Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mean-Spirited Celebrity Gossip

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I couldn't even get through this: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/op...peaks-out.html
    The victim-blaming, the Mia as 'malevolent' shrew..
    I note he points out how closely he and Soon-Yi were scrutinised when going through the adoption process, but is there any way a civilian who had previously been accused of sexual abuse by a daughter, and had a prosecutor declare there was probable cause to charge him, be allowed to adopt again? -< genuine question

    Dylan has responded point-by-point: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...y-allen-678552
    Yikes, this is so horrible and messy
    Last edited by soccergirl; 02-08-2014, 03:36 AM.

    Comment


    • but is there any way a civilian who had previously been accused of sexual abuse by a daughter, and had a prosecutor declare there was probable cause to charge him, be allowed to adopt again? -< genuine question
      No, I don't think so. IIRC, we could not have been cleared for an adoption at all if we had EVER been involved in a child abuse investigation, even if it had not been proved against us. We also could not have anything in our police records (DUIs, or anything). We also could never have lost custody of a child in the past. Int'l adoption has different criteria than domestic, but I can't imagine that any state would have let Woody adopt if he had not been Woody Allen, tbh. Adoptions restrictions are tough. It's absolutely unbelievable to me that any social worker would have cleared Woody and Soon-Yi in a home study with those accusations on the record. Which means shenanigans which need to be looked into.

      (China had additional restrictions . . . we had to pass several blood tests, we had to own our own home, we had to have a certain amount of money in the bank, neither of us could have been on any kind of anti-depressant in the past ten yrs, we had to have 'acceptable' BMIs, etc.)


      This article in VF also does a great job of refuting Woody's contentions: http://www.vanityfair.com/online/dai...abuse-10-facts

      All in all, there has been absolutely nothing that has come out to shake me in my #JusticeForDylan beliefs.

      Comment


      • I think y'all know I used to work in foster care/adoptions and if a person has ever had more than 2 bounced checks, no adoption for you! I can't even imagine the NO an accused, alleged molester would get.
        "But my greatest pain in life is that I will never be able to see myself perform live.Ē---Kanye

        Comment


        • This drives me nuts.

          http://excrementalvirtue.com/2014/02...washing-woody/

          We’ve all watched everyone become an expert on false-memory syndrome overnight—happens all the time! It’s easy to do! Allen’s defenders say. Totally mythic! False epidemic! say Dylan’s supporters. I’m not an expert, so I’m going to leave that alone, though I suggest we make a habit of implanting happier memories into children with traumatic pasts if it’s really that easy. What I do know a little about is polygraphs, and given that Allen resorts to using one to prove his credibility—which is easily disproved using other means—I think it’s worth mentioning that polygraphs are junk science. The American Psychological Association notes that “there is no evidence that any pattern of physiological reactions is unique to deception. An honest person may be nervous when answering truthfully and a dishonest person may be non-anxious.”

          I submit that, rather than accept Allen’s own framework for what proves his honesty, we should examine his credibility by looking at his own record.

          One last thing about polygraphs: the theory behind polygraph tests is that you get nervous when you’re lying. But if we’ve learned anything from watching this awful case unfold over the past 21 years, it’s that Woody Allen wouldn’t be nervous because he doesn’t believe himself to have done anything wrong—not with Dylan, and (this is where this becomes relevant) not with Soon-Yi. When asked whether he destroyed a family, his response is matter-of-fact. From The Baltimore Sun:

          Q: But Soon-Yi is the sister of all those kids.

          A: Yes, but it’s not that they’re really sisters.

          That’s all right then. Note the narrative Woody tries to propagate here—one far more pernicious than the distortion Dylan’s defenders resort to when they accuse him of incest. (True, he was not their legal stepfather.) Woody’s story, which he has doubtless passed on to Soon-Yi, is this was never your real family.

          Or this, to Time Magazine:

          Q. Did you talk to your analyst about how this would affect a child?

          A. It wasn’t so complex. It doesn’t have that quality to it that you think.

          Q. What about how it would affect her siblings?

          A. These people are a collection of kids, they are not blood sisters or anything.

          “These people are a collection of kids,” he says. They’re not a family. They’re not related by blood. (One wonders why he bothered to adopt four times, if blood was the precondition to family.) To hear Allen tell it, his three children and Mia’s other children are a “collection” of people that happened to include Soon-Yi. Yes, that group happened to live in a house he visited every day for the better part of twelve years, but who’s to say—he really said this in that same interview—he might not have met Soon-Yi “at a party or something”? Yes, Mr. Allen, it’s true that in another timeline you might have met your wife as an adult at a party, but you didn’t: you met her when she was nine years old and—this is the important thing— ignored her for a decade.
          Obviously, as an adoptive parent this right there makes me want to RAAAAAGESPLODE. As though I needed another reason to despise this guy. By the way, these statements being on the record would also have precluded him from being cleared to adopt again.

          Here’s how Soon-Yi describes it:

          "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. We rarely ever spoke, and were polite but uninterested in one another. The fact is I really had no interest in knowing him better, nor he me."

