Earlier this week, MIT released the results of its survey of community attitudes and experiences of sexual assault among its undergraduate and graduate students. The survey is unique in its level of detail, but the data is consistent with much of what has been reported through similar surveys; 17 percent of women reported being sexually assaulted, 15 percent reported being sexually harassed, 14 percent reported being stalked or experiencing repeated, unwanted contact.
But there was one data point that surprised me, though maybe it shouldn’t have. According to the survey, 97 percent of respondents “agree they would respect someone who did something to prevent sexual assault,” but 56 percent of those who reported knowing a perpetrator did not confront the person about their behavior or take any other kind of action. This is, I think, what we’re really talking about when we talk about bystander intervention. It’s not about protecting your friends from predatory strangers — which is often how these scenarios are framed. It’s about your predatory friends. What are you going to do about them?
This is what I was thinking about when I read composer Owen Pallett’s open letter addressing the allegations that “Q” host Jian Ghomeshi, whom Pallet considers a friend, brutally assaulted three women. Three women told the Toronto Star that Ghomeshi physically and sexually assaulted them. They didn’t speak out under their own names for fear of retaliation and harassment, which has been used by some to doubt their credibility.
But here’s what Pallett wrote:
Jian is my friend. I have appeared twice on Q. But there is no grey area here. Three women have been beaten by Jian Ghomeshi.
I have sat with Jian over drinks and discussed our respective anxiety disorders. We have been photographed hugging on camera.
Just ten days ago, I helped him find musicians for his father’s funeral. Three women have said that Jian beat them without their consent.
“We will never really know what happened.” Yes we do. Jian beat, at the very least, three women. Three women said so. “They were jilted exes.” Maybe so. They were beaten by Jian.
“They were freelance writers looking to get ahead.” Three women were beaten by Jian Ghomeshi.
At no point here will I ever give my friend Jian’s version of the truth more creedence than the version of the truth offered up by three women. Anonymity does not mean these women do not exist.
Pallett’s certainty, his resolve to believe women, shocked many people. The comments on the post are pretty divided. But is there anything that scandalous about Pallett’s decision? After all, what Pallett is doing is what a lot of people have already done — taken sides. Pallett just happens to have taken the side that says that women are not vindictive. Women are not liars. Women are not out to destroy men for sport. It seems that Pallett’s open letter about his friend Ghomeshi is putting into personal practice what New Inquiry writer Aaron Bady wrote, earlier this year, about Dylan Farrow and the selective application of the “presumption of innocence”:
This is a basic principle: until it is proven otherwise, beyond a reasonable doubt, it’s important to extend the presumption of innocence to Dylan Farrow, and presume that she is not guilty of the crime of lying about what Woody Allen did to her.
If you are saying things like “We can’t really know what happened” and extra-specially pleading on behalf of the extra-special Woody Allen(Hi, The Daily Beast!), then you are saying that his innocence is more presumptive than hers. You are saying that he is on trial, not her: he deserves judicial safeguards in the court of public opinion, but she does not.
Pallett is working through this, about a man he knows, in real time. He writes:
I am skeptical of arts reporting. I am skeptical of Canadian journalism. I am sensitive toward shaming of people who are so-called sexual deviants.
But let’s be clear. Whether the court decides that predatory men are punished or exonerated does not silence the voices of the victims. It does not make victims liars.
Whether our culture continues to celebrate the works of predatory men is another issue. It does not silence the voices of the victims.
Jian Ghomeshi is my friend, and Jian Ghomeshi beats women. How our friendship will continue remains to be seen.
There is, I think, a real fear people have about being wrong if and when they believe women. And so a reflexive tendency to doubt women when they come forward begins to look a lot like caution. But what it amounts to, and this is what Pallett and Bady both made clear, isn’t the presumption of innocence or a respect for due process, but a process through which we can ignore what’s in front of us to protect ourselves, to protect the ideas we have about our friends, the ideas we have about rape and the kinds of men who hurt women.
Which feels related to the MIT survey. The kind of climate assessment MIT conducted is rare, in part because the results can be troubling and without easy fixes. Here’s what MIT chancellor Cynthia Barnhart had to say about the findings: “Sure, the data tells us things that we maybe didn’t want to hear,” but the findings show that “there is confusion among some of our students about what constitutes sexual assault.” That means, there needs to be more room to talk about those things.
