This diary could easily trigger a sex assault victim, so please be warned:
POSSIBLE TRIGGERS BELOW
The back and forth playing out in the media concerning Dylan Farrow reminds me why people don't often talk about their sex assault experiences. It brings out all sorts of people who feel entitled to judge the veracity of the experience. Therapists quickly reassure the sexual assault client that they have no reason to feel shame, but that isn't true in the court of public opinion. Talking about the experience helps the healing process, but talking also brings out the judges, skeptics and those who are inherently hostile toward sex assault victims.
Robert Weide, an Oscar nominated documentarian did a documentary on Woody Allen and became an Allen fan boy. He wrote a fawning article defending Woody Allen published by The Daily Beast last month. He states in the article that he checked out the molestation claim to his satisfaction during his documentary. He writes a detailed, but biased defense of Woody Allen with a faux veneer of etiquette. It's openly dismissive of Dylan Farrow's allegations and it implies she's lying. It implies she was coached. It implies she was deluded twenty years ago. It implies she's believed a lie for so long the lie has become her truth. Adding more confusion is that Dylan's estranged brother, Moses, has also come out denying her story. Others openly wonder why Mia Farrow has not spoken publicly against two other child sexual abusers (her brother and Roman Polanski) that have an Alford plea and a conviction respectively.
That's a typical experience for anyone who's says they were sexually assaulted. It's muddy and confusing, ambiguity prevails. Seven year old children want to please who they are talking to and tell their listener what they want to hear. After telling the same story 100 times (which is a horrid thing to do to a 7 year old), it falls into a pattern. The narrative becomes rehearsed where only the parts that work well are retained. What looks like inconsistency to outsiders makes perfect sense to those involved. It is noteworthy that people comment on Dylan Farrow's veracity and motives but are less suspicious of Robert Weide's motives or those of Moses Farrow. No one remarks at how botched and traumatizing the initial investigation was in 1992. One thing is certain, the number one predictor of the best possible outcome in child sexual assault happens when the child's mother believes them. Dylan has that going for her, but Woody Allen's defense team said Mia Farrow made up the claim in the first place. Thankfully, a lot has changed in child molestation cases since 1992. The Dylan Farrow case is a text book case of what not to do in child assault investigations.
It's insulting to child sexual assault survivors to have people who don't know you and or weren't around at the time of the incident pass judgement on what happened. It's infuriating for people who don't know how sneaky the perpetrators of these crimes can be. Sometimes a survivor tries to clear things up. Dylan Farrow's letter that was published last weekend details what she wanted to say about Woody Allen.
It was a risk many sex assault survivors would not take, because it's high profile would invite a lot of negativity. My experiences, though a lot less public, brought about similar responses. I lied. I was deluded. It couldn't have happened that way because there were too many people in the house at the time. The perp was an Eagle Scout for cris' sake! He wouldn't do that! Yeah, well, bad things can easily happen in a house full of kids. Successful people perpetrate these crimes all the time and depend upon their irreproachable reputations to see them through. There was this pastor....
The fallout from the letter is taking a predictable course. People are taking sides. People think they have to take a side. Even Stephen King took a side. First, he said he hoped the allegations weren't true, then came the bitch slap to Dylan Farrow. King Tweeted: "Boy I'm stumped on that one. I don't like to think it's true, and there's an element of palpable bitchery there, but..." (You have to click on it to see it because I've never got the hang of embedding photos of tweets.) Later, King begged for mercy from the Twittersphere because he admits to not knowing what he was talking about.
I'm sure Blue Jasmine is as good a movie as Woody Allen has ever done, but all these accolades directed to Woody Allen via the Golden Globes, SAG and the Oscars could well be triggering sex assault victims everywhere - not that he cares about that. Ever since 1992, there are those who will watch Woody Allen films and those who will not - not that Woody Allen cares. To Dylan Farrow, Woody Allen's lifetime achievement is not for film.
