed to let “100 guilty men go free to prevent 1 innocent mane from going to jail”. It’s an even more ridiculous position to take if you know something about the criminal justice system because the plain fact is that most crime goes unpunished.

    What sickens me here is the presumption that every case of sexual abuse must be trumped up and that every family court is out to get men and that every woman is using such charges to harm their exes. There are actual sick men who sexually abuse their children and we should be careful to only support those who have a clear case of being railroaded. Woody Allen is not such a guy. I wonder, why is this so hard for people to understand?

    Like

  31. ScribblerG1 February 14, 2014 at 15:01 #

    I doubt you “hate to sound like an asshole”. I guess facts don’t matter to you and you will rail for any man – scumbag or not. I wonder, do you get how that makes you come off? Fyi, he may or may not be guilty, the issue here is whether MRAs should be rallying to his side based on the facts on offer.

    As for you “high fiving” Woody for Soon Yi, wow. While he was not her “father” he was a father to a number of her siblings and functioned as a father figure in her family system, so it’s not as cut and dried as his defenders want to make it out to be. She was also developmentally challenged due to abuse neglect for the first 7 years of her life (they didn’t even know how old she is, she may have been only 5 when Mia adopted/saved her) and as a 17/18 yr old girl, she had the emotional development of a 12 yr old at that point. Not illegal but all necessary context to assess Woody Allen’s actions. It’s not about being a “girl” it’s about being vulnerable – if it was Mia’s son I would feel the same exact way.

    These considerations make Allen’s actions with Soon Yi highly inappropriate. Given the Allegations and his acknowledged inappropriate behavior with Dylan – he was seeing a psychiatrist for his obsession with her and his inappropriately intimate and sexualized behavior towards her before Dylan made her complaint – it’s not a stretch to conclude he’s a scumbag. He certainly doesn’t deserve defense by other men as some kind of victim.

    Yet you see this as some kind of application of “Game” – which makes me throw up in the back of my mouth…

    Like

  32. human2stupidity February 14, 2014 at 15:25 #

    I am surprised about all the comments here, from people who seemingly have not read the evidence. There is one guy that has studied the case for years, and here is his article.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/27/the-woody-allen-allegations-not-so-fast.html

    I have found one feminist vanity fair article that cites troubling evidence to the contrary. I might study it. But I already found several omissions and misleading points, so it is quite likely that some other issues there are outright lies, just as the wage gap lie, the domestic violence lie, etc.

    Do you have a clue how difficult it is to be cleared of child abuse charges by police, the court system and adoption agencies? If anyone of us were accused, unjustly most of us would not manage to get cleared. You know how the system is unjustly stacked against alleged child abusers, rapists, domestic abusers, etc.

    A police appointed group of specialists from Yale bluntly concluded that in their opinion no abuse has happened. And they suggested that the child had been unduly influenced by the mother. It took them months to check everything. Who are all these people to ignore these facts to want to malign a man and take away his laurels in the movie business.

    @ScribberG1: Woody’s biographer states that Soon-Yi has a degree from Columbia University and speaks a multitude of languages. Calling such a person too immature to agree to a healthy 15 year and still ongoing marriage is one of the absurd shaming techniques.

    I am not like feminists, who unconditionally defend husband murderers, Lorena Bobbitt dick slicers and other criminals.

    The criminal system in child abuse and rape cases is WRONG and UNJUST because it works without due process, based only on one person’s word with no cross examination and no corroboration. And even that unjust legal system cleared Woody Allen.

    Leave him alone!

    And, everything indicated that Mia Farrow destroyed the life of this child, Dylan, with her vengeful lies. That she manipulated her child And nobody cares. Nobody prosecuted her, nobody even calls her a creepy child abuser.

    As a MRA, you should read the links, in my article, to the literature of SAID, sexual abuse in divorce allegations. And wonder why we don’t see thousands of women in court, for screwing up young children’s mind, to gain advantage over their ex.

    It is called the PUSSY PASS. And MRA don’t care. They chime in to accuse the falsely accused. Or those accused with no proof whatsoever, that are innocent by preponderance of evidence, the standard used to decide if prosecution will proceed.

    Like

  33. human2stupidity February 14, 2014 at 16:11 #

    repeating 2 important points:

    SAID (sexual accusations in divorce) exists, with very frequent false accusations implanted into children’s mind by women. Purely coincidental that Mia Farrow leveled these accusations exactly at the time of separation proceedings. But, maybe, she is innocent. But, for sure, there are thousands of women who destroy the lives of their children in their neurotic quest to harm the ex. And MRA barely care about these, and other people even less. Women abusing children as their pawns for revenge is tolerated, though it severely damages children

    TWO:
    either Woody Allen damaged Dylan. OR Mia Farrow did great psychological harm to the child. Other possibilities are unlikely.

    So why don’t MRA put Mia Farrow to the same standards as Woody Allen? Shun her even if the evidence of her crime is inconclusive? Have her thoroughly checked out, by police, commissions, psychiatrists, and lie detectors? After all, if Woody did not do it then Mia Farrow did grave harm to the child. Moses actually testifies that she did great harm to him and the other children.

    Why do MRA agree to this double standard? A standard that is damaging to children and that encourages women to level false accusations!

    Like

  34. ScribblerG1 February 14, 2014 at 16:25 #

    You have bought into one side of the argument. At her current age, Soon Yi has caught up developmentally due to massive interventions and tutoring etc. There is no disputing that Soon Yi was developmentally challenged – it’s a plain and simple fact. As for the rest of it, I’m not trying to convict Allen – why do every one of you miss that? I’m saying that there is enough evidence against him to make the allegations and believe they may be true. Given both Dylan and Soon Yi, a reasonable person (not a jury) could conclude that he’s at least of questionable character and accordingly, defending him as a victim as part of the MRM and activism in support of men seems ridiculous.