          What’s emerging from these descriptions that are intended to defend Allen is an incredibly sad environment, especially for a child like Soon-Yi, who’d only been in the US two years when Woody entered her mother’s (but not her) life. It’s an environment in which the only father figure with a daily presence in the house routinely favored his children over the others and regarded them as a “collection” and not a family. Allen said to Time that he “was not a father to [Mia’s] adopted kids in any sense of the word.” He visited the house daily, he says, but “the last thing I was interested in was the whole parcel of Mia’s children.”

          He just wasn’t “interested”. We might ponder the extraordinary narcissism that explanation (and word choice) betrays, but as it happens, I’m not particularly interested in analyzing Allen. My object in writing this is to see what’s on the record—what he has actually said. Given these straightforward admissions of indifference and Judge Wilk’s assessment that Allen favored Dylan but “remained aloof from Ms. Farrow’s other children except for Moses, to whom he was cordial,” it’s rather remarkable that Allen’s camp charged Mia with treating the adopted children differently from the biological ones.
          Anyway, I only brought over the parts which should have made him clearly ineligible to adopt children, but the article also lays out all of the ways Woody lied (which are documented) and how he has manipulated the people and the narrative. Too much to c&p, but def worth a read. It makes it very clear that Woody is operating out of a deeply ingrained narcissism. Which is no surprise?

          Also, this Gawker article from the perspective of an adult survivor of sexual abuse by his father was interesting: http://gawker.com/woody-allen-is-not...y-f-1518291644

          And to round-out the cheeriness of all this, here's an interview with one of the women assaulted by Bill Cosby: http://www.newsweek.com/taking-bill-cosby-228495

          Just a thought, where are the female genius artist abusers? If being an artist often has it's 'dark' side and so many geniuses are forgiven for being horrible molestors because of their genius, then why aren't female geniuses uncovered as abusers and molestors as often?

          I had to take a class to get certified as a nursery volunteer for church, and the person who led the class was the lawyer hired by the county to prosecute abuse and sex crimes against children. He was very careful throughout the class to say, "He or she" about potential perpetrators (we were supposed to be training on how to prevent or recognize sexual abuse) but when I asked him what the percentage of women was who were involved in the many sex crime cases he had prosecuted (over a hundred in over 20 yrs), he said zero. He'd never prosecuted a female perpetrator of a sex crime against a kid. NEVER.

          So what we should really say is that MALE geniuses and artists should be forgiven when they do monster things because it comes along with being both MALE and a genius artist type person. Well, bally for the patriarchy.

          Whatever, I'm going to go sit in a corner and think misandric thoughts for awhile.
          Last edited by ophy; 02-10-2014, 10:15 AM.

          Comment


          • http://www.theatlantic.com/entertain...pinion/283705/

            Why It's OK to Try Woody Allen in the Court of Public Opinion
            When an alleged victim of abuse tells her story to the world, it's not any more virtuous to ignore the controversy than it is to take a side.
            Dahlia Lithwick at Slate, for example, rails against the Court of Public Opinion, which is, she says, "what we used to call villagers with flaming torches." She adds, "So go ahead and tweet your truth or publicly shame someone who is tweeting hers, but don’t believe for an instant that this is how complicated factual disputes get resolved or that this will change hearts and minds about our woefully anti-woman, anti-victim culture." Alec Baldwin, who appeared in Allens's latest film, had a briefer, more visceral, but similar response when he responded to requests for a comment by tweeting, "“What the f&@% is wrong w u that u think we all need to b commenting on this family’s personal struggle? You are mistaken if you think there is a place for me, or any outsider, in this family’s issue."

            Again, you can understand the logic behind those reactions. But both Lithwick and Baldwin gloss over an important fact. The person who wants this to be tried in the court of public opinion—the person who has invited, and even demanded, comment on the family's personal struggle—is Dylan Farrow. And she's done so because she's well aware that the court of public opinion is the only court open to her. Comments threads and social-media discussions may be ugly and awful, but Farrow has made an informed and understandable decision that they are not as ugly and awful as child abuse.
            #JusticeForDylan

            Public opinion is the only way to hold Allen to any sort of account; it's the only way to make venues like the Golden Globes think twice, or three times, or more, before giving him awards for career achievements. It's the only way to make actors like Alec Baldwin consider Dylan Farrow before signing on to be in a Woody Allen picture. And it's the only way to make people think about child abuse when they ask, "What's your favorite Woody Allen movie?" You can't make child abuse visible if you don't make it public. And without visibility—as Farrow is aware every time she sees an ad for an Allen movie or someone wearing his face on a shirt—there is no justice.

