Really love this

At the end of the day, I side with Woody. This is an easy case for anyone who doesn’t have a gender bias, as this feminist, Ashley Miller, obviously has.

Did you mean, “at the end of five weeks”? So your clock is slow, too.

No, the easy case here is flagging anyone who uses “feminist” as a pejorative as belonging to the group of people who do have a gender bias.

1. Dylan didn’t even write that open letter. Mia Farrow obviously did. Why would Dylan namecheck all those actors/actresses? I’ll tell you why. Because Mia Farrow hates those people who continue to work with, and get awards for, their work with Woody Allen.

2. Mia Farrow IS crazy.

3. Mia Farrow took Dylan to a doctor, and Dylan said Woody touched her shoulder. Only days later did she take Dylan to another doctor (after days of coaching), and only then did Dylan say she was touched/pentrated or whatever.

4. On physical examination, there was absolutely no damage at all, despite the claim that Woody stuck a finger in her vagina and she screamed ‘daddy it hurts.’

5. A group of independent chld abuse experts concluded no abuse took place and Dylan was making it up or forced to tell the story because of her mother. They even viewed the videotape as being rehearsed and staged. These were experts who had investigated 1500+ cases prior… that’s why police referred the case to them in the first place.

6. The allegations only happened after Mia found out about Woody/Soon-Yi having a relationship. She was scorned.

7. A month before the molestation, during Dylan’s July 11 birthday party, Mia Farrow left Woody a note on his bedroom door that read ‘Child molestor at birthday party. Groomed one sister. Now focused on the youngest.’
Then suddenly a month later, Mia allows Woody to visit Dylan, while Mia is out shopping (lol), and the molestation actually takes place? Please.

8. Woody Allen had never before or since been accused of molestation. Most are serial molesters.

9. No charges were ever brought against him.

10. Mia’s own brother is in jail for child molestation, and her other brother was bipolar and commited suicide.

Ashley, I followed your statement analyses source that you linked at the beginning of your post and read both the analyzed versions of Dylan and Woody’s letters. It was really interesting; I went on to read about Patsy Ramsey’s interviews and some missing children’s cases, becoming totally fascinated with the process of statement analysis. But I hit a wall: in one of the letters (a suicide note by a pedophile), the analyst (Peter Hyatt?) suddenly suggested the reason why children found molestation troubling/traumatic was because they were created in the image of god. I read it over and over again, but I don’t think I misinterpreted. Even now, part of me hopes that I’m reading it wrong. If you want to read the analysis, it’s here: http://goo.gl/s5Msxe Disturbing. After that, I did some digging on SCAN (scientific content analysis) and found it was flagged as junk science. Just thought I’d put that out there in case you didn’t know (or maybe I’m under some misapprehension).

All that aside, I enjoyed reading your blog post. At the end of the day, I side with Dylan. I wish I could say I find all this controversy surprising, but I don’t 🙁 After Steubenville, I threw up my hands and gave up hoping things would change.

Why not Steersman? Aren’t you unjustly punishing hypothetical-babysitter-Woody-Allen. More to the point, what does it say about the real Woody Allen that you wouldn’t invite him to babysit your children? You couldn’t be, *gasp* personally judging him outside of a court of law, could you?

I’ll concede that that is – at least “on its face” – not a bad point. However, apart from suggesting that that analogy was a bit of a shot at some questionable moralizing over in the Pharyngulag, I might suggest that the two cases – the “hypothetical-babysitter-Allen”, and the “to-be-honoured-filmaker-Allen” – aren’t really all that particularly analogous, that there are some very significant differences that would justify different responses. Many of us are probably prepared, periodically at least, to put a buck or two on a weekly lottery, but most would, I expect, draw the line well before betting the whole farm on the roll of the dice; likewise with the difference cases with Allen: one has to assess the benefits and potential costs and the probabilities of each outcome.

There do seem to be people within the entertainment community, however, who are willing to absolve Allen of any and all guilt for the problems in the tangled Farrow-Allen situation ….

Ok, maybe that is true, but you haven’t given any evidence that that is the case. Nor do I see how that is of any particular relevance, particularly as you’ve apparently conceded that I myself am not guilty of that. In addition, you haven’t actually proven that Allen is himself guilty of anything more than, as the judge put, “grossly inappropriate behaviour”; a long stretch from that to actually being guilty of the sexual molestation charge that is being bandied about.

I pointed out that slinging insults back weakens you position and makes you look immature simply because that’s how it does come across to me, and, I suspect, to others.

Ok, you’re welcome and entitled to have that opinion. But you should realize that it, for one thing, seems predicated on an assumption about my intent. I don’t particularly enjoy returning insults, but, as with parents discipling children or with society disciplining various miscreants, there is sometimes a necessity for them. And for the wilfully obtuse, a dose of their own medicine is precisely what the doctor ordered. Turning the other cheek only works so many times – two or three if the offending person is lucky; after that they can or should expect to get unloaded on.

I find it somewhat frustrating to watch you argue cogently on a point– and then undercut your own persuasive arguments with tactics you don’t even need. Something to think about?

Maybe, although I appreciate the implied compliment. But the “point” is, I think, substantially larger than just some “extrajudicial” penalties that some wish to see meted out to Allen, and includes questions about the use of “civil” language which seems integral to civilization. And, as suggested by the recent furor at Skepchick (1) over the use of “ableist” terms such as “stupid” and “idiot” – which I might point out were precisely the ones used by Jadehawk against me (2), and likewise by that paragon of virtue, one “Flewellyn” (3) – it seems that the use of gratuitous insults is far too common and rather problematic. But if you’re going to allow some then you pretty well have to allow them all – and rely on people understanding that “mutual assured destruction” is the order of the day and to govern themselves accordingly.

—-
1) “_http://skepchick.org/2014/02/insults-slurs-and-stupidity/”;
2) “_http://jadehawks.wordpress.com/2013/04/13/a-collection-of-reading-comprehension-fails/”;
3) “_http://jadehawks.wordpress.com/2013/04/13/a-collection-of-reading-comprehension-fails/#comment-3295”;