    There are many men who have been falsely accused of sexual abuse of their children who haven’t say been under the treatment of a psychiatrist for being inappropriately intimate and sexual with a child at the time. Do you not know this fact? You seem to be such an expert – did you miss that in the Connecticut proceedings? I’m sorry, laying in bed with your 3 year old daughter for long periods having her suck your thumb is inappropriate. he did many other such things – this is a matter of record that Allen has never disputed because they are true. His own psychiatrist never testified and the supposed “Yale Team” never did either – only one of the docs submitted a deposition and was never cross examined.

    Still, I’m not saying lock him up. I’m saying is makes me sick to my stomach that some MRAs seem to think they coming to his defense is a worthy cause. It makes me not want to be part of this movement. Can you get the difference? Neither of us will ever know what really happened, so litigating on a blog site is absurd. But to take a side? Nah, not for Allen who’s on the record actions with Soon Yi make him a scumbag to me already.

    Like

  35. Fred Flange, punning pundit February 14, 2014 at 19:14 #

    The PBS filmmaker Ofra Bikel specializes in documentaries about implanted memories and false memories. One was about the divorce industry. Another was about suppressed-memory hypnosis therapists who “helped” patients “recover” hideous memories of abuse – often fantastical in scope – resulting in torn apart families, getting innocent people in trouble with law enforcement, being sued for civil and, hey ho!, destroying the patients’ lives as well – for which they need life-long therapy to cope(imagine!), no longer having any friends or family, since all of them did the “abusing”.

    And I have seen up close a colleague subjected to a SAID accusation as to his own child. All made up; never any attempt to prove it, never happened. But no sanction or penalty for the false accuser.

    But yeah, if it’s OK to honor Roman Polanski, I don’t see why Mr. Konigsberg should be treated any different. His actions with Soon-Yi? Creepy, sure. Ridicule him for his creepiness? Sure. (Howard Stern has done this to Woody for years, he has it down to a science).

    Like

  36. Fred Flange, punning pundit February 14, 2014 at 19:31 #

    The PBS filmmaker Ofra Bikel specializes in documentaries about implanted memories and false memories. One was about the divorce industry. Another was about suppressed-memory hypnosis therapists who “helped” patients “recover” hideous memories of abuse – often fantastical in scope – resulting in torn apart families, getting innocent people in trouble with law enforcement, being sued for civil damages and, hey ho!, destroying the patients’ lives as well – for which they need life-long therapy to cope(imagine!), no longer having any friends or family, since all of them did the “abusing”.

    And I have seen up close a colleague subjected to a SAID accusation as to his own child. All made up; never any attempt to prove it, never happened. But no sanction or penalty for the false accuser.

    But yeah, if it’s OK to honor Roman Polanski, I don’t see why Mr. Konigsberg should be treated any different. His actions with Soon-Yi? Creepy, sure. Ridicule him for his creepiness? Sure. (Howard Stern has done this to Woody for years, he has it down to a science).

    Like

  37. RS February 14, 2014 at 20:13 #

    Allen’s own conduct is, in my opinion, the biggest factor in influencing my opinion. My abuser also had a thing for inappropriately young women as he got older and started the relationship with his wife when she was only 11. I know my anecdotal experience doesn’t prove anything but there is a pattern here that’s impossible to ignore.

    I don’t automatically assume a woman is telling the truth when abuse allegations surface. My sister-in-law always has a sob story of that kind when she leaves a man and I think she’s full of crap. But this story has so many elements to it that point to Allen as a seriously sick man.

    Like

  38. caprizchka February 14, 2014 at 21:48 #

    RS. Great minds think alike. I’m with you on all three fronts as a similar abuse survivor.

    Like

  39. RS February 15, 2014 at 08:21 #

    I don’t actually like to pull the ‘abuse survivor’ card but in this case it seems appropriate. It just has all the hallmarks of a legitimately abusive situation. Allen seriously creeps me out and I bet you get the same vibe.

    Like

  40. LostSailor February 16, 2014 at 00:40 #

    Have to disagree. Having read through a lot of the evidence, I have to conclude, despite my complete antipathy to Woody Allen, that it’s highly likely that he is absolutely not guilty, indeed innocent, of the allegation that he abused Dylan Farrow.

    No one is presuming that “every case of sexual abuse must be trumped up.” If the evidence lead to a conclusion that Allen was guilty, even if not convicted, I’d be happy to drop him into the blackhole of public approbation and forget him.

    Your suggestion about only supporting men who are “clearly” railroaded is ludicrous You want to completely overturn the burden of proof such that a man accused must prove himself innocent. Which makes you part of the problem…

    Like

  41. LostSailor February 16, 2014 at 00:46 #

    That hits lots of women hard. The idea of being usurped not just by a much younger woman, but by your own daughter carries a sharp barb.

    This. This is the genesis of the whole issue. There is ample evidence that Mia Farrow is vindictive and didn’t care whether she harmed her daughter as long as it harmed Allen. Which is why this is all coming up now, driven by a tweet by Mia Farrow during the Golden Globes honoring Allen, complaining about the award after she explicitly agreed to allow clips of her in Allen’s movie to be used at the ceremony. As JB amply documents, Farrow is hypocritical and opportunistic.

    Our favorite little feminist harpy Amanda Marcotte would like to see a new preponderance of evidence standard applied to men like Woody.

    Have to disagree here. Manjaw Mandy doesn’t really want to see a new standard of preponderance of evidence. Nor do any of the women championing Dylan Farrow. It’s much worse than that.