            As is probably fairly clear at this point, I think Allen is a child abuser. (I find Maureen Orth's recent piece in Vanity Fair, Jon Lovett's discussion, and Jessica Winter's article especially convincing.) I think the evidence is quite clear; if I were on a jury, knowing what I know now, I would convict. I am aware that others can honestly disagree, and I respect that. But I do wish people would stop insisting that the conversation is inappropriate, or that it is somehow more virtuous to not take a side. If we all just stay above the fray, and insist that the existence of abuse here is unknowable—that, de facto, means that Allen wins. If no one is judging, if no one will discuss his family life, he can go on as he always has, and, presumably, keep collecting those lifetime achievement awards. Farrow is asking you to take a side and to see this as a public issue. If you don't, you should at least be aware whose wishes you are honoring, and whose you are not.
            #JusticeForDylan


            If nothing else, these are meta discussion very much worth having if we are to ever make a dent in Rape Culture or Blaming The Victim Culture.

            Comment


            • I can only hope this is true! If this can put a dent in how some people view victims? Then HALLELUJAH. I just have so little faith in changing anybody's mind. Most people are morons.

              Actually, it's funny you brought that first Allen piece over because I have to say that Woody's NYT piece kinda sealed his guilt for me. I think basically every adult in the Allen/Farrow sphere is a shit stain but Woody's egomaniacal piece was a pretty amazing read.

              Like you also said, when you start compiling the information? His extreme narcissism is a wonder! He's maybe the least self-aware person on the planet at this point. I always discounted his statements in the early 90s about barely knowing Soon-Yi and not really even considering her a part of the family (LOL) to be a way to cover up and save face (something that makes sense if you suddenly are hot for your girlfriend's daughter). I can accept that he and Soon-Yi were not close as that doesn't even seem to be a point of debate among Team Farrow.

              However, the fact that 20 years later he has ZERO perspective on what happened gave me great pause. It blows my mind that to this day he can't say: Obviously, what I did to Mia was horrific, and despite the fact that Soon-Yi and I have a happy, quiet life together it came at great expense to both us AND others, which is unfair and hurtful and caused a tidal wave of repercussions that we still deal with and cause us regret... etc. I mean, he acts like Mia is super mad over NOTHING to him, which makes him out of touch with reality and thus an unreliable narrator all over the place.

              We've all made mistakes that hurt others (not on his level, mind you) but if you can't admit to any of them? That's another level of narcissism and denial that is super disturbing.
              Itís just really honestly so tiring and emotionally draining to have to get upset over reality constantly.

              Comment


              • I don't think this media circus will help any victim, least of all Dylan.

                Mia Farrow is an awful parent, that's what I've taken away from this. I already hated Woody Allen.
                Bitter Shipper

                Comment


                • Soleil Moon Frye named her son 'Lyric Sonny Roads Goldberg': http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-...-roads-2014122

                  "Welcome to the world Lyric Sonny Roads Goldberg!" Frye wrote on Wednesday, Feb. 12. "Can't wait to share our pics and moments in the upcoming months. Thanks for all the love and support."
                  The 37-year-old actress and husband Jason Goldberg welcomed their third child on Feb. 9. "Our amazing baby boy was born yesterday," the former Punky Brewster star tweeted at the time. "We are so excited for the newest addition to our family. Thank you for the love! Xo."

                  Lyric weighed in at 9 lbs and measured 21 inches long. He joins two big sisters who have similarly memorable names: Poet, 8, and Jagger, 5.
                  "I hope that since Poet's 8 and Jagger's 5 that they'll be little mommies," Frye previously told Us back in October about her daughters. "We don't have a nanny and everyone in our family chips in."

                  She added: "I never realized that as a mom I'd learn more from my kids then I could ever teach them. I thought I'd give them all this wisdom, and they're my biggest teachers. They're constantly inspiring me."
                  She is a person who is well aware of the consequences of the Hollywood Crazy name, so she must know what she is doing, but . . .

                  Anyway, Poet and Lyric sort of go together, I guess, but Jagger must be pretty confused.

                  Comment


                  • Affleck and Damon asking for charity money, but doing it adorably: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojZmJPr4jHE

                    Comment


                    • I would hate to win that thing. Is that weird? I mean, WTF would I say to Matt & Ben? I have NOTHING to say to them.
                      Itís just really honestly so tiring and emotionally draining to have to get upset over reality constantly.

                      Comment


                      • Ellen Page came out, which was not that shocking BUT I now actively ship her and Alia Shawkat (Buzzfeed agrees), who are BFFs and giggle together a lot and I'm 80% sure they are dating.
                        Itís just really honestly so tiring and emotionally draining to have to get upset over reality constantly.

                        Comment


                        • Her speech was lovely!

                          http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2...ty_public.html

                          Comment


                          • I ship it!

                            Comment


                            • Did we know about this couple?

                              Olivia Munn and the guy from The Killing?

                              http://www.justjared.com/page/5/

                              Olivia Munn and boyfriend Joel Kinnaman hold hands while taking a wet stroll on Valentine’s Day (February 14) in New York City.

                              “It’s finally here! @RoboCop in theaters!! Come quietly or there will be trouble…,” the 33-year-old actress tweeted the day before to show support for her 34-year-old beau’s new film.

                              Comment


                              • Yes, I knew about that! I'd like to see that sex tape leak, tbh.
                                Itís just really honestly so tiring and emotionally draining to have to get upset over reality constantly.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X