Pallett says he’s looking at the data in front of him, and it’s telling him things that maybe he didn’t want to hear. Still, he’s listening anyway.
Pallett just happens to have taken the side that says that women are not vindictive. Women are not liars. Women are not out to destroy men for sport.
I think there is always a danger in saying "women are...." or "men are..." You cannot say 50% of the population definitively is or is not something. Some women *are* vindictive, just like some men are vindictive. Some women *are* liars, just like some men are liars.
I haven't been following this case, so I have no idea if these particular women are telling the truth or what the evidence is. But I cringe when I see statements like that.
Pallett just happens to have taken the side that says that women are not vindictive. Women are not liars. Women are not out to destroy men for sport.
I think there is always a danger in saying "women are...." or "men are..." You cannot say 50% of the population definitively is or is not something. Some women *are* vindictive, just like some men are vindictive. Some women *are* liars, just like some men are liars.
I haven't been following this case, so I have no idea if these particular women are telling the truth or what the evidence is. But I cringe when I see statements like that.
My guess is that the author is using this phrasing to mirror the language used by many critics of those women who claim to have been beaten/raped in this and other cases. But yes, ITA that this phrasing is uncomfortable at best.
I think it's up to at least 5 women and another host is openly bisexual and has had for-real sex on camera for one of her indy films. Jian felt like everyone's friend. Listening to his conversations made me feel less lonely. At this point though. .. I'm thinking he beats women.
If you are saying things like “We can’t really know what happened” and extra-specially pleading on behalf of the extra-special Woody Allen(Hi, The Daily Beast!), then you are saying that his innocence is more presumptive than hers. You are saying that he is on trial, not her: he deserves judicial safeguards in the court of public opinion, but she does not.
I mean, unless both parties agree in their public statements, I think there are many cases (though maybe not Woody Allen's) where we, the general public, won't actually ever know what happened. That doesn't mean we think that the women are lying. It doesn't mean that we think the men aren't abusers. It just means we acknowledge that uncertainty is part of life.
If you are saying things like “We can’t really know what happened” and extra-specially pleading on behalf of the extra-special Woody Allen(Hi, The Daily Beast!), then you are saying that his innocence is more presumptive than hers. You are saying that he is on trial, not her: he deserves judicial safeguards in the court of public opinion, but she does not.
I mean, unless both parties agree in their public statements, I think there are many cases (though maybe not Woody Allen's) where we, the general public, won't actually ever know what happened. That doesn't mean we think that the women are lying. It doesn't mean that we think the men aren't abusers. It just means we acknowledge that uncertainty is part of life.
I do not disagree with you, but in practice like 97% of the time that somebody says "we can't really know what happened" it's either explicitly said or implied that therefore we shouldn't hold it against the accused in any meaningful way. (i.e. anything from stop cheering for [insert football player here] to stop inviting creep to your game nights.)
Like...the time a good friend was date raped by a guy rushing by boyfriend's frat. She told me. She absolutely refused to tell the authorities. But I got her to let me tell my boyfriend so that he could at least keep his ass out of his frat - and it ended up being this HUGE fucking cluster where several of his brothers were all, "well he says that's not what happened and we can't really know what happened." and were going to let him become one of their "brothers" (ugh. do not miss dating frat dudes). I told my boyfriend that if that dude wasn't blackballed I (and every single one of my friends) would never be setting foot in that house again. And that I'd tell anybody who would listen that their frat had a known rapist.
They ended up blackballing him (and to his credit, my BF never ever hesitated about taking mine and her word), but a lot of guys held it against me that I pushed it so hard "just based on her word against his." AS IF SHE HAD A FUCKING REASON TO LIE ABOUT IT SHE BARELY KNEW HIM GOD I'M FILLED WITH RAGE ALL OVER AGAIN. 13 years later, still so mad about that. I wonder what ever happened to that prick?
I mean, unless both parties agree in their public statements, I think there are many cases (though maybe not Woody Allen's) where we, the general public, won't actually ever know what happened. That doesn't mean we think that the women are lying. It doesn't mean that we think the men aren't abusers. It just means we acknowledge that uncertainty is part of life.
I do not disagree with you, but in practice like 97% of the time that somebody says "we can't really know what happened" it's either explicitly said or implied that therefore we shouldn't hold it against the accused in any meaningful way. (i.e. anything from stop cheering for [insert football player here] to stop inviting creep to your game nights.)