    This is just a continuation of the movement to substitute law and due process with a conviction based on mere accusation. Rape or abuse “victims” are not just to be believed, they’re to be automatically believed. They shouldn’t just be believed to thoroughly investigate the allegation, they should be believed to the extent that the accusation is assumed to be completely true. No investigation needed. Accusation=guilt. No need for a lengthy court process, since that might “traumatize” the “victim,” which can’t be allowed, so we’ll just assume guilt and move on. This is already becoming the standard for determining guilt in rape and sexual assault cases on college and university campuses.

    I also think Woody Allen is a creepy dude (and I hate the word “creepy”). I can’t stand his films. A lot of people feel the same way. Which is why he makes the perfect vehicle for advancing the cause, over 20 years after all these charges had been thoroughly aired. Of course, the climate has changed, so now is the time.

    Like

  42. LostSailor February 16, 2014 at 01:01 #

    The differences between illegality, immorality and truth. Nobody is suggesting that Woody Allen be prosecuted for anything at this point. What is being suggested is that his character is in serious enough question based on the facts known about him that he should not be defended by AVFM or honored by the film industry.

    So, in other words, he didn’t do anything illegal, but you find circumstantial accusations of “inappropriate conduct” enough to destroy his livelihood and life. Because you personally don’t like it. Yeah, that should be the standard.

    The supposition that Dylan Farrow’s report of sexual abuse by Woody is an implanted memory is complete crap.

    Actually it’s not crap at all. I know you completely dismiss the Yale-New Haven unit (specifically focused on child abuse) report that the abuse didn’t happen. The fact that Allen was in therapy is irrelevant; he’s been in therapy his whole life because he’s Woody Allen. Much is made about his “inappropriate” behavior, but “inappropriate” is a highly subjective judgment. And there is indeed much evidence that she may have been coached by her mother.

    Your whole contention that Soon Yi was “developmentally challenged” is completely irrelevant. Your suppositions about Allen’s relationship with her are also irrelevant.

    I don’t like Woody Allen at all. I don’t necessarily like defending him. I’d be happy to throw him under the bus if facts supported that. They don’t. He may or may not be a scumbag. But defending Men’s Rights isn’t about defending the rights only of men we like and approve of. I don’t have to “feel” solidarity with him to defend him. This is not rights only for men who aren’t awkward and creepy. In fact if it’s not about defending the rights of men who are awkward and creepy, then it’s not about defending rights at all.

    Sorry, Scribbler, you’re letting your emotions override your reason.

    Like

  43. RS February 16, 2014 at 08:29 #

    The only people who will ever know are Allen and Farrow’s daughter. I have my opinion, and you have yours. Sadly I don’t think anyone will ever have to account for the damage done to the the woman at the center of this. She’s either the victim of false memories planted by her mother or abuse by her stepfather. Either way she’s suffered a lot and I feel for her.

    We talk a lot about mens rights on here but I think we all agree that a healthy family unit is what kids really need and it’s clear that this was a seriously screwed up family regardless of what really happened.

    Like

  44. human2stupidity February 16, 2014 at 13:47 #

    I keep being amazed. Men find a guy creepy, that is enough to not defend him and let the feminist hordes dilacerate him.

    Women, feminists, on the other hands, have unconditional solidarity. They defend Lorena Bobbitt, for cutting off a man’s dick, and get her acquitted. They defend women who carefully plan murder ritual of their husband, that lasted 2 hours, and get them acquitted.

    And men don’t defend anyone if feminist accusations have been disproven only 95%, if a small doubt remains that he might be guilty. Or at least if he is creepy enough to marry someone who had psychological problems when she was 10 years old.

    No wonder feminism has won the war. Feminism continues to take over the world through the United Nations, the US presidency.

    Feminism puts up quotas world wide, laws to make sure that women get the same pay for less work, and imprison scores of men with sex laws made specifically to ensnare only men. The occasional token women imprisoned by such unjust laws is celebrated by Typhonblue and Paul Elam as a proof of equal injustice for all, men and women.

    Moving the age of consent to 21 is in the making. That is dandy as long as the occasional women gets arrested for sex with a 20 year old CHILD.

    Like

  45. dolf February 16, 2014 at 14:44 #

    I must say that I (like Human2Stupidity) am quite amazed at the discussion here.
    Whether Allen is creepy or not should have zero relevance. The only thing that should matter is the truth the principle that the burden of proof is on the one who makes the proposition. (Not only in legal matters, but in all matters, including that the person who claims that there is not a tea pot flying around outside of Neptune is the one who has to burden of proof). No-one, I repeat, no-one should ever be thrown under the bus just for being creepy. Their rights should be protected just the same as the decent guys.

    Let me digress for a moment:

    I’m swedish. I believe sweden is the worst country in the world as regards feminism. It’s gone so damned bad that currently voices are heard demanding the resignation of an industrial leader who happened to state in an off-hand remark in an interview that there was a lack of competent women in the recruitment pool for company boards. No-one even bothers looking at the true facts, which is that the industrial leader has more women in one of his own company boards than for example the biggest Swedish evening paper that is howling for his blood has in three of their boards together.

    A well-known swedish feminist and TV-anchor recently made a series of 3 one hour shows where she were reminiscing about the state of feminism today. She dared ask the question “Has feminism gone to far?” and had in one of the shows ta short dialog, a minute or two, with the only well-known non-anonymous opponent to feminism there is in sweden. A rather unique scene as this opponent withdrew from the debate totally at the end of 2012 due to threats. There is currently only one real critique of feminism that voices her critique openly under her own name (a very cute PhD in mathematics at that). Most people who are actively voicing their concerns do so in anonymously due to fear of repercussions.