In 1993 Dylan Farrow was 7. She's a stronger 28 year old today. Child sexual assault treatment was in it's adolescence in the 90s. You had a fifty/fifty chance of running into quackery instead of effective treatment. A lot of child sex assault cases went no where for a lot of reasons, chief among them was the lack of good protocols for dealing with these cases. Today a child is interviewed once on tape by a specifically trained professional. Dylan Farrow was interviewed by 3 doctors relentlessly for SIX MONTHS, which was a trauma in itself. Lawyers in the Farrow/Allen custody battle were brutal. Police and prosecutors then and now squirm at the thought of pursuing sexual assault cases. Add the quirkiness of the the Farrow and Allen family members and the case crumbled in 1993. Prosecutor Frank Maco said there was probable cause, but he wouldn't be filing charges because it would bring harm to Dylan Farrow. That doesn't necessarily mean Allen was innocent, but you can say there was no arrest, trial or conviction.
Those defending Woody Allen fail to understand the rotten underbelly of child sexual assault. They also have no clue how the original investigation added to Dylan's suffering. Most people are unaware that most child sexual assault cases don't go to trial. The social worker's files will state sex assault is "indicated" or "confirmed", but the cases may be labeled unwinable and are tabled. It's too easy to muddy the waters and make the victim look guilty, vindictive or a dupe. "They lied." "They were seductive." "They were too young to remember." "They were coached into making the accusations." "The hypnosis implanted false memories." Whatever. Believe me, a 7 year old knows when they've been fucked with. What they don't know, is how to handle the adults freaking out around them. It's no wonder the children in these cases feel damaged, broken and somehow responsible when it's really the adults around them who are damaged, broken and responsible. It takes time to sort out the bullshit.
Hollywood generally covers up child sexual assault, other child abuses and other sexual/domestic abuses. It doesn't match the glitter. It takes guts to tell what happened. We need more people to tell their stories.
What's lost on Woody Allen defenders is that a lack of an arrest and conviction doesn't always add up to innocence. Michael Jackson was arrested, tried and acquitted, there was an earlier case that was settled out of court with a gag agreement that brought about a change in California law prohibiting gag clauses in sex abuse settlements. Here's another way to look at guilt and innocence. Would you be comfortable joining a loud, boisterous party where alcohol is served if George Zimmerman were present? Oh, dear, I just mixed murder up with sex assault. Different crimes, true; but the same concept. How about partying with Casey Anthony? Still murder? Think of child murder as the ultimate child assault.
Guilt, innocence and justice doesn't necessarily come out of every court case. When you think about a 7 year old star witness pitted against a 56 year old man with highly paid to be effective lawyers...Well, I understand why Prosecutor Frank Maco did not pursue charges against Woody Allen in 1993.
The most thoughtful essay on Dylan Farrow vs. Woody Allen comes from Aaron Bady over at The New Inquiry. Please go and read the whole provocative piece. Here are some clips that resonated with me:
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, 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.
What is the burden of proof for assuming that a person is lying? If you are a famous film director, it turns out to be quite high.
He has something to lose, his good name. She does not, because she does not have a good name. She is living in hiding, under an assumed name.
In a rape culture, you can say things like “We can’t really know what really happened, so let’s all act as if Woody Allen is innocent (and she is lying).” In a rape culture, you can use your ignorance to cast doubt on her knowledge; you can admit that you have no basis for casting doubt on Dylan’s statement, and then you can ignore her account of herself. A famous man is not speaking, so her testimony is not admissible evidence.
Ms. Farrow wrote her
letter. The trolls came out in force. The pieces out in support of Dylan Farrow are tepid. After all, there was no arrest, trial or conviction and no one wants to defend a defamation case. I believe Dylan Farrow. The detail is in the narrative. Woody Allen's own
body of work,
words and
behavior over the
years gives it credibility.
This is why child assault victims, survivors and thrivers don't talk about their experiences unless they are ready for it. "It" being a lot people out for a troll.
12:05 PM PT: Thank you for putting this on the rec list. Ithought this was going to be a diary that got lots of comments, but didn't expect the recs. It's a lively thread and all I ask is for us to be civil. I get it that not everyone agrees. Thanks you again.
5:02 PM PT: Huffington Post just posted the custody ruling. The part pertinent to this diary pg 24 reads: "The credible testimony of Ms. Farrow, Dr. Coates, Dr. Levanthal and Mr. Allen does, however, prove Mr. Allens' behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...