Like...the time a good friend was date raped by a guy rushing by boyfriend's frat. She told me. She absolutely refused to tell the authorities. But I got her to let me tell my boyfriend so that he could at least keep his ass out of his frat - and it ended up being this HUGE fucking cluster where several of his brothers were all, "well he says that's not what happened and we can't really know what happened." and were going to let him become one of their "brothers" (ugh. do not miss dating frat dudes). I told my boyfriend that if that dude wasn't blackballed I (and every single one of my friends) would never be setting foot in that house again. And that I'd tell anybody who would listen that their frat had a known rapist.
They ended up blackballing him (and to his credit, my BF never ever hesitated about taking mine and her word), but a lot of guys held it against me that I pushed it so hard "just based on her word against his." AS IF SHE HAD A FUCKING REASON TO LIE ABOUT IT SHE BARELY KNEW HIM GOD I'M FILLED WITH RAGE ALL OVER AGAIN. 13 years later, still so mad about that. I wonder what ever happened to that prick?
That's the thing: no one ever says "we can't know what happened" and takes that to mean "so he's probably a rapist". It always swings the other way - maybe she's a liar, so maybe we shouldn't do a thing.
I mean, unless both parties agree in their public statements, I think there are many cases (though maybe not Woody Allen's) where we, the general public, won't actually ever know what happened. That doesn't mean we think that the women are lying. It doesn't mean that we think the men aren't abusers. It just means we acknowledge that uncertainty is part of life.
I do not disagree with you, but in practice like 97% of the time that somebody says "we can't really know what happened" it's either explicitly said or implied that therefore we shouldn't hold it against the accused in any meaningful way. (i.e. anything from stop cheering for [insert football player here] to stop inviting creep to your game nights.)
Like...the time a good friend was date raped by a guy rushing by boyfriend's frat. She told me. She absolutely refused to tell the authorities. But I got her to let me tell my boyfriend so that he could at least keep his ass out of his frat - and it ended up being this HUGE fucking cluster where several of his brothers were all, "well he says that's not what happened and we can't really know what happened." and were going to let him become one of their "brothers" (ugh. do not miss dating frat dudes). I told my boyfriend that if that dude wasn't blackballed I (and every single one of my friends) would never be setting foot in that house again. And that I'd tell anybody who would listen that their frat had a known rapist.
They ended up blackballing him (and to his credit, my BF never ever hesitated about taking mine and her word), but a lot of guys held it against me that I pushed it so hard "just based on her word against his." AS IF SHE HAD A FUCKING REASON TO LIE ABOUT IT SHE BARELY KNEW HIM GOD I'M FILLED WITH RAGE ALL OVER AGAIN. 13 years later, still so mad about that. I wonder what ever happened to that prick?
I do agree that unfortunately that's usually the way things work out.
I recently finished a re-read of Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale and the law has been codified to state that one man's testimony is the equivalent of two women. Unfortunately it seems that it's even worse in the court of public opinion here. We're up to 8 women and many people still think he's the one who's telling the truth?
I guess my comment was just being too literal with the wording. I do think it's possible to say "We don't really know what happened." Period. But too often we say "We don't really know what happened, so we shouldn't do anything about it." That's where the real problem lies, IMO.
Related but fairly random thoughts: I think there are a lot of situations where there are phrases or words that are not inherently bad or wrong - but they get used as code for other things. like how thug=the n word. In this case, "we can't know what really happened" often means "women are crazy and make shit up, and probably they asked for it anyway. And confronting this person I like about what he probably did is really uncomfortable...so I'd rather make the victim in question suffer extra. Sorry not sorry."
And maybe the SPECIFIC person using the "code" phrase in question actually means nothing of the kind, but I think any right thinking person would be well served to be aware of how other assholes are expressing themselves and be sure to be clear that this is not what they mean. Because the assholes sure as shit assume that you're on their side if you use their code. And the last thing we need is assholes thinking that everybody agrees with them.
This is an interesting article in light of all the other articles that come out when a celebrity does something wrong. I'm thinking about Lance Armstrong and how many people swore he didn't lie or take drugs and I specifically remember Rick Reilly's article about it. And there was recently one about Ray Rice in ESPN the mag I think. It is nice to hear something other than "well he's my friend, I'll support him no matter what!"