    Politically 7 of the 8 parties in the parliament is openly declaring themselves as feminist, the 8th party that is not feminist is pariah since its critical to immigration. Even the traditionally right-wing, conservative and liberal parties now lean towards female board quotas (affirmative action or what hell this kind of discrimination is euphemistically called in U.S.) And in EU there are attempts to make criticism of feminism illegal and lumped together with Holocaust denial etc.

    Sexual consensus legislation is in the making, muddying up the field of sexual abuse even further, and it’s probably just a matter of time until the burden of proof is on the accused to prove his innocence in abuse cases.

    Which brings me back to Woody Allen. If no-one stands up for the creepy guys, there soon will be no guys left to stand up for, since we’re all creepy in the view of feminists if we do happen do have a dangling appendage between our legs.

    So how about cutting the crap and start caring about the actual truth in the matter, and standing up for “innocent until proven guilty”.

    Like

  46. dolf February 16, 2014 at 14:48 #

    I forgot to include the point in the paragraph about the feminist TV anchor, which is that following here series of shows there’s been hundreds av articles written slaughtering her and according to feminist twitter storms one would believe she’d be Anti-Christ personified. This despite that she’s openly and without reservation still regard herself as feminist. She just dared to think a little bit.

    Like

  47. human2stupidity February 16, 2014 at 15:45 #

    Maybe the abuser is Mia Farrow. Forcefully alienates children from the father, implants false memories in their heads. And would not take a true answer (he did not touch me), rather insist until the child was traumatized enough to believe it, and to believe she will be scarred for life. And thus she became scarred for life.

    Just she forgot who scarred her. It was her mother.

    Most likely

    Like

  48. caprizchka February 16, 2014 at 21:21 #

    I do get the vibe! It’s sort of a touch me and I’ll scream sort of primal response even if I have way overgrown his preferred demographic–and thank goodness! But all that aside, I enjoy most of his pictures even if my favorite moments are generally those where he is not on the screen.

    It would seem to me that a primary driver in my alienation from feminism has to do with the supposed desirability of mealy-mouthed White Knights and the supposed infallibility of character of mothers with a fetish for being seen as “good mothers” that overrides actually being good mothers.

    As for the men here who are offended by those women who find Allen creepy, I’ll expect you to feel the same degree of acceptance you demand of us for the next grossly obese “little princess” who wants to sit on your lap and call you “daddy”.

    Freedom of association–and freedom *from* association–is more important to me than political-correctness–and that includes MGTOW-defined political-correctness.

    Like

  49. LostSailor February 16, 2014 at 23:48 #

    Since I have no problem with women who think Woody Allen creepy, I will not be accepting of a grossly obese little princess that wants to sit on my lap. [will now drink copious amounts of whiskey to bleach both images from my memory….]

    Like

  50. eddiejc1 February 17, 2014 at 02:11 #

    Thank you, JB. I don’t want to sound like a Woody Allen apologist, because I dislike Roman Polanski apologists who refuse to admit the man raped an underage girl. I think that Woody Allen relationship with his stepdaughter is inapproprate—but there’s nothing to suggest that it wasn’t consensual. I don’t believe that Dylan Farrow is lying, but that doesn’t mean that what she remembers is correct, and those memories could easily have been colored by her mother’s reaction to Allen’s relationship with Soon-Yi.

    Too many innocent people’s lives have been ruined because they were falsely convicted on evidence as flimsy as this. So don’t send the man to jail, but feel free not to buy or watch his films.

    Like

  51. human2stupidity February 17, 2014 at 02:56 #

    The burden is on the accused, to prove his innocence. That is the true state of rape and child abuse trials. Because the accused is presumed guilty, and the accuser does not have to prove anything except their accusation.

    I hate to give advice how to do false accusations. Mia Farrow committed a big mistake. She made a very specific accusation soon after the fact. The veracity of such accusations are easier to check, there is a chance to falsify the accusations. By memory of other people present, like the maid, or brother Moses. Even the accused can try to come up with an alibi, can remember what he did.

    Had she invented an accusation 3 months after the fact, it is almost unfalsifiable.

    From all I understand Woody Allen PROVED his innocence, so much that the case was not even opened, that a commission bluntly came to the conclusion that no abuse happened. That he passed a lie detector test. That maids swore that Mia tried to influence them to give false testimony.

    And still there is no peace for him. People just warm up some old lies and false information, like in feminist wage gap and domestic violence lies. They never get swayed by simple, bland facts and male patriarchy’s concepts of absolute truth and logic.

    ========= I repeat this one here again =======
    To believe Mia Farrow at this point you have to disbelieve: (1) her own son, Moses Farrow, who says the abuse never happened and he was there the whole time, (2) the Yale team, who investigated over the course of months and concluded there was no abuse (3) Dylan’s TWO therapists from that time in 1992-1993 who both had seen her for over a year and told the custody judge there was no abuse (4) Mia’s own nanny, who testified in an affidavit that Mia “set the stage to report the incident involving Dylan,” solicited her support to be “on her side” in making the claims, that it took Mia 3 days to videotape Dylan’s account, and that Moses told her back in 1992 that he knew then that it was made up (5) the independent court-appointed therapist during the custody case who recommended visitation because it was important that Mr. Allen be a part of Dylan’s life; (6) 60 Minutes the TV news program, who investigated and said the reports they read supported Allen and more.

    ========
    There seems to have been a judge who let Woody go, but with admonishments that he seems guilty. From what I understand, that judge was reprimanded by a higher court, later on.

    Like

  52. Rs February 17, 2014 at 04:45 #

    What are the odds though? To think that Farrow had to go to so much trouble when you have a man who initiates as sexual reationship with a girl he raised as a stepdaughter is beyond credulity. If Allen wasn’t famous I bet most people wouldn’t cut him so much slack.

    Like

  53. caprizchka February 17, 2014 at 17:55 #

    Well said even if I am a Polanski apologist. LOL.

    It should also be noted that Woody Allen had the poor judgment to get involved with a woman like Mia Farrow and that Mia Farrow had the poor judgment to get involved with a man like Woody Allen. I stand with Dylan but have little empathy or sympathy for either of her “parents” however that is defined.

    I wish the best for all–but not to benefit one hysteric/narcissist over another. If that makes me a traitor to “movement” well then, I’ll just be a WGHOW–as opposed to with a “They” crowd. That’s OK by me. One is known by the company one keeps.

    As for Allen, I doubt he’d be overjoyed to get this movement’s support any more than Ellen James was thrilled with the “support” of the Ellen Jamesians. It would seem to me that Allen already has plenty of support where it counts for him–within his industry and among his friends. Hopefully, for him, Soon-Yi won’t grow out of her support of him by initiating a tell-all sourgrapes account herself such that he would be advised to try to make her happy as an individual–I know, a shocking and radical notion. Hopefully, Dylan will find her own “loving father figure” who accepts her own individual strengths and weaknesses with a minimum of exploitation thereof.

    Like

  54. ScribblerG1 February 17, 2014 at 18:42 #

    Watching the parade of sophists and half-wits here is truly disappointing. The operative question is: Should the MRM and MRAs and MGTOWs be “supporting” Woody out of some sense of solidarity with him as a man falsely accused or not? Not whether he’s guilty or not – nobody here knows whether he molested Dylan and all the back and forth is just a cheap rehash of better articles done about all this on the Daily Beast or Vanity Fair or in the various books written about it.

    Given this framing of the issue, it seems to me that Allen would have to not have strong evidence against him in order to “support” him. To me, the accounts of the evidence back in ’92 are quite strong but it’s not airtight and there is a counter story that isn’t completely crazy. But it’s not as though there isn’t a case to be made and when that same victim speaks out as an adult, I don’t feel compelled to take anyone’s side as an MRM as it’s not obvious that there is some tragic miscarriage of justice going on here.

    As for Soon Yi, it’s a crucial aspect of Allen’s character. The people here who keep bleating “it was consensual” are missing the point. Soon Yi was in a family system with other siblings in which Allen was the father figure. She had no father. She was developmentally challenged and very slow to mature due to the horrendous abuse and neglect she suffered before Mia adopted her. Fyi, this fact is not disputable – and at 18 years old she was quite immature socially and emotionally. So even though Allen’s actions were “legal” they are questionable morally based on her vulnerability and Allen’s role in Soon Yi’s family system. You may disagree with that view, but again – it’s not without a reasonable basis. It can reasonably be seen as indicative of Allen’s character with respect to sex and relationships – period. I see it as possibly exploitative and in any event, quite inappropriate and it makes me wonder when actual intimate contact may have started. People here act like that’s crazy talk – which is truly bizarre.

    All of this makes me believe it’s absurd to offer any support to Woody Allen as an MRA. Why can’t the rest of you see this? Why are you so quick to dismiss the evidence about the original complaint and to realize that his relationship with Soon Yi colors the impression of him?

    Last, those here bringing up Polanski are completely effed up. Polanski drugged/fed alcohol to a 13 yr old girl and then vaginally and anally raped her. There is no disputing that he did this. He’s a scumbag of the highest order and anyone who can’t see it is human trash. There is a very ugly segment of the MRM and MGTOW movements who are basically men who are pigs who seem to think that the movement is about removing all moral judgment about men’s sexual and parental behavior. Such people make me question whether I want to be in a movement with them as they make puke come up the back of my throat.

    Like

  55. ScribblerG1 February 17, 2014 at 18:47 #

    But his guilt or innocence isn’t the question. The question is why should MRAs support hims as some kind of cause? Why do people on this thread seem to be unable to process that question?

    Like

  56. dolf February 17, 2014 at 19:01 #

    It’s not a matter of whether MRAs should support Allen or not, it’s a matter of MRAs ought to stand up for every man’s (and woman’s) right to a fair and unbiased trial. No-one should have to take side for or against Allen, but everybody should take a stand for a fair and just treatment of him, as of anyone else. Regardless of any personal feelings of repulsion or adoration.

    Like

  57. ScribblerG1 February 17, 2014 at 19:33 #

    I wonder, do you even see how irrational and hysterical you are being about this? Nobody – not even Dylan herself – is suggesting Allen be prosecuted or brought up on charges for anything. You are making this up in your tiny little head. Dylan came out very simply because, according to her, she found the unqualified praise of Allen to be wrong. That’s what happened here. Nobody is talking about anyone getting a trial.

    What is being discussed is “the court of public opinion” – and on that count, based on the facts on offer it’s not without reason and evidence to conclude that Allen is likely a scumbag. I do – I have boycotted his movies ever since this came out in the ’90s. I also don’t see Polanski movies – I can live without them, no problem. He doesn’t deserve a “fair trial” in the court of public opinion. And in fact, Allen has gotten a pass on all this for 20 years – so how is he being treated unfairly? What, you think Dylan has no right to make accusations? Is she supposed to just shut up?

    Think more, comment less.

    Like

  58. human2stupidity February 17, 2014 at 20:27 #

    Roman Polanski gave alcohol and some recreational drugs to a precocious 13 year old. Something very common in the wild 70ies where all Rock stars had 14 year old groupies.

    Most likely he only had illicit sex with a minor and did not violently rape her, like in the old fashioned rape definition.

    But I digress: he certainly violated laws, he admitted to it, and it would do injustice to Woody Allen to conflate the two cases. Except that Mia Farrow defended Polanski, it seems.

    Now I repeat, Woody Allen’s case was dropped, in spite of the legal maxim that men are GUILTY until proven innocent in child abuse accusations.

    I also want to stress that SAID, sexual abuse accusations in divorce are very frequent and women routinely use such methods. There is not much to wonder.

    Woody Allen certainly should be defended, because we should defend due process. Someone whose case was dropped, for sore lack of evidence, and seemingly proven false accusations, he should be left alone

    A campaign to ruin his life’s work should be opposed.

    Like

  59. LostSailor February 17, 2014 at 21:03 #

    Talk about being a sophist and a half-wit, there Scribbly.

    There is no “miscarriage of justice” here. Allen was adjudicated in the early 90s and was not charged.

    Soon Yi was in a family system with other siblings in which Allen was the father figure. She had no father.

    Incorrect. She had a father: Andre Previn. As for Allen being a “father figure,” let Soon-yi speak for herself: “To think that Woody was in any way a father or stepfather to me is laughable. My parents are Andre Previn and Mia, but obviously they’re not even my real parents,” Previn said at the time. “I came to America when I was seven. I was never remotely close to Woody. He was someone who was devoted exclusively to his own children and to his work, and we never spent a moment together.”

    I think I’ll take her word over yours, no matter how creeped out you are about it.

    There’s also the fact that they’ve been together for over 20 years and married for over 15. So apparently she doesn’t think the relationship exploitative or inappropriate. There’s also the fact that the two have adopted–after the molestation accusations–two children, and while it’s possible that Allen’s fame and wealth influenced this process, it’s highly unlikely that the couple were not well-scrutinized before each adoption.

    So, professional child-abuse investigators and subsequent adoption agencies have concluded that abuse didn’t take place, no matter how much you want to suppose it did. This is not “being quick to dismiss the evidence of the original complaint” it’s assessing the evidence and finding it wanting. Allen’s relationship with his current wife is irrelevant, as are your emotions about it.

    As I’ve said, I couldn’t care less about Woody Allen. What I do care about is the movement afoot to “convict” him as you do based on mere allegations. Allegations are not proof of anything, even if they are repeated years later.

    As for Roman Polanski, I don’t recall anyone defending him. Oh, wait, yes I do recall Mia Farrow defending him. As recently as 2002 when she appeared on his behalf in a British court. Does she qualify as “human trash”? I also recall that Farrow married a 50-year-old Frank Sinatra when she was 21. Are you creeped out about that? She did better when she broke up Andre Previn’s marriage and married the 41-year-old Previn when she was 25. Does that fit under your creep-radar?

    Why are you so quick to dismiss the evidence that Mia Farrow is a hypocrite and that she just might be a vindictive manipulator who, in the midst of a very bitter custody dispute, might have been desperate enough to get back at Allen that she coached her young daughter to create a molestation charge.

    Because that, like, never happens.

    For all I care, Woody Allen can go fuck himself. But I will continue to fight against people like you who assume guilt on the basis of unsupported allegation. That’s a definite harm to men and to our legal system, which means it’s also a definite harm to you as well.

    If you don’t want to support men just because they disagree with your emotional postings, perhaps men don’t need or want your support…

    Like

  60. ScribblerG1 February 17, 2014 at 22:32 #

    “A precocious 13 yr old”? Have you actually read the testimony from the Polanski case? This wasn’t a party, it was a sex crime. By making this statement you have identified yourself as someone not fit to be among civilized people.

    Like

  61. ScribblerG1 February 17, 2014 at 22:47 #

    Learn the meaning of words before you lecture others – and yes, you typify the morons I was describing in my comment. In fact, the issue of sexual abuse was not adjudicated, numbnutz. It was presented in a family court hearing and the family court judge decided that Woody Allen was not safe for Dylan to be around – so if that’s what you are referring to as “adjudication” it was a finding of culpability against Allen.

    Criminal charges were not filed due to Dylan’s “fragile state” – not so difficult to understand that decision with a 7 yr old in the mix and Woody already banished from contact.

    The rest of your statement is a yawn. I’ve read all about this by real investigative journalists, you are only mouthing poorly what others have actually researched and presented. And still. you miss the point. Woody hasn’t been convicted of anything, nobody is suggesting he be arrested – yet you act like he’s up in the dock. The objection you weakminded loudmouth is to MRM’s standing up for him as though he’s obviously some kind of victim when at best the evidence in the case is mixed and he certainly has behaved in ways that are highly questionable. You bring up Mia Farrow’s standing up for Polanski – as though that has any relevance here – I think she was wrong to do that. Last? If you think his relationship with Soon Yi wasn’t inappropriate, my guess is you don’t have any children. Woody was a father figure to Soon Yi’s siblings, and in her family system. While yes, he wasn’t her step father and didn’t play a role as her Dad, that was his position in the social structure. It’s plain and simply inappropriate to have a romantic relationship in that circumstance – even if just for your own children who are sibilings to Soon Yi. Any responsible and sentient adult could tell you that – but you think because the age of majority is hit, voila, all that goes away. Furthermore, you don’t deal with her well established developmental issues that had her well below her numerical age in terms of emotional and social development while in her late teens. And all I said was that it was reasonable to see this as highly inappropriate – and you react as though I’m crazy or something. I mean, you are a joke. And again, my point is that there are enough questions about Woody’s character to feel supporting him as a “victim” by the MRM is a bad idea. But you are so locked into making the case for him being blameless that you simply can’t see how that simple point is quite valid. You are standing for him as though he’s like Mandela in jail when in fact he’s hardy paid any price for any of this. He doesn’t need you to stand up for him – he’s doing just fine.

    You know what’s funny about you? You lecture others but can’t even put a coherent argument together, which makes me think you believe you are far smarter than you actually are. You are just spewing hyperbole.

    Like

  62. LostSailor February 17, 2014 at 23:39 #

    Ah, Scribbley, I was right about one thing (well I was right about more than that, but that doesn’t fit your agenda), the MRM certianly doesn’t need your support as evidenced by your lack of reading comprehension. And take your own advice about learning the meaning of words, since nothing I wrote was remotely hyperbole.

    Since you seem a little slow, I’ll make it simple for you: this isn’t about “defending” Allen. It’s about not allowing allegations and accusations to become the equivalent of proof of guilt. The only reason to rehash events of 20 years ago is to emphasize that there was no evidence (outside the “maybes” and assumptions that you frantically spin) that the allegation was true, which is counter to the drumbeat to assume guilt without evidence.

    The real issue is why this is happening now, and it’s happening now because feminists want accusations of sexual misconduct by men to be assumed as true, to change the standard to guilty until proven innocent, and to place extreme social sanctions on men who have not been convicted of any crime or, often, even been subjected to any due process.

    It’s happening to Allen now, because he was honored with an award for his film-making. And feminists want to use this as a high-profile example where a man’s life work should be destroyed based on an accusation. Dylan Farrow’s letter is quite explicit about that: the whole thing is framed as a plea people in general to shun Allen’s films (I already do, but that’s because I think they suck) and to Hollywood especially to stop working with him. Based on an allegation.

    Many feminist writers wholeheartedly approved of this post in New Inquiry:

    The damnably difficult thing about all of this, of course, is that you can’t presume that both are innocent at the same time. One of them must be saying something that is not true. But “he said, she said” doesn’t resolve to “let’s start by assuming she’s lying,” except in a rape culture, and if you are presuming his innocence by presuming her mendacity, you are rape cultured. It works both ways, or should: if one of them has to be lying for the other to be telling the truth, then presuming the innocence of one produces a presumption of the other’s guilt. And 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.

    This is, of course, a false dichotomy. One designed so that feminists like Jessica Valenti can write that we need to start automatically believing women’s accusation en masse. Because of a nonexistent “rape culture.” It’s also useful as a cudgel with which to beat up anyone who does try to defend someone accused of sexual abuse or rape. No need for investigation, evidence, or due process; the court of “public opinion” doesn’t need those passe relics, and their patriarchical anyway.

    And if it can happen to a famous, if creepy, person, it can happen to your average college student or your average father in a divorce.

    That’s what we’re defending. Unfortunately you let your emotions over Allen to cloud your vision and your judgment and you join the feminist mob.

    So, no, I think we can do without supporters like you…

    Like

  63. Dave Shaffer February 18, 2014 at 02:45 #

    Around the same time as Woody’s ordeal and the McMartin witch-hunt (1992), my ex (now) accused me of molesting my 4 y/0 daughter. It was a time of shoot first for anyone accused of such a heinous crime. I was also in the Air force at the time, a career NCO. I spent 6 weeks confined to the base and lost everything I owned to include my family. Even after the military equivalent of a grand jury tossed the case I still faced discharge under the presumption of guilt at a discharge hearing where the preponderance of evidence is the determining factor. After going through a polygraph at my expense the military also requested I go through a poly of their own. I passed both tests and went on to serve over 10 more years and retire. BTW, I still work for the military as a civilian with a security clearance, every 7 years I have to explain if I were ever charged with a crime and what was the outcome.
    What is also infuriating is the shrink she used who incidentally confirmed abused and receive several years of state funded rehab fees. I will call him out (Theron Kinsey, Sacramento)
    There is no compensating me for the 10 years I lost from my two children, I had no money to challenge her sole custody especially after paying child/spousal support. I have communications with my children now, and see them occasionally, they still live in Sacramento and I work in Hawaii. Me and my daughter do not discuss the case much, except she remembers crying when they took me away.
    I have since moved on, spent 10 years in Turkey and 3 more in Kuwait.

    Dave

    Like

  64. Spaniard February 18, 2014 at 11:02 #

    You are glamorous!

    I love women smoking cigars.

    Like

  65. RS February 18, 2014 at 15:56 #

    I don’t see Allen as someone MRAs should support or feel any obligation toward at all. No cause, in my opinion, is so monolithic that common sense should be thrown out in the name of “the cause.”

    Like

  66. Jack H. February 18, 2014 at 22:51 #

    this whole Issue is absurd.

    Q: has woody Allen been convicted of this crime in a court of law?
    A: no, no he has not.

    as such he must, MUST be considered innocent until such time as he is in fact convicted of it in a court of law. to do any less would be a severe violation of Woody Allen’s basic human rights as defined under article 11 of the Universal Deceleration of Human Rights.
    as would treating him as if he were guilty or calling his character into question due to evidence pertaining to this crime he has not been convicted of.
    denying him reward earned for his work due to an issue that was/is not a part of that work would violate not only article 11, but article 27 as well. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

    The burden of proof for any case MUST fall entirely upon the accuser rather than the accused, as it is impossible to prove a negative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence
    since it is impossible to prove that no crime was committed based purely on absence of evidence of that crime the accused would ALWAYS BE FOUND GUILTY if/when the burden is upon them to prove their own innocence.
    the accuser on the other hand must simply prove that something did happen and provide evidence of such, a far simpler task.
    it is possible to prove that you are Irish, it is Impossible to prove that you are not a leprechaun.

    Arguing that the victim must be believed is absurd, in all such cases they and they alone have access to the evidence should any exist and thus responsibility for providing it, What evidence can the accused provide of their lack of guilt? must they account for their whereabouts 24/7?

    This is the major logical failing inherent in all such cases where the burden of proof already falls upon the accused such as rape, molestation, and child abuse/endangerment.
    to think that this fallacy is not well known by the courts or that it is not the entire point behind placing the burden of proof where it is foolhardy at best.

    also the so called “court of public opinion” was not, is not, and should never be considered a court of law in no small part because it ignores the law entirely and makes assumptions based upon little more than emotion.

    then the question becomes is is Woody Allen a man? Yes no matter how creepy you may personally find him.
    is Woody Allen Innocent? yes he must be considered so until proven guilty.
    is Woody Allen being harassed in the court of public opinion by Feminists? Yes absolutely it is what we are discussing here in fact.

    should innocent men being harassed in the court of public opinion be defended by the MRM?
    I should think so otherwise what is the point in being here at all?

    Like

  67. Ian February 19, 2014 at 03:00 #

    “if someone says they were molested I will believe them unless there’s a good reason not to”

    I won’t. I expect a little something called “evidence”, not the right to automatically judge a man guilty because some woman says so. It’s a radical concept in this day and age, I know…

    Like

  68. iankiddy February 19, 2014 at 03:05 #

    The ultimate aim seems to be to move the age of consent past the point where most men would want to have sex with a woman in the first place. The ultimate feminist fantasy.

    Like

  69. caprizchka February 19, 2014 at 22:51 #

    Thanks but tell it to Dylan. The best cure for an unhappy childhood is to embrace one’s originality!

    Like

  70. Spiralina February 22, 2014 at 21:01 #

    Thank you. I’m tired of people acting like OJ got off because of a racial conspiracy. I don’t know about the timing of the crime, but I think it was pretty damn clear police tampered with the evidence and that alone precluded a conviction regardless of whether he killed them or not. If you think a murderer walked free that day, don’t blame the jury. Blame the LAPD.

    Like

  71. Goober February 26, 2014 at 20:35 #

    When did you start updating the blog again? I thought that you’d given up and gone over to AVFM, a website so horribly designed that I just resigned myself to not reading your awesomeness ever again!

    I’m so glad you’re back! I’m glad I checked today to make sure!

    Like

  72. Goober February 26, 2014 at 20:41 #

    “The question is not did Woody Allen molest Dylan Farrow? The question is has Woody Allen been convicted of abusing Dylan Farrow?”

    This is a lovely little chunk of statism, here. A rare case in which I disagree with you.

    OJ wasn’t convicted of killing Nicole and Ron, either, but you know what?

    I wouldn’t invite him into my house and I will always consider him to be a murderer.

    Just because the state chose not to prosecute a very powerful, very influential man (am I making my point?) does not mean that he is innocent.

    Not found guilty in a court of law? Sure. Innocent? No.

    It doesn’t mean he’s guilty, either. The “innocent until proven guilty” thing applies to government prosecutions, not my logical process. If I decide that Woody Allen molested Dylan, based on the evidence, then that’s my call, not yours, not the state’s and not anyone else’s.

    Full disclosure – I haven’t made a determination on this case because I really don’t care about Woody Allen or any of the people he surrounds himself with. i think they are all uniformly awful people.

    Like

  73. Goober February 27, 2014 at 01:08 #

    “Probably the most appealing man I have ever seen aside from my husband.”

    There are pics of me posted over at my blog now, so this could be about to change…

    But, alas, I’m already taken.:)

    Like

  74. Goober February 27, 2014 at 01:14 #

    I want to clarify:

    I am not agreeing with the demonization of an innocent man. I am not defending the feminist knee-jerk reaction to believe the accuser unconditionally. I just reacted viscerally to the idea that the only possible determiner of guilt or innocence is the State.

    Given the incidence of innocent men in prison, and guilty men walking free, I’d hate for them to be the sole arbiter.

    OJ is guilty as sin. We all know it. There is more to it than just relying on the state to make the determination. If the Duke Lacrosse boy had ended up going to jail, I’d still be absolutely certain that they were innocent of the crime for which they were accused, despite the state having convicted them. They don’t magically become guilty because the state says so, just like men who actually committed a crime don’t become magically innocent because the state says so.

    There’s more to it than the state, is all I’m saying.

    Like

  75. judgybitch February 27, 2014 at 01:23 #

    What?!? No link?!?

    Like

  76. Kalani February 28, 2014 at 23:17 #

    Allen hooked up with mia when she was 35. Why would a famous man hook up with a lady that was borderline menopausal and stay 12 years? Obviously to get access to her young daughters. He hooked up with soon yi so he could adopt young girls. Show me a case where allen had genuine horny feelings for a female over 7 and I will apologize. He only likes very young pre puberty girls. He should be hanged.

    Like

  77. Fred Flintstein March 5, 2014 at 14:11 #

    Yeah, Woody Allen is obnoxious, but you are right…
    Please write another column soon!!
    I am tired of seeing his picture up there!
    Here is something to write about…
    For one thing, where is the survey asking MEN if they were victims of domestic violence in the eu? Oh, that’s right, they don’t count, so we won’t even ask about that.
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/05/one-third-of-women-in-eu-are-victims-of-physical-or-sexual-abuse-report-shows/

    Like

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. If Woody Allen is innocent, was Dylan Farrow’s trauma caused by a monstrous Mia Farrow implanting false memories (SAID)? | Human Stupidity: Irrationality, Self Deception - February 13, 2014

    […] electric shocks. Mia Farrow testified on behalf of convicted child rapist Roman Polanski.  Judgybitch (and 3) explain how Mia Farrow herself had done all the bad deeds that infuriated her. Pedocrite, […]

    Like

  2. Linkage | Uncouth Reflections - March 3, 2014

    […] Judgy Bitch on Woody Allen. […]

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: