Read the full article on Firstpost, here: http://www.firstpost.com/entertainment/woody-allen-aziz-ansari-and-the-crucible-of-public-judgment-a-reel-versus-real-analysis-4314073.html
Ever since stories about sexual harassment and abuse of power/privilege began to tumble out of Hollywood’s closets, some of us have begun to wonder if we have any business commenting at all. It’s vital to come out against systematic predators like Harvey Weinstein, but what about some of the shades-of-grey cases (say, the controversy around Aziz Ansari)? Shouldn’t we leave them to courts of law? Of course, that’s not how we function in this age of social media, because we have to have an opinion. We turn into armchair judges. It’s the court of public law.
It’s not an exact comparison, but The Crucible comes to mind. Arthur Miller’s play is about the Salem witch trials of 1692-93, but the story about a hysterical community that tried and executed people they thought to be witches was an allegory for how the US government hounded people for being communists. “The Crucible was an act of desperation,” Miller wrote in The New Yorker. “I was motivated in some great part by the paralysis that had set in among many liberals who, despite their discomfort with the inquisitors’ violation of civil rights, were fearful, and with good reason, of being identified as covert Communists if they should protest too strongly.”
The Crucible was first filmed as Les Sorcières de Salem (1957), which was directed by Raymond Rouleau from a screenplay by Jean-Paul Sartre. The clip above (soundless, unfortunately) shows the hanging of the protagonist, John Proctor (Yves Montand), and two others. The scene is unnerving because of Proctor’s robotic acceptance of his fate. (We don’t hear it, but behind him, his accuser, stricken by guilt, is screaming that she lied.”) But what makes it even more chilling is what the judge says a little earlier. “There is no law that judges are infallible. But their sentences must be upheld. If you are innocent, forgive me.”
Continued at the link above.
Copyright ©2018 Firstpost.
Baradwaj Rangan 
Anuja Chandramouli
January 22, 2018
Sighs! I have missed these!! Wonderful piece BR. Love the nuanced and classy manner in which you made your points. It really made me think. Nowadays everybody has an opinion (didn’t somebody famous say that opinions are like aholes in that everybody has em and they all stink or something like that?) and we have no qualms about shouting em from the rooftops. And it only follows that everybody is an arm chair judge who wouldn’t mind being the jury and executioner as well. As if the world is not a scary enough effing place!
Personally, I find these witch hunts terrifying irrespective of the period or social sphere they are set in. It is always a prelude to a dystopian, nightmarish land where everybody turns on his/her neighbor and not even your thoughts are your own. In a democracy, the burden of proof has to be borne by the accuser for the simple and sound reason that it is better to let the guilty go unpunished than to prosecute an innocent.
This blame and shame game and trial by social media which are suddenly being considered the empowered things to do is something that I just can’t get on board with because it is neither fair nor just and there is too much impetus for this kind of self righteous indignation to devolve into an outright monster that indiscriminately devours all in its path.
Every frickin horror story in history started with moral outrage and loss of faith in corrupt systems. Remember the Spanish Inquisition? The terror when Robespierre decided that the answer to everything was the guillotine? The Salem Witch trials? The retards who lynch citizens for eating beef closer home? We would all do well to remember that the only thing worse than systemic injustice is mob justice.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Urvashi
January 22, 2018
I agree, there is too much muddying of waters happening – bad dating practices getting conflated with monsters.
But i think you’ve been a bit selective in your reporting of the Woody Allen case. There was a full court case you know – babysitters testified to what they saw WA doing, the doctor you quote above never even examined her. So I think to sort of frame this as a “he said/she said” isn’t fair -there was far more evidence proferred than that, or was it “added memory” as your later paragraph seems to suggest. For more info see :
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse-10-facts
LikeLike
brangan
January 22, 2018
Urvashi: That portion was a lead-in to the paragraph about Jagten. As I said, “Again, this isn’t a plea to the public to reconsider Allen’s guilt.”
In any case, this is never-ending, and no one can say for sure. For instance, Allen’s rebuttal is pretty convincing…
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2014/02/woody-allen-response-dylan-farrow-sexual-abuse-allegations
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
January 22, 2018
With Woody Allen, Dylan Farrow was a child. Her story was not a part of the #MeToo movement. She repeated it now, hoping that at least now, she would be believed. Again, the jury is out on whether he did abuse her or whether she was merely a pawn in her mother’s vicious divorce battle with him.
The Ansari case is complicated. I do think he’s responsible for sexual misconduct – you don’t, you just don’t continue to verbally and physically importune a date for sex, when she has – both verbally and physically told./shown you that she isn’t interested today. And even in consensual sex, either person has a right to change their minds without being pressured into doing more than they are willing to do, or worse, assaulted.
I also believe that ‘Grace’ had agency – she could have left. She had no reason to give in to his pressure. But that doesn’t absolve Ansari of his share of the responsibility – if a woman consistently removes her hand from your genitals after you take it and place it there, she is not interested. When she tells you she doesn’t have sex on a first date, you don’t immediately pour out a glass of wine and claim it is now the second date.) He was a doink. Lesson learned.
However, ‘Grace”s’ story, coming out now, was problematic. Since she had already let him know she had been made uncomfortable, and since he had already apologised, I think that’s where it should have ended.
And I am conflicted about this – the public naming of sexual predators has made a difference to the topic of sexual harassment and assault. There has to be nuance – rape is different from sexual exploitation /harassment (of the kind Weinstein did, using power as his tool) which is different from being a kind of dick on a date (which is what Ansari did)
However, it is time the victims were heard – and believed. It is more than time that serial predators were punished for their sins. And if their names, their reputations, or their careers are affected, hey, cry me a river!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Urvashi
January 22, 2018
Well, my point is that there was a court case, witnesses testified to his behaviour, putting his face in the child’s lap, her having no panties , and other such icky details – so its really a he-said-she-said, nor is it bad dating like Aziz’s experience. Hollywood has always been ready to forgive the tresspassers of genius auteurs – look at the number willing to cut Roman Polanski slack – if his victim is okay, they say, there is no crime.
LikeLike
Urvashi
January 22, 2018
Edit : Not really a he-said-she said
LikeLike
Urvashi
January 22, 2018
I went back and re-read your piece, Baradwaj. You say you don’t want to get into the guilt or not of Woody Allen but see how your own framing of the issue reveals a bias. You quote extensively from the doctor used to discredit Dylan, without putting the down the various bits of evidence that indict Allen; you follow with the story of Jagten where “added memory” is used to pillory an innocent man; you end by saying you believe art should be separate from the artist (or you include yourself among those who think so). All this has a strong, “Allen was framed” air about it. And who knows, that may be true – though I think a man who takes nude pictures of his partner’s teen step daughter and then marries her, is kinky to say the least. My point is, your piece reveals your biases and condemns Dylan, pretty much the way you deplore the prevailing witchhunt.
Is it, in fact, possible to compartmentalize the art from the artist? Perhaps in the old day when so little was known of the artist. If I love a highly romantic poem by Derek Walcott, will I continue to be moved if I read about him harassing a woman?
LikeLike
brangan
January 22, 2018
Urvashi: I can’t tell you how to read this piece, but this is a column on world cinema, and I wanted to use the recent Allen/Ansari events to reflect on films that tell similar stories. Meaning, this isn’t about using the films to reflect on the Allen/Ansari events.
And yes, it is problematic, but I do think it is possible to be tremendously moved by Parsifal despite knowing Wagner’s feelings towards Jews.
LikeLike
Madan
January 22, 2018
“Since she had already let him know she had been made uncomfortable, and since he had already apologised, I think that’s where it should have ended.” – This, exactly. Somebody accused Ansari of issuing a half assed apology after the babe.com report and I am like, “Why the hell does he need to apologise to YOU if he has already done so to the victim?”
I don’t get why Babe’s reporting was so one sided. Seems to have been intended to prejudice opinion against Ansari but a more balanced approach would have been to get him to talk about it also and present both sides IF the intent was indeed to provoke a conversation on male behaviours that aren’t illegal but still lousy. Overall, I think this case needs to be disassociated from the MeToo movement so that the latter doesn’t get needlessly discredited and people who are doubling down and saying this too ought to be a part of it just because are making a mistake.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
January 22, 2018
“Is it, in fact, possible to compartmentalize the art from the artist? ” – Considering that many artists are at least absolute dicks if not necessarily criminal or cruel, it is almost a necessity to compartmentalise if one is to enjoy art at all. How about John Lennon? As his son (from Cynthia) Julian put it pithily, Lennon could talk about love and peace to the world but never show it to his wife and son. Apart from generally being a difficult person, Lennon was physically cruel to Cynthia. Does that taint my impressions of Across The Universe? No way.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Anu Warrier
January 22, 2018
Madan, I agree that the babe.com reporting was slanted like a witch hunt. As a former journalist myself, the objective way to frame that story would have been to reach across to Ansari and ask for his reactions as well. If he didn’t respond, that would have been a different story. Also, the reporting was salacious. What also bothered me, about the piece was the author’s reaction to others calling her out on it – her open condemnation and ageism against a respected columnist who objected to the framing was problematic on a different level.
Agree too that Grace’s story has to be disassociated from the MeToo movement – or real stories of assault will be discredited.
BR – I agree with Urvashi – your framing of Allen’s alleged sexual assault was problematic because of the analogies you used. It came across as an apology for the man. The bias was obvious because the films that tell similar stories were all films in which the protagonists were wrongly accused. That is problematic, especially in Allen’s case.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Vivek narain
January 22, 2018
Sometimes i feel like i am the Caliban pondering on Setebo, pouncing upon Miranda not afraid of her hick magician father Prospero.
LikeLike
writeawordatatime
January 22, 2018
Really BR? To distill what is happening right now, the absolutely necessary and very very significant discussions (chaotic and noisy at times, but so needed) specifically regarding the Ansari episode, through some list of films, what is of value being added here?
So so so few men are writing on the Ansari episode (reg. Allen, I’m not bringing it here, its being going on for years and Allen has come into the picture because of blatantly hypocritical Hollywood stars now fearing backlash, disfavouring Allen. This, after they have worked and gained from his films).
98% of all that is being written is by women, expectedly so, and men when they have put pen to paper – have read just four, columns so far – get passive saying this is the time to listen and back off , or simply stay quiet. Or write about films (not Ansari’s work which could be critiqued and reflected upon, in this present light) which serves to nought in terms of how one is able to deconstruct what is happening now with meaning.
I’d rather you had written sharply, on your own, what you think, take a stance, justify, without resorting to talking about films of these themes (The Hunt is such an inappropriate film here.
But then again, it does say what you are thinking about Ansari if you compare his shenanigans with Mikkelson’s film! )
No one is ignorant BR, of what these movies say and bringing them into this very significant time what is achieved? That Ansari is now also simply a narrative for the screen?
In the Indian context, only Manu Joesph as a male (journalist), has put forth sharply, as he usually does, in how the Ansari episode shows men to be such entitled douchebags and certain women who are pandering to their kind, slowly are becoming weak as well.
He knows where the male is going wrong here. Some women, where they are too. He makes one think and reflect. In such cases, this is the writing that one so needs.
Films are not of importance BR, at some times, in life, personal, and/or collective. This is one of the times. It is real life that has to be dealt with, cinema can definitely wait.
LikeLike
Aadhy
January 22, 2018
I think equating Aziz’s story (the reactions) to mob justice is a bit of an exaggeration. What I saw (atleast in my social media circles) was a much-needed conversation about consent and what constituted a ‘no’. Of course there were a million tweets, 100s of opinion pieces, blog posts and the usual media frenzy associated with big names’ scandals. But I don’t see any of that having any legal implications on him because apart from the fact that the victim never revealed herself, her accusations about him wouldn’t still be enough to incriminate him. Maybe it’s caused his career to nosedive, but that’s how being a public personality works. It’s the same guy who achieved a cult status because of his public positioning, being a woke feminist and a representation of smart, sensitive and progressive brown people in the west.
Now moving to the accusation itself, if her version is 100 percent true, I don’t see it qualifying for anything less than a sexual assault. We could say a woman with agency would’ve left the place, but she could’ve been in a daze as all of this was happening pretty quickly, and anyway that’s totally beside the point. She continuing to stay there didn’t mean he had to thrust his fingers, impose himself over her, after she having clearly displayed her disinterest in his sexual advances. To me, her verbal and physical cues were clearly a display of disinterest. Whatever he did physically after that was assault and whatever he made her do was out of coercion. Not robbing her of any agency, our minds don’t function exactly the same during shock and so any amount of “she could have done this..that..” wouldn’t count, IMO. She could’ve also liked to just hang there without having sex and that is totally fine.
Maybe this doesn’t fit exactly under the nature of assaults spoken out under the #MeToo campaign, but I feel it’s important that this came out and we all are discussing about consent, the difference between creepy behavior and sexual assault, and how the public persona of some people we admire could drastically be different from how they are in real life.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sara
January 23, 2018
This piece made me cringe… It takes very little digging to find information relating to the Allen case. To say Dylan was coached by “the woman scorned”, a woman who would knowingly subject a child to a lifetime of trauma just to won custody is a huge accusation. Yet nobody seems to lay the burden of proof over Allen the way it has been laid over Mia and Dylan Farrow.
The custody suit Allen filed was only done after Dylan made her accusations. So the allegation of the child being coached only to win custody seems like BS.
Also, the doctor’s report was considered inadequate by the judge for various reasons.
Like I said, very little digging to find the details unless you are prone to yelling FAKE NEWS when it’s the “genius” you have on a pedestal. I’ll leave this link, for anyone who wants to read the judge’s opinion:
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4746866
Sigh!
LikeLike
GODZ
January 23, 2018
The Aziz Ansari story was pure revenge porn. That story would not have made the light in any other major publications. Whats more troubling and disturbing is this, people just assumed that Grace was true?. Was she? Just she is a woman, does it mean that whatever she said was true? If anyone look at the comments in twitter, they all try to potray Aziz as sex hungry animal who tries to overpower poor grace? How do they know it? God knows. The truth is no body knows what happend and every ones minds are occupied with prejudices in such a way that – Velaiya irukaravan poi pesa maatan” . Similary “No woman will lie”.
And Hollywood is the most hypocritical institution in the world. On one hand they will give standing ovation for Roman polanski. On other hand they will go in silent mode for people like aziz(SAG awards). A consent is a consent. One can say Aziz should have heard verbal and non verbal cues. Moreover sex is a personal experience and when in liberal society where hooking up and casual sex is encouraged, People do misread signals and tactics that work with one may not work with another. So its a private conversation and personal. The timing of the issue is more cynical. Its after he won golden globes that our grace just exploded.
What Grace did was pure revenge porn and she just temporarily destroyed Aziz career. The best things for men is to have a questionnaire even after mutual consent. get it answered, sign it and keep it in a safe and be super conscious while doing it.
Twitter is arguable the worst invention of this century. Its an effective tool to trigger emotions, fuel them and switch off any rational analysis whatsoever in the minds of people. The irony is people who comment on issues including woman are blind to their own short comings and fallacies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
January 23, 2018
@Aadhy To me, her verbal and physical cues were clearly a display of disinterest.
Thank you. Really and truly – from the bottom of my heart. I agree with you that her story, while I still think shouldn’t be a part of the MeToo movement (for reasons I have mentioned in my earlier post), has evoked discussions on consent – and what it means. Your post has actually made me re-evaluate what I think of the issue, and for that I thank you.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
January 23, 2018
@Godz Whats more troubling and disturbing is this, people just assumed that Grace was true?. Was she? Just she is a woman, does it mean that whatever she said was true? If anyone look at the comments in twitter, they all try to potray Aziz as sex hungry animal who tries to overpower poor grace? How do they know it?
head to desk Seriously? That’s what you gleaned from the whole episode? You do realise that Ansari hasn’t denied anything she said happened that night? That he apologised to her for doing what he did?
If you think this is ‘revenge porn’ you don’t know its definition, nor do you know what it actually entails. Ask the many women whose lives have been destroyed by revenge porn. Ask the few men to whom this has occurred as well.
Ugh!
LikeLike
GODZ
January 23, 2018
@Anu. Please re-read his statement and for every one.
The next day, I got a text from her saying that although ‘it may have seemed okay,’ upon further reflection, she felt uncomfortable. It was true that everything did seem okay to me, so when I heard that it was not the case for her, I was surprised and concerned,” Ansari’s statement continued. “I took her words to heart and responded privately after taking the time to process what she had said.”
This is not an apology.
Read this if you already did not and I agree 100% with the article.
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/01/the-humiliation-of-aziz-ansari/550541/
LikeLike
Madan
January 23, 2018
@Aadhy: I agree that this should be discussed but maintain that the way it was reported was very problematic and I don’t buy the concept of collateral damage at all. Did Aziz apologize to her? Yes. If she felt an apology was not enough, she should have pursued the matter further with him. Since the lengthy babe.com report doesn’t say so, I presume she gave it a rest. So when it was raked up again, they owed Aziz the chance to explain his side. By the way, I won’t state her name but her real identity has been revealed on social media and she has been gunning for Aziz since the Golden Globes. So it may well be she was looking for an outlet that would report the story and babe.com took it up. And therefore some of the mainstream outlets may also be upset because they had passed over a viral story. 😉 Regardless, Katie Way’s intemperate response to Ashleigh Banfield was very disappointing and does not lend credibility to their reporting. Had Aziz not already apologized, I wouldn’t believe any part of it.
LikeLike
GODZ
January 23, 2018
And just to be very clear, the “Sorry” that Aziz texted is not an apology. It’s a sorry and not an apology. And by the time Anzari made his statement, Twitter already delivered the judgment and concluded it was an assault and put him right beside Weinstein. Actually, It’s after that bold Atlantic article, people really came to their rationalistic senses. and I don’t want to go into babe article in detail but after all what Grace did to Aziz, Any man could have been easily carried away or misread the cues and If she could have said a “NO” right, in the beginning, none of this could have happened.
LikeLike
Anuja Chandramouli
January 23, 2018
Aadhy, I couldn’t agree more that we really need to address the question of consent, since clearly men and women seem confused about it. This is a conversation we need to have.
‘I think equating Aziz’s story (the reactions) to mob justice is a bit of an exaggeration.’ We will have to part ways there, because IMO that’s exactly what happened. No jury would have convicted Ansari of sexual assault (and rightfully so) so he has been tried on social media following an anonymous allegation and there has been a very game effort to destroy him. This to me is scarily reminiscent of how rapists would seek to win the case against them by engaging in character assassination and slut shaming of the victims. Now it appears everybody is doing it, to make sure public opinion is influenced in their favor. As Anu Warrior pointed out, Grace called him out for ignoring her cues and he apologized. Was the hatchet job truly necessary? What about the Babe reporter who went after Ashleigh and in doing so revealed her own sexist and ageist inclinations? It makes one wonder about the motive here, and with good reason wouldn’t you say?
Anu, I would not go so far as ‘UGh’ with regard to Godz’s views. Don’t think it was revenge porn as such and in my mind, Grace’s story of a traumatic experience ought not to be dismissed out of hand (and you run the risk of just that happening when you fixate on the nonconsensual nature of the wine choice. Thanks Babe. ) Besides I also didn’t like the regressive slant of this piece because it seems to suggest that it falls on the dude to do the right thing and to somehow divine what a woman wants when we should be empowering the girls, leaving them unafraid to take the steering wheel to direct the course of a relationship instead of adopting a passive role and suffering in silence while bewailing the fact that men don’t treat them right.
Finally, I agree with Godz about one thing – how some things need to be private (seriously, this is not me suggesting that women shouldn’t speak up, just that not everything needs to be aired out in public.) Sexual relations are messy things and there can be no doubt that it will be better for people, irrespective of gender to focus on communicating their needs to their partners instead of taking to Twitter to rave and rant. Seriously the outrage thing is getting old and if we continue like this we will soon be too desensitized to respond to real issues which demand an immediate call to action not composing a strongly worded tweet.
In Allen’s case all I can say is that it is possible to not discredit Dylan Farrow’s claims while still believing the man. I remember reading about Mia’s adopted son who claimed she was violently abusive and given to coaching them to say stuff that fit in with her version of reality. There’s that and then there is the fact that Allen’s behavior does come across as creepy. But when pinned under a microscope none of us are going to come across as squeaky clean so I think this whole thing is tragic in the extreme, because it confirms the fact that sometimes, despite our best efforts the truth is going to remain elusive. And all we are left with are the lies and endless capacity for hurting each other.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jai
January 23, 2018
BR, I’m wondering about the Doc who conducted the “investigation” on the Dylan Farrow case, whose comments you’ve quoted in the article.
He says, “We had two hypotheses: one, that these were statements that were made by an emotionally disturbed child and then became fixed in her mind. And the other hypothesis was that she was coached or influenced by her mother… We think that it was probably a combination.”
Isn’t there a HUGE Elephant in the room that he’d failed to consider (or deliberately chose not to consider)? The “third hypothesis” that she could actually have been speaking the truth? And when a person seemingly hasn’t even considered this possibility, is there any merit in quoting from such a seemingly partisan “investigation”?
Apologies if I’m missing some of the background here BR…..but from what was quoted, this Doctor seemed extremely biased from the get go.
LikeLike
Madan
January 23, 2018
@ GODZ PL read the original babe.com article where Ansari’s text to Grace is reproduced and he gave an unconditional apology. Yes he said there too that he misunderstood what was happening but he did not transfer the onus to her and instead owned his mistake. I am guessing he is peeved that she raked up the issue again.
LikeLike
Radhika
January 23, 2018
I agree with the point that the Aziz case should put a spotlight on what consent means in dating. The story “Cat Person”, that went viral –
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/12/11/cat-person –
this really annoyed me – not as a story but as a kind of banner for the Me-Too movement. To me the story outlined the pitfalls of dating – how the mating dance can be convoluted, confusing to both parties, and the number of frogs you have to kiss before you find your prince/princess. The guy in it came across as clueless and only at the end (sorry for spoiler), angry and vengeful. But not an assaulter or a sex offender. This story was pointed to by so many women, as a kind of vindication for their accusations of assault. Bad dating is not the same as assault or harrassment – I agreed with the large number of older feminists who said, this kind of example just paints women as victims without any agency, expecting men to be mind-readers into body language and oblique wording.
Then Aziz case came along and made me wonder if the whole “No means No” campaign has to be reemphasized to make young women employ the word No again. Yes, we should expect men to back off when they hear a “No”, but should we also expect women to say the word and not merely hope that their signalling is enough, so there is no ambiguity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Private Cips
January 23, 2018
Regarding Aziz Ansari, I just could not get my head around why a woman relies on nonverbal cues instead of just saying No. I read in some comments that the women are afraid, the man might assault/murder them if they say “No”. Does that mean Grace was afraid that Aziz will assault/murder her if she says “No”, but will understand and stop (will not murder/assault) if she gives him nonverbal cues? And, if she was really afraid of Aziz assaulting/murdering her, why did she go to his apartment in the first place?
LikeLiked by 1 person
anon
January 23, 2018
What a cringey piece! Even the most basic googling would disprove Mia Farrow “coaching” bs – the prosecutor said there is no basis for such a hypothesis. Terrible and ignorant.
LikeLike
v
January 23, 2018
Hi
As an introduction, and a disclaimer: I’m a man, in a profession where I see people make allegations of sexual assault. Some of those allegations are (in my opinion), true. Some are not. Many are impossible to comment on, except if one were present right there.
I’m not claiming special knowledge, just saying that I’ve been in this position of not knowing with certainty either way: which is invoked so powerfully by the Aziz Ansari episode. Thankfully my job is the mental health (of the victim, mostly) rather than making a determination of blame. But every day I’m worried about my biases, and how they might affect the lives of people who are very obviously distressed by these incidents (irrespective of the facts).
About aziz Ansari: the story rings true. And I think that’s to the credit of the babe piece, that doesn’t take sides, and gives us enough facts on both sides to have this debate rather than turn it into a one-sided blackballing of the man. What I see (again, disclaimers as above) is the story of a somewhat immature, star-struck young person and a jerk who doesn’t know how to take no for an answer. He’s the older and presumably more experienced party, so one expects better of him. Especially given his persona. But to call it sexual assault is troublesome.
Very few of us (not me, I know) are able to consistently have relationships where we always want the same things as the other person, and the give-and-take is always advantageous to both. We have expectations, we react emotionally when those expectations aren’t met. Some of us negotiate to a new position. Sometimes, sadly, we use emotional blackmail or the threat of withholding something as a way of getting something we want. At what point does this turn into assault? In my opinion only when physical superiority is used to override someone’s rejection. Perhaps there’s more nuance to this.
So Aziz Ansari was a jerk. In that situation, on that day. What we men should be hearing is how easy it is for us to be jerks as well. Possibly without meaning to, because that’s the relationship dynamic we expect, perhaps. And the only way that will change if we listen to women.
Woody Allen is even more problematic, because (a) child sexual abuse does happen frighteningly often, and (b) in the culture we’re moving towards, child abuse has turned into the explanation for everything that’s wrong in our adult lives. So clinicians fetishise CSA, and go questing for such incidents in the lives of every troubled teen they meet. If that’s what happened, and it weren’t tragic, it would be ironic if Woody Allen’s comeuppance came from psychoanalysis.
PS: if Aziz ansari’s career tanks, I’d be disappointed. I haven’t watched anything he’s ever been in, but I’d still say he doesn’t deserve that. He’s just the straw man in a new conversation about consent, IMO
PPS: what really clicked for me was someone commenting on the #metoo protests. She said something blindingly obvious, but I think we need to make it explicit: that women only want be taken seriously when they allege assault. Rather than being told that it must be misremembrance/manipulation/vengefulness at work. And we’re prone to commentary that inherently invalidates the experience. Embarrassment that I’ve done this myself, is one of the reasons I’d rather be anonymous here, although no one on this site probably knows me. :-/…. But it’s not enough to assume that of course we’re reacting after taking it seriously. We need to say it, because too many people have probably already told this person that they must be making it up, because ‘of course this horrendous thing couldn’t have happened’.
LikeLiked by 4 people
MANK
January 23, 2018
Terrific piece Brangan. i loved the way you brought out the link between what’s happening in life to Crucible and jagten. and how sensibilities are changing with times.
As for people accusing Brangan of being ignorant or partial in his commentary, i suggest that they read the article again. there are as many angles to the woody allen case as in Roshomon. he just took one angle , that’s woody’s pov and linked it with Mads Mikkelsen’s pov in the the film Jagten, i dont know what’s to be so outraged about that. nowhere does he states that thats the gospel truth. its just one of the possibilities.
as he emphatically states Again, this isn’t a plea to the public to reconsider Allen’s guilt. Some believe him. Some believe Dylan. And those of us who believe that the art is separate from the artist just wish the whole sickening thing had never happened in the first place.
LikeLike
Garvit Sharma
January 23, 2018
@Urvashi: I fully agree with your reading of BR’s article.The article reminded me more of “Atonement” where wisful thinking takes over critical faculties and at least the possibility of being the other side being true is laid bare.
Read the article you mentioned,BR
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2014/02/woody-allen-response-dylan-farrow-sexual-abuse-allegations
It answers nothing,is plain in emotional appeal to basic human kindness with just one thing being said consistently that Mia Farrow is a manipulative bitch, the most horror kind of a mother that would not even spare her own blood to meet her ends. And where is the bit about the doctor that is at the centre of your argument who never met Dylan before making that judgement which by all means is an undeniable fact. I am pretty sure that had Dylan alleged that her molestation took place on a roof, Allen would have pleaded of being an acrophobe with a song that would support that hypothesis. And then he lets go all his pretensions of being a saint as he tries to give weight to the rumour that Ronan is not his biological son and we must feel bad for him because he is the one who was cheated upon. The man Allen is so naive that he doesnt take advice from a lawyer,never gets to know who Ronan’s father is despite hiring the best legal team he could afford.
And then those cliched arguments about the sanctity of the court of law which ironically is called into question again and again by Woody Allen in the piece you mentioned. crime is different from criminal’s labour.If a mobile phone were invented by a rapist, would we throw away the technology. The work of art is nobody’s fiefdom,it takes a whole crew to make it.
I have massive respect for you,Mr BR.You are the best film critic that this nation has (IMLO).But this piece made me doubt if you have ever stepped inside a court chamber as a witness or complainant because if you had you would have avoided the cliches of the sanctity of courts. The courts in India are one of the most extortionate places one can think of in this country.They have little to do with justice.What they guard are appearances of justice being done.
All I can end with is a black humoured joke:
Woody Allen adopted Soon-Yi when she was 8.
Woody Allen started dating Soon-Yi when she was 16.
“Patience” of a Saint.
LikeLike
Rahini David
January 23, 2018
Private Cips: I will try to answer the question the best I am able to. I have not read any article other than BR’s post and the Babe article which I googled.
The article says, This moment is particularly significant for Grace, because she thought that would be the end of the sexual encounter — her remark about not wanting to feel “forced” had added a verbal component to the cues she was trying to give him about her discomfort. When she sat down on the floor next to Ansari, who sat on the couch, she thought he might rub her back, or play with her hair — something to calm her down.
It appears that he took her mere presence to be a non-verbal “Yes”. We are often led to believe that women say “No” while meaning “Yes”. We hear that often. But men don’t say what they mean. ‘Let’s just chill over here on the couch.’ does not actually mean ‘Let’s just chill over here on the couch.’ To me it appears that she was quite silly to be taking a line like that so literally and that they would be chilling on the couch. She says she thought he would then give her a back-rub. I find that terribly naïve and stupid. But then again she seems to be a very naïve person. He is a TV personality and she did not realize that he was actually almost a stranger. She reminds me of an old FRIENDS episode in which a crazy woman thinks Joey Tribianni is a neurosurgeon as he plays one on TV.
But to be quite honest, a person who removes her hand repeatedly is giving a clear enough clue, no? Think of trying to keep a piece of chicken on a plate of person who is stopping you only through the non-verbal gestures of shaking their head and covering their plate with their palm. You understand that they don’t want any chicken right now, no? Simple and normal gestures that mean no, should be understood to be no. To pretend that it wasn’t understandable is dishonest. Though I agree that you’ve got to be verbal too. Just to be very clear.
It appears that his forcefulness is what put her off in the first place. Imagine being invited to a dinner with a friend and then imagine having the delicious food being rammed down your throat. Then imagine being told, “You knew there was going to be food.”
Regarding your question, I read in some comments that the women are afraid, the man might assault/murder them if they say “No”.
The commenters you are talking about may have answered the usual question of why rape victims and victims of abuse don’t cry out aloud. But it may not apply here. She seems to be a fan of his who did not think he’d have an aggressive side. But it is possible that if you are in the arms of a person who is physically larger and has suddenly started to show a very forceful aggressive side that you had not anticipated, you’d be afraid of ‘disobeying’ that person during their aggressive mood.
Disclaimer:
I am not trying to take sides or anything. Trying to answer Private Cips’ valid and honest question as clearly as I can.
LikeLiked by 2 people
brangan
January 23, 2018
Garvit Sharma: And where is the bit about the doctor that is at the centre of your argument
So again… it was not an “argument” I aimed to make. It was a lead-in to the Jagten clip.
There are times I have written about something larger wrt society (say, standing up for the national anthem), but this is a film piece that uses recent events to talk about similar (not the exact same) situations in world cinema.
At least that was the intention.
LikeLike
"Original" venkatesh
January 23, 2018
@BR : Great article and on the right time.
The Woody Allen story is a ever convoluted, never-ending on going saga. And everyone falls on a different side of the scale.
The Aziz Ansari case is complete nonsense.
Here is a woman who had a bad date, waited for the appropriate time and then raked it up. Lets be clear Ansari is not a predator ala Weinstein or POTUS. He is a jerk, a dolt, a horny guy with a younger (not underage) woman. The fact that “Grace” a no-name nothing woman can simply bring that out , add a #metoo to it and become a cause-celebre’ is the sign of our times.
From all indications, she pursued him, she went to his apartment, she was on his kitchen table voluntarily undressed, she sat with him naked on his couch , again voluntarily. And if later on in the day she has buyers remorse.
I don;t care for Ansari or for his ilk. However, this is nothing more than throwing mud at someone cause she knows it will stick. , exactly like Jagten.
In my book, she can go and suck a lemon.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
January 23, 2018
Godz, luckily for everyone, Ansari is a better man. He did not just say, “sorry’ (but not sorry). He made an unconditional apology to Grace.
Madan, to some extent, I understand why she came out when she did – to see a man who treated you that way, stand up and be honoured at the Golden Globes, to see him with the ‘Time’s Up’ pin, to see him – supposedly a feminist standing shoulder to shoulder with the women who were assaulted – when what he did to her stopped just this side of harassment? I can imagine the anger at what is seemingly hypocrisy. Ansari doesn’t deny he was a doink on that night.
Where I part ways with the babe piee is that yes, call him out on the issue especially when his public stance is so different. But also do your goddamned research. Is this his usual modus operandi? Or was this a one-off? Reach out to him for his explanation, if any. Try to be less salacious in your reporting – no one needed a play by play commentary on the sexual details. And when you’re called out on the tone of your article, do not respond with ad hominem attacks.
In general, Aadhy has explained very well why Grace did not leave. Being naive and foolish (and star struck) is not a crime. Just remaining there because he says wait until she stops crying is not a crime. Taking him at his word is not a crime. A decent man, or at least someone who didn’t think he was entitiled to sex at that moment, would have put her into a cab at the first sign of non-verbal cues. In fact, saying, ‘I don’t think it’s going to happen tonight’ is pretty clear in my opinion.
Where Allen is concerned, there is more than enough evidence to suggest he did what Dylan says he did. The courts were scathing in their indictment of him. Unfortunately, Dylan being a kid, and the prosecutor not wanting her to be traumatised could not pursue the case.
I do like the idea of people who defend Allen’s innocence pointint to Moses for evidence that Mia was a vicious bitch. If you believe his story (and he was a kid at the time as well), then why not believe Dylan? Conversely, if you don’t believe Dylan (because she was a child) why believe Moses?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
January 23, 2018
@BR, I will grant you that your intention was different, But, again, like Urvashi and the others, the slant you took definitely showed your bias – consciously or sub-consciously. You even invoked the Salem witch trials, for heavens’ sake.
The two contemporary stories you evoked, Ansari is guilty of the conduct he’s been accused of – he admits it. The only controversy here is if you would call it sexual harassment or sexual misconduct – a nuance on the coninuum of exploitation to rape. With Allen, he hasn’t admitted it, that’s all. And he can’t be caught..
LikeLiked by 1 person
silverambrosia
January 23, 2018
Thought provoking piece Brangan. Without reference to the Woody Allen and Aziz Ansari cases, this is something I think about more broadly. How can someone who himself has a highly dubious personal history create something which is beautiful and has an elevating effect on those who watch it. I don’t think it’s possible to separate the art from the artist; that art also represents one facet of the artist, whatever else that artist may or may not be. Of course, there are some films that are cynically produced to serve a dual PR purpose. However, there are other cases where there is absolutely nothing that is counterfeit in the sentiment of the film, and you are convinced that what was made came from a genuinely felt place.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
January 23, 2018
@Venkatesh – Seriously? ‘A no-name nothing woman’? So, if she’s not someone famous, she cannot be harassed? Or she shouldn’t complain? Anuja, is it okay if I say ‘Ugh’ here?
Yes, she went to his apartment. (That does not mean he’s entitled to sex.) Yes, she gave in initially because you know what? When you’re in awe of someone, and you are so excited about being on a date with him, and you get carried away a little? That happens. But when she repeatedly took her hand away from him, told him clearly that it’s not going to happen that night, told him she wasn’t comfortable and she didn’t want to hate him later – that’s the time he needs to call a cab pronto and get her out of there.
For what it’s worth, people, that’s how consent works – you might be naked in bed together (or wherever) but if either of you feel that you do not want to proceed, then you have the absolute right to call a stop to it. Just because you got naked with someone, just because you were indulging in some heavy petting – even initiated it – it does NOT mean that you cannot change your mind. Getting naked =/= you deserve sex.
As for Grace ‘raking it up’ as you said, if a man is standing up as a role model for the MeToo movement, if he’s publicly asking women to speak up in cases of harassment, then it is right that he is called out on his shady behaviour as well. I take offence at the slant of the Babe piece, but Grace had the absolute right to do what she did. Thankfully, Ansari is a decent man, and unlike you, didn’t think she should go ‘suck lemons’. He apologised unconditionally, and for that, I admire him. To admit you were wrong, to defend Grace’s right to come out with her story shows he means what he says when he stands alongside the women who have been harassed. I respect him for that.
LikeLike
Aadhy
January 23, 2018
Anu : You’re welcome 🙂 Actually I read that babe piece over and over again to make sure I wasn’t jumping to any premature conclusion. Even if the physical ‘cues’ didn’t constitute a NO, she said “Next time” and “ I don’t want to feel forced because then I’ll hate you, and I’d rather not hate you”, which IMO are not even cues/signals. They are a refusal to consent, a clear NO. He did push his way even after she said these. I don’t know, maybe it’s just creepy behavior to some. I would call pursuing someone through various means aka stalking despite a clear display of disinterest as creepy. A dude imposing himself physically and pushing her to do sexual acts, despite her clear display of disinterest is sexual assault.
Madan : “So when it was raked up again, they owed Aziz the chance to explain his side.”
I totally agree they owed him a chance to explain himself on this, though he did give out a statement in denial which wasn’t helping much. I hoped he could give out something more than ” …by all indications it was completely consensual”, especially when her version carries out explicit details that it never was consensual.
“So it may well be she was looking for an outlet that would report the story and babe.com took it up. ”
I don’t see anything wrong with it. Going by her story, she might have wanted retribution. These incidents could cause trauma which might not heal with time, more-soever when he is all around, on the TV, media & golden globes etc. It could’ve been supremely frustrating for her to see him being hailed as a champion of new age comedy, especially for his social posturing. I haven’t watched master of none, but his most successful stand-up sets have been about men & women, dating cultures etc. I’m not saying that the witch-hunting is not a possibility. But I’m able to totally see why someone would ‘wait’, or rather, not bring this issue up immediately post-incident and eventually burst it out someday. It’s natural.
Anuja : ” We will have to part ways there, because IMO that’s exactly what happened. ”
My experiences with my social media circle were different, and it could be possible what you witnessed was totally different. So it’s fair that you feel this way.
“Was the hatchet job truly necessary? What about the Babe reporter who went after Ashleigh and in doing so revealed her own sexist and ageist inclinations? It makes one wonder about the motive here, and with good reason wouldn’t you say?
Well, I didn’t view it as a hatchet job or slander, cause most of the content in that piece is from Grace’s account. I’m not denying that it was loaded, but didn’t feel anything wrong about the tone, because it felt to me that the author was trying make a point about no amount of privilege and social standing can absolve you of your acts. That said, I read the letter the author sent Ashleigh and felt it was totally unprofessional, ageist, callous and irresponsible. So I’m with you on that. But I’m still not convinced about there being a ‘motive’ to this whole thing.
“..leaving them unafraid to take the steering wheel to direct the course of a relationship instead of adopting a passive role and suffering in silence while bewailing the fact that men don’t treat them right. ”
We all might have a version of how the ideal woman with agency should behave, how the man-woman power dynamics in a relationship or in a sexual encounter should be. But to apply that to a person reeling in shock after having been touched inappropriately within in a few minutes isn’t fair. Of course it’s important to teach women to take control in directing the course of a relationship, but what happened in Aziz’s case is clearly him taking advantage over her passivity. Saying she should’ve left immediately slightly reeks of a condoning tone towards his behavior while victim-blaming her.
LikeLiked by 1 person
brangan
January 23, 2018
Anu Warrier: the slant you took definitely showed your bias
There is no need to try and unearth my “slant” because I have very clearly said in the piece that I do not know whether Dylan is telling the truth or Allen is — that I am among those in the third category who continue to think Allen is a great artist and wish the whole stinking thing had never happened.
Some believe him. Some believe Dylan. And those of us who believe that the art is separate from the artist just wish the whole sickening thing had never happened in the first place.
I invoked the witch hunts in the Ansari case, which I felt has some parallels to Crucible.
Oh well.
LikeLike
MANK
January 23, 2018
but this is a film piece that uses recent events to talk about similar (not the exact same) situations in world cinema.
its a pity that you have to come out an say it so explicitly. i thought it was more than obvious
huh! and venkatesh is on fire after a while 🙂
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
January 23, 2018
BR, you have said that – true. Again, however, the films you chose to illustrate your point, or to talk about in the larger scheme of things were explicitly about witch hunting. Consciously or sub-consciously, the implication was that these celebrities were also victims of witch hunts.
You can argue that it is our interpretation that is at fault, but if multiple readers read it a particular way, perhaps you might want to look at how your words come through?
No, MANK, it wasn’t ‘more than obvious’. If it were, I would have been the only person who read his article that way. I’m not.
LikeLike
Anuja Chandramouli
January 23, 2018
Aadhy: “Saying she should’ve left immediately slightly reeks of a condoning tone towards his behavior while victim-blaming her.”
Allow me to clarify. I made it clear that Grace’s story ought not to be dismissed and I did not say anything at all about how SHE ought to have behaved or anything of the sort. My problem was with the way Babe and the writer framed her story. There were articles that suggested that it was Babe who went after Grace for her story, which is why I questioned their motive in this scenario. And again, I did not like the spin put on it (in my previous comment, I explained why it is regressive) and salacious details that were dwelt on to a cringe – worthy degree (the Claw!). Thanks to their irresponsible reporting, they have set a precedent for victims not being taken seriously (as it happened with Grace) while promoting a disturbing trend where folks get tried on social media.
LikeLike
Madan
January 23, 2018
“Taking him at his word is not a crime. A decent man, or at least someone who didn’t think he was entitiled to sex at that moment, would have put her into a cab at the first sign of non-verbal cues. In fact, saying, ‘I don’t think it’s going to happen tonight’ is pretty clear in my opinion.” – I agree completely with this, but then Ansari says they had sexual activity which he had thought was consensual. So was it all exactly the way babe.com reported it or it was a little more complicated? Since they did not bother to report his side, we will never know. And again, this is the difference between this case and the Weinstein one where the finer details didn’t matter so much because the nature of the offence was grave enough. Here they do.
About the hypocrisy angle, I am more conflicted. If, post her bad experience with Ansari, she learnt that he has done the same misdeed to other women and THEN even more the Time’s Up pin at the Globes, then she is 100% justified. But if that is not the case, choosing to out him through a news report rather than confronting him about it (in light of his past behaviour) seems rather drastic (but not something she’s not entitled to in a free world). In any case, the onus still lies with babe.com who I am afraid have chosen to treat this as on par with any regular case of sexual assault that could be deemed criminal in a court of law. The nuances, the reasons why the issue still ought to be discussed, have been provided by third party commentary on it, not the website itself which has taken a very strident posture.
As for whether salacity is their modus operandi, you be the judge:
https://babe.net/category/lust
LikeLike
Rahul
January 23, 2018
Private Cips, apart from Rahini’s terrific answer, I think women may initially prefer non verbal clues to give the guy a decent out , a face-saving. Guys may take it personally (that they are unattractive) and the situation may get awkward (not necessarily violent).
LikeLike
Madan
January 23, 2018
“How can someone who himself has a highly dubious personal history create something which is beautiful and has an elevating effect on those who watch it” – For the same reason that a tiger is as beautiful as it is also powerful and cruel (albeit only for its own survival’s sake, unlike the human variety of cruelty). That dubious side of his character exists along side his more redeeming facets. Something that Myskinn brought out really well in Onaayum Aatukuttiyum. That’s why grey exists along side black and white (which are shades of myth rather than reality imo). Grey doesn’t just mean a really nice person who was once rude to his/her subordinate at work or accidentally bumped into somebody else’s car. A ‘true’ shade of grey is one where good and evil exist in the same person in equal proportions, like Jekyll and Hyde. Since truth is stranger than fiction, what R L Stevenson dreamed up can surely be evoked by real world incidents too. A ‘lighter’ shade of grey is the brilliant Asha Bhonsle feeling so insecure about her hubby recording an album with Aarti Mukherjee that she threatened not to ever sing for him again unless he stopped giving her songs. Not direct, physical cruelty but shockingly petty and mean minded for a singer so talented and so well loved by the audience.
LikeLike
Vivek narain
January 23, 2018
There are tarts and there are queers, lady Chaterleys and Casanovas, hustlers and playboys, hags and freaks, Bonds and Mata Haris, and sounds of music. You can’t escape ugly contingencies but you can prepare to deal with them..
LikeLike
Aravindan
January 23, 2018
@ “original” Venkatesh,
and the other events that followed which not only involve her decisions and but also his decisions – she sat voluntarily naked with him after she conveyed him that she doesn’t want to feel forced and he responded that “its only fun if we’re both having fun”. She sat on the floor and he on the sofa and he asked her to turn around and motioned her to perform oral sex. He took her inside a room as he had to show her something and took her to a mirror and bent her and mimed intercourse and asked how she wanted it (she had initially told him she wants to go slow when he wanted to get the condoms). She was naked when she said no again and he suggested they put their clothes on and sit on the sofa and in a while when she was clothed he initiated again and tried to undress her again.
#MeToo doesn’t have to restricted to predators like Weinstein or non-consensual sex/assault. It could and must be about the entitlement some men feel when it comes to sex, it could and must be about feeling violated even in consensual sex. Because it’s much more relevant that the black-and-white predator-victim scenarios as the everyday-jerks they are much larger in number, thinking they are doing just fine with their subtle transgressions as they aren’t doing anything like Weinstein.
LikeLike
Rahul
January 23, 2018
By the way, they did ask Ansari for comment before publication. (I read this on twitter, from the account of the magazine’s founder, IIRC) . Also, the fact that he has not come up with any specific rebuttals till now, seems like the published version is more or less accurate, at least in a Rashomon kind of way..
LikeLike
Aravindan
January 23, 2018
Very disappointed with this piece and that’s putting it mildly.
The piece is about Allen as per the headline but this piece is also about Dylan. To read Dylan’s actual words describing the assault, and to wonder/ask if her trauma is real or imagined, and continue with the doctor’s observation and then to lead into “exactly the premise” of The Hunt – even after reading your comments- was terrible.
We know The Hunt’s truth and if no one can say for sure about Dylan’s case, we do not need Dylan in a conversation about The Hunt.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
January 23, 2018
Anuja and Madan, yes, I agree about Babe’s reporting and the reporter’s motives. I said so, earlier as well.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
January 23, 2018
but then Ansari says they had sexual activity which he had thought was consensual.
Madan, the problem here is that Ansari doesn’t deny anything of what she was saying. In fact, in his statement, he acknowledges the fact that she was uncomfortable. And then he goes on to say that he thought the sex was consensual. No, you doink, when a woman is telling you she feels uncomfortable and taking her hand away from your penis, and telling you she doesn’t think sex is going to happen tonight, and that she doesn’t want to feel forced, that is your clue by four that what you are asking for is DEFINITELY NOT consensual.
This is not a ‘he said, she said’ issue. This is someone who completely ignored the signs and is now claiming he thought it was consensual. Fact: even when you are naked in bed together and have begun sex, no matter who initiated it, and someone feels uncomfortable, pushes you away, asks to get dressed, and you coerce that person into continuing – IT IS NOT CONSENSUAL. (I feel like catching hold of Ansari’s collars and shaking him while yelling this into his ears.) All I could think of is what a doink!
LikeLiked by 1 person
sai16vicky
January 23, 2018
” And those of us who believe that the art is separate from the artist”
Let’s start with some examples:
Some songs like ‘Rajaadhi Raja’ sung by Ilayaraja very much reveal his ego.
Vishal Bhardwaj who campaigned for Congress in the previous elections went on to make ‘Haider’ which basically was a rant against the Army (especially AFSFPA).
Even Woody Allen’s own “Crimes and Misdemeanors” basically talks about getting away with a crime (which I believe he did in this case).
Finally, if we give someone who doesn’t know you a few writing samples for yours, I am sure they will get an idea of your liberal/free speech leanings.
Given this premise, how can anyone claim that art can be separate from the artist. The artist’s political/ideological leanings are definitely going to eat into his/her work. And this is why no art is pure and doesn’t quite deserve the sacrosantic pedestal that people put it on.
LikeLike
Vivek narain
January 24, 2018
He looked at her, then away. A swift, shifty look, but she knew it had taken in her full breasts and her long legs. It was so easy,she thought. Men are such stupid animals.~ ‘Want to stay alive’ J.H.Chase
LikeLike
therag
January 24, 2018
Venkatesh is absolutely in the right here. I just don’t see how this is an issue of consent. The article makes Aziz Ansari look like an idiot for not reading the ‘cues’ but it looks to me as if the woman was the naive one.
When a celebrity invites you to his/her place, after a single date or so, there is a high likelihood that it is for sex. Seen in that light, it is not surprising that Ansari was “aggressive”. He assumed that she was willing seeing as she has accepted his invitation to his house. Which is why it took quite some time for him to realize that there was something wrong. It is just an unfortunate situation for Ansari and I don’t blame him at all for assuming that he had her consent. If I was a celebrity that would have been my response as well, that women would want to have sex with me. So it makes sense that he took a longer time to come to his senses.
This is not really victim blaming because the woman is not really a victim here. I believe she was the one who misread the cues. And when she realized what it meant, she could have stopped it at any time. To me it looks as if she intended to have sex with Ansari but only after a few dates, and that the suddenness of it all really put her off. At the same time she didn’t want to miss the opportunity of sex with Ansari so she didn’t really want to stop him. Ansari is not an everyman, I’m sure there are hundreds of women out there throwing themselves at him. The woman here also had the idea for sure, just that it happened too soon for her tastes.And poor Ansari here was getting mixed reception all this while and thought it would be resolved eventually and just kept going. By the time he realized something was amiss it was too late.
If there is a victim in this episode, it is Aziz Ansari.
LikeLike
therag
January 24, 2018
Furthermore, the “cues” that Ansari is supposed to have read, are difficult to read even in a normal situation. It is kind of difficult to find out if a person is actually feeling comfortable even in a relatively normal scene,much less in a bedroom with your dick erect and you being in the mood. When you are slightly buzzed and in the mood for love, you don’t really pay much attention to these cues. Which is why if you don’t feel good, you say it out explicitly. Which in this case the woman never did. She made a few vague statements in the beginning and was slightly more firm after it all ended. Again, can’t really blame Ansari here.
I guess this is why you have safewords in BDSM. When things really heat up, you can’t rely on your partner reading your cues. It has to be an explicit command. Of course this is an extreme case but you get the drift.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
January 24, 2018
When a celebrity invites you to his/her place, after a single date or so, there is a high likelihood that it is for sex.
That’s the most singular piece of bull shit I’ve heard to explain Ansari’s attitude. Sorry. But being a celebrity doesn’t entitle you to sex on demand. Your attitude is the problem here – that you assume that a woman wants to have sex with you because she accepted your offer to come up to your flat. No. She accepted an offer to come up to his/your place. Full stop.
much less in a bedroom with your dick erect and you being in the mood..
When the woman is continually taking her hand away from that erect dick, however buzzed you are, it means ‘No’.
I can”t believe you’re actually saying that Ansari didn’t misread her cues, she misread Ansari’s cues! No, you [redacted].- she DIDN’T misread his cues. It is because she didn’t misread his cues that she made a clear statement that ‘It is not going to happen tonight.’ What part of that is unclear?
And if you truly believe that ‘When you are slightly buzzed and in the mood for love, you don’t really pay much attention to these cues. then, I suggest you NEVER EVER take a woman on a date.
Anujaaaa! plaintively May I say ‘UGH!’ here?! Where is Aadhy and Kaykay when I need them?!
To the decent guys on this board – could you please set this guy’s attitude right? My head hurts from trying to even come up with a half-way polite response to this shit.
LikeLiked by 2 people
sai16vicky
January 24, 2018
I totally agree with Venkatesh here.
@Anu Warrier: I don’t know if I understand your point completely. You say that getting naked does not imply sex but here’s the thing: Why would you get voluntarily naked in front of someone whom you have just gone out with, if you weren’t interested in having sex with him/her? And if she was not in total control of her feelings (as in she being in awe of him etc.), how can she blame him for forcing himself on her? Again, I am not saying he is right but she isn’t some blameless soul either. I am just curious, has she initiated legal proceedings against him?
LikeLike
Madan
January 24, 2018
@ Any Warrier Which is why he should have not only been contacted but pinned down to specifics. I don’t know why they thought 5 hours is enough of a wait to hear from him. With that said, I do agree that with the vague statement which he did issue, he has in essence relinquished his right to defend himself. Like a guilty plea.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rahini David
January 24, 2018
therag: It is kind of difficult to find out if a person is actually feeling comfortable even in a relatively normal scene
Actually no. In social situations, people often say things in a roundabout but still clear way. Ask me to come to a prayer (in whatever religion) and I will not say “No, I don’t believe in that stupid waste of time”, I’d say “Some other time perhaps”
Ask me to take a sampling of food and I will say, “Nice soufflé” (It is ok to lie in such circumstances)
Ask me to take a second helping and I will say, “No thanks I am already full” not “Actually your soufflé is terrible”
Don’t we all refuse one thing or the other in an indirect way? If you don’t want to go golfing with your boss, you say “I have to do the laundry” not “You are terrible to play with”.
We all understand the most indirect “No”.
BDSM has safe words because the usual words that mean “No” don’t apply. Usual non-verbal clues like crying in distress and shaking your head and asking to stop don’t qualify as “No” in that context. Only the safe word does. In normal dates, normal words count.
So “It is not going to happen tonight” and “I don’t want to end up hating you” and “I am not comfortable” and “I don’t do this on the first date” are all not non-verbal obtuse clues at all. She actually said these things. She verbally said these things. To continue saying that she was not clear is to say that nothing other than “GET YOUR HANDS OFF, YOU ABUSER” counts at all.
LikeLiked by 3 people
bala
January 24, 2018
” I don’t prefer to have sex now, but since you are desperate, i don’t mind.”
Can this be considered consent, or not?
LikeLike
Anuja Chandramouli
January 24, 2018
It is so good to see the Warrior in fine fighting form and I for one have always been an admirer of your grit and dedication to the feminist cause. Personally I think you are doing just fine without Aadhy or even the redoubtable KayKay.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Vivek narain
January 24, 2018
The woman remains powerful only when she goes on hanging in front of you like a carrot-never available and always available,so close and so far away. She attracts you,she provokes you,she seduces you and when you come close to her, she simply says NO! If she says yes, you reduce her to a mechanism, you use her. And nobody wants to be used.~OSHO Times
LikeLike
Sifter
January 24, 2018
You are a fantastic writer, but to bring up those parallels with regards to WA was very cringe worthy. You may not agree, but it completely reeked of bias to me.
LikeLike
Doba
January 24, 2018
I have been a fan of so many of your pieces. But this one makes me uncomfortable 😦 I understand the love of the art. But that talent or gift also nurtures a sense of entitlement and power that can be used to hurt others. I cannot separate the art from the artist.
LikeLike
Rahini David
January 24, 2018
Bala: It is consent. Sounds more like giving alms than giving consent. Still it qualifies as consent.
LikeLike
"Original" venkatesh
January 24, 2018
@Anu Warrier : You can say “Ugh” ., though that would not add anything to the discussion.
There is one fundamental misunderstanding here.
And someone earlier alluded to it as well. Its not that he is being entitled. He was getting mixed signals and you cannot blame him for that. There is a contingent of women who have been taught to say “no” when they mean “yes”. From my reading, he was simply trying to check if it was a firm “no”., there have been situations where the message from women has been “I wanted you to pursue me”. Is that a good or a bad thing ? I don;t know.
The only reason to bring his celebrity status into it is because he has more to lose than her. Celebrity brings an amplification to this. This whole incident would have been forgotten and marked as a learning experience by both parties , except of course since he is a celeb and there is always Social Media , its quite easy to make it about him being a monster.
You cannot really have a book for these things with rules and regulations written down. There are degrees of consent and while i agree he was aggressive/persistent, which some women like. This is not assault. This is not the same. And by putting it in the same bucket, the well is being poisoned.
Taken to its logical conclusion , tomorrow, when a woman says she was assaulted, no one will believe her. They will conclude “bad date”.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Anu Warrier
January 24, 2018
Venkatesh – I called you out on your ‘no nothing woman’ as well. So because she is not a celebrity, nor rich and famous, she has no right but to give in. Got it.
Two: I don’t know about other women playing hard to get, but this woman gave plenty of verbal and non-verbal cues. That he didn’t take them is absolutely his fault. Just because he has ‘more to lose than her’ doesn’t make him innocent. Was she naive? A bit foolish? A bit star-struck? Absolutely. I’m not giving her a pass on that. But whatever she did or didn’t do, that Ansari – Ansari! who talked ad nauseum about consent and female empowerment – didn’t take her at her word is appalling.
No, he was not ‘trying to check if it was a firm ‘no’ ‘. He got a ‘a firm ‘no” – ‘It’s not happening tonight IS a firm ‘no’, Continually taking her hand off his genitals is a ‘no’.
To proceed after that, to coerce her into oral sex and to mimic actual sex, etc. does fall into the purview of sexual harassment. (Note I didn’t say assault anywhere. Neither did Grace.) I’m not absolving Grace of her responsibility in this matter, but that doesn’t give Ansari a pass for harassing her.
Your attitude is to blame the woman and give the man a pass because ‘Poor man, how is he to know?’ Well, as far as I know, my husband is a man; Aadhy is a man; so is my young adult son. If even a teenager with his hormones kicking in full time can understand that her attitude was a clear ‘NO’ and say, he would be bummed by it, but the date would have been over right then, Ansari does not have a leg to stand on.
Again, I’m glad that Ansari doesn’t have your attitude about it.
@Sai – the point of consent is that a woman (or man) can even want to have sex with a man, and therefore get naked with him. But, if s/he feels uncomfortable for any reason, or just gets the mood killed – the other person’s a bad kisser/too aggressive for their liking/just lost interest, and says, ‘It’s not happening tonight’, then it is NOT happening tonight. Decent men and women may feel disappointed; perhaps they won’t go on another date with that person; perhaps, if they are in a relationship, this is a relationship killer BUT consent can be revoked at any time by either person. To continue after that consent has been revoked is harassment.
And yes, I can blame someone for ‘forcing themselves on her’. Getting naked with someone doesn’t mean you agree to being assaulted or raped. That comes dangerously close to ‘Look what she was wearing! (or not wearing in this case).
Anuja, LOL. 🙂 No, I don’t need men to fight my battles for me, but I feel like I’m the lone voice crying in the wilderness here. It would have been nice to have some moral support.
Sifter, Doba, come sit by Urvashi and me. Plenty of space on this bench. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
"Original" venkatesh
January 24, 2018
@Anu : “I called you out on your ‘no nothing woman’ as well. So because she is not a celebrity, nor rich and famous, she has no right but to give in. Got it.”
Are you being contrarian for the sake of it ? When did i say that. You are making things up.
“I’m not absolving Grace of her responsibility in this matter, but that doesn’t give Ansari a pass for harassing her.” When the fuck did i give him a pass. Which part of “He is a dolt and an idiot” not parseable to you ?
“Your attitude is to blame the woman and give the man a pass because ‘Poor man, how is he to know?’” Ok i give up. You are reading things that i neither intended nor have mentioned.
This is what i said and this is my point : There are degrees of consent and while i agree he was aggressive/persistent, which some women like. This is not assault. This is not the same. And by putting it in the same bucket, the well is being poisoned.
What Grace has done is by bringing this up in the same context as sexual assault and #metoo., she has indulged in the well known logical fallacy : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
I have nothing more to add. Feel free to rant and rave.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Vivek narain
January 24, 2018
What beats me is, why would anyone dig for a chance visitor to accomplish his amorous longings, when the market is full of accomodating chicks, and these chance acquaintances are never a good lay anyhow. Unless of course he is a Caliban like me stuck with a bag like Miranda. ‘Of cheap things life is the cheapest. Everywhere it goes begging. Nature spills it out with a lavish hand.Where there is room for one life, she sows thousand lives, and it’s life eats life till the strongest and most piggish life is left’. ~Wolf Larsen.And we have some most piggish ones right here.
LikeLike
rsylviana
January 24, 2018
@therag For the sake of the entire female population, can you please reveal your actual name and basic info? So that we would not come near you with a ten-foot pole!!
Your statements are downright scary!! Ignoring/not heeding to your partner’s cues(verbal/non verbal) because YOU slightly buzzed and in the mood for love IS ASSAULT !
And BR, like Anu and others have mentioned , the examples you have picked up here shows a definite bias on your part towards Ansari and Allen(shudders!).Did not expect this from you man!
LikeLike
therag
January 24, 2018
@Anu Warrier, from the article,she never gives him a firm NO. At best she was giving him mixed signals. If she really wanted to not have sex, she could have dressed up and left immediately. Why did she not do that if she was not into it? Your point about a woman having every right to leave at any point of time is moot. She did not leave when she very well could have. If she felt her verbal cues were not working, she could have just left the apartment. It would have been misconduct/harassment if Ansari had stopped her from leaving or something like that. Or if they were engaging in some Bondage or something and she was all tied up so her verbal cues assume extra importance.
And frankly, inviting a partner to your apartment after dinner, a short one at that, is pretty much the social code for initiating sex. If you don’t plan on having sex,you decline the invitation outright or propose some other activity in a way that makes it clear to the other person your intention. Your points about cues, verbal and otherwise, work only at this level. Once you are in the apartment, the assumption is that you are into it as much as he is. Which is why you have to be very firm and clear if your intention is to not have sex, because the partner assumes consent is granted when you walk into the house. This happened in a Western country, where these social customs are pretty established.
Can you not visit the house without sex being assumed? Of course you can, but you make it very clear to the other person. Put in context, what she said was very vague. It was not “I don’t want to have sex with you now. I’m getting dressed”. Saying something like “I might hate you forever for this”, “let’s chill for a sec” etc are not as explicit as they are made out to be. This is the definition of mixed signals. Saying something that indicates some discomfort, but your very presence in the apartment and the fact that you didn’t just up and leave, is a much stronger cue in the opposite direction.
All of the above is amplified if you are a celebrity. I did not mean to say celebrities are entitled to sex. Why would a celebrity invite you up after a very short dinner, to play a game of monopoly? You have to be dumb as a rock if you believe it is for anything other than sex. If she really thought he actually fancied her or something, then she misread his cues. A person impatient to finish dinner and get back to his apartment is a good enough indicator for what is to come. And Ansari’s responses during the session suggest that he thought they both were on the same page.
How ironic that they are described as watching an episode of “Seinfeld” which made a show out of discussing these social rules. George Costanza would have a thing or two to say about this situation.
LikeLike
Prashila
January 24, 2018
@Anu, Let me on the bench too. Too tired to add anything more that is relevant to what is already mentioned. But like V said in his fantastically, carefully-worded comment, at least I see this as an acknowledgement of:
So Aziz Ansari was a jerk. In that situation, on that day. What we men should be hearing is how easy it is for us to be jerks as well. Possibly without meaning to, because that’s the relationship dynamic we expect, perhaps. And the only way that will change if we listen to women.
And yes, disappointed a little bit with BR’s take on the WA comparison in the piece, but I have close friends who I have a high regard for otherwise, who also feel very strongly about separating his art from his ‘Personal life’. It’s one of those things…
LikeLiked by 2 people
therag
January 24, 2018
@Rahini David, I meant normal dating situations which are an entirely different ball game with their own set of rules. Confusion is much more probable. And when you are in your apartment getting it own, you try and let your guard down so that you can relax.
Again, as I said in my previous post, she gave mixed signals at best. If she felt her initial cues didn’t work, she could have been progressively more blatant. If nothing works, just put your clothes on and leave the apartment. The fact that she did not do that is pretty damning. It says that she was still willing to take it forward at that time, but in hindsight felt otherwise. You cannot blame Ansari for that.
At worst, Ansari comes off as socially inept but are you going to pillory him for that?
LikeLike
Madan
January 24, 2018
“Given this premise, how can anyone claim that art can be separate from the artist.” – Not the art but the appreciation of it. I personally think Woody Allen is culpable in the Dylan Farrow case. However, I am not going to be forced into saying Manhattan Murder Mystery is not a great film just because of Allen’s personal affairs (of course if one thinks MMM is not a great film per se, that’s another discussion altogether which I am not talking about). I may abstain from watching his films in the theater as a way of not enriching someone who perhaps ought to be charged (I don’t watch Salman films in theater – or even on the small screen – even when the critics say that, no, this one is actually good). But my appreciation of the artist’s work will stand. To some extent, I can understand (though not agree with) the feeling that an artist who turned out to be a criminal has betrayed the audience in some way. But I would absolutely NOT confuse the art itself with the artist’s ideological leanings in the sense of whether I agree with them; to me THAT is what is dishonest because that suggests it is more important for the artist to be part of one’s echo chamber rather than whether his art is any good. If a great piece of art is made by someone you simply cannot see eye to eye with ideologically (say you are a staunch believer and Kamal is, well, Kamal), you should still applaud it. Art is one of the few aspects left in society that still has the power to unite people and if that is also to be regarded only as a form of propaganda, then we are heading for troubled times.
LikeLike
Bala
January 24, 2018
Thanks rahini.. i thought I knew that, but the need for debate over what is consent just made me doubt my assumption.
I believe, that there is a reasonable chance that Ansari got such a (taking alms) kind of consent. Also, there is a reasonable chance that Ansari genuinely misunderstood her no for a reluctant yes (in which case, we need the debate over what is consent). Ofcourse, there is chance of either of them lying. In such circumstances, I think Ansari should get the benefit of doubt. In a court of law, he definitely would get the benefit of doubt. But here, there is no court of law, the whole world is acting as jury.
However noble the cause may be, the me too movement is encouraging guilty-by-suspicion and trial-by-social-media.
If we don’t give Ansari the benefit of doubt, the metoo movement can end up being a wrong precedent for other malicious movements, or itself turn in to one.
LikeLike
Doba
January 24, 2018
I am a little unsure about this – “a large contingent of women who are taught to say no when they mean yes.”
Jane Austen’s Elizabeth Bennet says to Collins – women are fundamentally rational creatures on the look out for their happiness. They would not risk their happiness by saying no if they meant yes. The bird in hand is worth two … and all that.
That seems to make sense and it has definitely been my experience.
On the other hand, women saying yes when they mean no… now that seems more likely to happen especially in the power dynamics that often comes to play between a man and a woman. Here, Weinstein and his ilk come to mind.
This erroneous (in my opinion) portrayal of women comes from movies and books (perhaps written or made by men) rather than real life.
The second point is regarding the court of law and arm chair activism. You see laws are made by those with the greatest agency and are a reflection of the times we live in. Marital rape was not considered a crime till very recently. Arm chair activism is a term of condescension extended to justified outcries by the oppressed. How do you create the ambience for passing a new law if it did not begin with activism?
Anu, Thank you for manning the bench :). You are outstanding.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anu Warrier
January 24, 2018
Venkatesh – thanks, man, for giving me the permission to ‘rant and rave’. (And you do realise that calling a woman’s opinion ‘rant and rave’ is a time-worn way of shutting a woman up? We are emoshunal people, we are, we wimmenses. We need to learn to be manly and control our emoshuns. But a man, of course, cannot be expected to control his sexual emotions – ‘mixed signals’ will overwhelm him so much that he just cannot be expected to stop.)
No, I’m not being contrarian – your calling Grace a ‘no-name nothing woman’ implies that she’s trash for even bringing up this topic in the first place. It implies that she’s looking for her f minutes of fame by slinging mud at a celebrity. Very few, too few women talk about sexual harassment precisely because of this.
She spoke about being sexually harassed and coerced into having sex. As Aravindan points out, #MeToo is not just about sexual exploitation /rape of the Weinstein kind. It is about entitlement. That she brought it out during this campaign is because the MeToo movement has emboldened women to come out and talk about sexual harassment to rape – from the A to the Z of it, all nuances included.
You seem to think that this is a case of ‘mixed signals’. But it wasn’t, was it? It was pretty clear when she said ‘I don’t have sex on the first date’. Anything else after that was coercion. A 23-year-old in a situation where she’s the fan of the man concerned, where she’s liked his work, seen him as a man who is sensitive to women – who even tells her when she says she wants to stop and this is not happening tonight, tells her, ‘okay’ and that ‘it’s not fun when both people aren’t having fun’ (or something to that effect) doesn’t expect that no, those are just words. If you’re telling me that these (coupled with her taking her hand off his genitals repeatedly) is ‘mixed signals’ I don’t know what to tell you.
And if celebrities are soft targets, and calling them out means ‘mud will stick’ perhaps it would behoove celebrities NOT to do anything muddy. Ansari is not bearing the consequences of anything other than his own actions. The onus of responsibility lies on the person who committed those actions; not on the person who suffered those actions for whatever reason.
@therag – I don’t know in which social circles you move, but ‘come back to my apartment’ is not ‘social code’ for ‘let’s have sex’. If you assume that, that’s on YOU, not on your date.
Again from the article, ‘I don’t have sex on the first date’ ‘I don’t think this is happening tonight’ ‘I am uncomfortable and don’t want to go back hating you’ coupled with taking her hand off his genitals’ should tell you that it is a bloody NO.And because she misread his cues is no reason for him to be aggressive.
Even if I give him the benefit of the doubt and say, yes, she gave him mixed signals, and yes, she could have left (see Aadhy’s post for why she didn’t – right away) what he did was still harassment. You do NOT force yourself on your date because you assumed you were going to have sex that night. Ansari wasn’t ‘socially inept’. He was a jerk in this instance.
@Prashila – fighting this fight is tiring. It appears that every once in a while, we’re repeating ourselves. If this were a brick wall we were hitting our heads against, it would now be lying in dust at our feet. This wall of attitudes however, seems impenetrable.
And now I will go and work on NOT ranting and raving because it upsets manly men.
LikeLiked by 3 people
therag
January 24, 2018
@Anu Warrier, my entire argument hinges on the fact that inviting someone to your apartment/ accepting such an invitation, that too on the first date, is pretty much 100% guaranteed to be sex-related. And when the person happens to be a hollywood celebrity, there’s not an iota of doubt what it means. The likelihood is lower for plebeians relatively, but not absolute low. This is what it means even for normal people i.e this is the default meaning. A white girl who goes club hopping and lands a date with someone like Ansari does’t know what an invite to the apartment means? Give me a break.
And no, I don’t exactly move around in these hallowed circles where you get sex on your first date, but it doesn’t require herculean effort to see that both Ansari and the woman belong to such a circle.This is not some John Doe hooking up with some Mary jane. Consent is does not even come into play here.
LikeLike
Anon
January 24, 2018
Everyone who is trying to rationalize Ansari’s behavior seem to focus on the events that happened in the first half of the story. This notion that when someone agrees to come over after a date is an untold social cue for sex is just wrong. While that is how its portrayed in popular culture, its far from the truth. So can we make up another one tomorrow that says any new actress who comes up to a producer’s hotel room is ready to do anything for a role? Because isn’t that what we have been fed in movies and magazines?
Let me take this opportunity to call out on the MOST REGRESSIVE and RIDICULOUS statements made in BR’s blog @threrag:
“When a celebrity invites you to his/her place, after a single date or so, there is a high likelihood that it is for sex. Seen in that light, it is not surprising that Ansari was “aggressive”.”
“When you are slightly buzzed and in the mood for love, you don’t really pay much attention to these cues.’
Even in a country like India, after marriage, trying to have intercourse without consent is considered rape. Sex cannot be assumed to be your right even if the woman sleeping next to you is your wife and yet you don’t find Ansari’s assumptions and behavior wrong.
Also please don’t go close to any women when you are “buzzed”.
LikeLiked by 2 people
smokedustandhaze
January 25, 2018
@Aadhy: very well put! Great point about how Ansari has himself leveraged social media platforms (and written a goddamn book on dating!) to craft a “feminist” image. He’s happily enjoyed the cookies for his woke-ness, he can stand to take some criticism.
@Anu: I disagree that the Ansari thing should be disconnected from metoo, because:
(1) no one ever suggested that Ansari should suffer the same consequences as Weinstein. All he got was criticism from some quarters (as well as support from some). Within this movement, there is room to analyze and discuss different degrees of harassment/assault.
(2) If you take a structural view of the patriarchal society, the socialization aspect is absolutely relevant in discussions of sexual assault. Why do certain men feel entitled to push women to get what they want (again, to different extents), why do women feel the need to be “nice” and accommodating, to not protest too much.
I don’t usually comment here but I’m a regular reader. I remember your excellent comments on the depiction of stalking in Tamil cinema. The idea of men as pursuers and women as gate-keepers of sexuality are a big part of the messed up power dynamics in male-female relationships. I think those ideas apply here too. So it’s important to talk about cases like Grace’s and to remember that sexual assault is not just about a few bad men.
(3) There have been a number of terrible reactions to Grace’s story: she wants attention (for an anonymous story!), she is a whiner and/or a coward, what did she expect when she went back to his place. The last one is particularly dangerous. Many people think that her going to Ansari’s apartment was an implicit agreement to do anything he wanted. As if she gave up any right to be treated as a human being, whose comfort and pleasure actually mattered. To me, the existence of these rape-culturish responses justify the need for her story to be out there.
@Baradwaj: “This is just a reminder of what’s at stake: a reputation, a name.”
That’s also what policemen and courts of law have said many a time to victims of sexual abuse or domestic violence. Are you sure you want to destroy this young man’s reputation, his career (see Brock Turner’s sentencing, as one of many examples)? Are you sure you want to drag your husband’s name through the mud? Maybe you were mistaken, maybe you’re exaggerating. You don’t seem too traumatized!
I know this is not what you meant, but “we don’t want to ruin a man’s name” has long been used, and is still used, to deny legal protection and justice to women. This problem has deep social and institutional roots, and any solution needs social engagement. Analysis and discussion are not the same as a witch-hunt. How else are we supposed to engage with different stories and views?
LikeLiked by 1 person
sai16vicky
January 25, 2018
@Anu: Thanks for the clarification. I read her account again in more detail and would like to focus on the following paragraph:
“Grace says she spent around five minutes in the bathroom, collecting herself in the mirror and splashing herself with water. Then she went back to Ansari. He asked her if she was okay. “I said I don’t want to feel forced because then I’ll hate you, and I’d rather not hate you,” she said.”
At this point, it definitely looks like she is disinterested in getting physical with him and he is trying to coerce her into the act. But subsequently, she says “she went down on him”.
Let’s now take a step back and thinks about this. If I am being forced into a sexual act and I am fully aware I don’t want to do it anymore, why would I continue doing it? I would rather stop, leave the place or call the cops. Like she texted her friend, she could as well made her bring the cops. My stand is the following: I am all in for women/men coming out in the open about how they were harassed and so on but one needs to realize what of it to believe/what not to believe. In this particular incident, she could have called the cops/initiated a legal proceedings against him instead of coming out in the open (and that too anonymously). Why shame someone in the public when you don’t have quantifiable evidence?
LikeLiked by 1 person
"Original" venkatesh
January 25, 2018
@Anu : There is no arguing with you.
It is fantastic to see that you cannot for one second fathom that perhaps the woman was also in the wrong here.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Vivek narain
January 25, 2018
When Dillon tells Nick Gurney, “If you gotta lay this bitch,why didn’t you knock her cold first?”, it gives us a glimpse of America in 1940, and Myra Hogan was just 17. (The Dead Stay Dumb by J.H.Chase). And now a 23 yr old is not grown up enough to deal with a green horn like Ansari, really America has gone to dogs. Dillon by the way was a most vicious killer US has yet seen, he carried the gun for ‘baby face’ Nelson, Gurney headed the local mob at Plattsville, and the teenager Myra stood challenging to both of them.
LikeLike
Madan
January 25, 2018
“And frankly, inviting a partner to your apartment after dinner, a short one at that, is pretty much the social code for initiating sex.” – Would you say that if you invited someone from the same sex home (and you are heterosexual)? So that is the point Anu Warrier is making. I get that the whole courtship process is riddled with ambiguous signals and maybe we can take this as an opportunity to reform the process. I am not comfortable with Ansari being made an example of to aid this process (and continue to apprehend that it may instead have the opposite effect) but, no, I wouldn’t regard his behaviour as particularly sensitive. This is NOT about the precautions Grace could have taken to avoid the situation. This is about Ansari’s celebrity status entitling him to ignore her when she says this isn’t happening tonight. Normally (at least I assume) a man’s instinct would be to ask why and, if she isn’t changing her mind, to just let her be. How many men, for instance, would force themselves on their wife? Not many because you have to live with her when morning comes. So why should it be any different in a one night stand?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Prashila
January 25, 2018
Vivek Nairain, haha, your comments are so bizarre, they end up making me laugh (and most times in a good way). And on your last one, I know you are (or at least I guess you are) partly goofing around, but let me just say it out loud, that this whole discussion of consent and understanding and being receptive to the let’s just say for the simplification of the argument, verbal cues from the woman about her discomfort, will apply even to the most accommodating chick from the market. If she tells him to stop, he has to.
Madan, very well put. Something even I think of when it comes to an artist’s ideological leanings. But I think at least to me, it gets a little more complicated when it comes to their personal lives and its social connotations. Like WA or more recently Casey Affleck’s case. I remember being crushed by his performance in Manchester by the Sea all the while I was watching it. But just as soon as the movie finished, my emotions were hardly as clear as they were before. Like I said earlier too, it is one of those things.
Anu, behen, I know. Impenetrable is the word. And I am proud of you for soldiering on. Most others like me just back off after a while and can only sulk and seethe. Sigh…
LikeLike
brangan
January 25, 2018
smokedustandhaze: I am saying The Crucible scene reminds us that this is about one’s name. I am not saying Ansari or Allen should not be hauled up — my article began with WHO is doing the hauling up.
My article took off from these lines:
“Shouldn’t we leave them to courts of law? Of course, that’s not how we function in this age of social media, because we have to have an opinion. We turn into armchair judges. It’s the court of public law.”
So I am saying I feel uncomfortable judging anyone. But to each their own. I can only write about how I feel, not recommend a course of action for society.
Again, this is a film piece. I wanted to write about some scenes I was reminded of when it came to the Allen/Ansari cases, with the caveat (in the second para) that “It’s not an exact comparison.”
My business is only with the art these people produce. They can be monsters in personal life. I wouldn’t know (because no really knows but the two people involved) — so I don’t try to judge, and I settle for the art they produce.
If something can crush me like Casey Affleck’s performance in Manchester by the Sea, if something can twist my very being like Hannah and her Sisters (or make me laugh like The Whore of Mensa), if I am moved by a Sultan, then the art makes its own case.
LikeLiked by 1 person
therag
January 25, 2018
Lol coercion. And yeah, like this has anything at all to do with marital rape. And like I have said for the 10th time I think, the fact that he is a celebrity does not imply that he is entitled to sex. It just explains why he took longer than usual to realize that something was wrong (or didn’t realize until it was all over, whichever way you look at it).
And yes, I will stand by my statement that invitation to the apartment after a brief first date == sex. Even if you cannot convince yourself that this is more or less true generally, for this particular case, it really doesn’t need any convincing. The fact that one person is a celebrity here is further evidence of this. Why would an immensely popular actor that you’ve met just once before, invite you to his home after a very brief dinner. For a game of monopoly?
Note that if this was a few dates in, or after a reasonable courtship, then it is possible that you want to spend time with the partner without sex. In such a case, the odds are non-negligible that invitation =/= sex.
When you say the woman explicitly said she was not interested, you are just picking sentences out of context. Again like I said before, her mere presence in the apartment in this situation is enough reinforcement in the other direction. The woman barely knew him and from what I know, didn’t have anything to gain from the fling in material terms. So there’s not even the possibility of coercion or blackmail like in the Weinstein case. I mean the guy doesn’t have any leverage here. In other words, she had absolutely no reason to stay if she felt uncomfortable in any way.
I don’t think I have to respond to queries about what I would have done/will do, or what it means for women in general to reject sex etc. All this is simply not relevant here. In this particular case, with the facts available to us, I believe Ansari was unfairly crucified for what amounts to a simple misunderstanding. This entire episode is like a direct-to-TV sequel of Gone Girl or something.
LikeLike
vinjk
January 25, 2018
Oh boy! This article was about cinema and folks like Anu Warrier has into an investigation on the Ansari affair.
@Anu Warrier, You’ve made valid points but aren’t wasting your energy by campaigning here based on some articles?
LikeLike
therag
January 25, 2018
@Madan, I don’t understand your point about inviting people of the same sex home.
And I feel you and a couple of others are really thinking in terms of the generic (“Is it possible that a woman accepts an invitation but does not want sex?”) while I am using a more specific argument that Rangan himself uses in his reviews : “Is that situation plausible in this particular case?”. And I have explained clearly why I feel it is not applicable to this particular scenario.
LikeLike
writeawordatatime
January 25, 2018
“….then the art makes its own case.” – for you, BR. One individual. Its different for each.
“..Shouldn’t we leave them to courts of law?..” – The court has certain very basic and specific definitions of rape and sexual assault and crimes of a sexual nature. Heck, some countries do not even recognise marital rape as a crime. This is the world that we live in. So such statements are hollow.
Two, do laws change with time as it is necessary? It takes at times a revolution by the people to do so. And what is happening at the moment is NO WITCH HUNT BR. No one is baying for Ansari’s blood , professionally, or wanting his career ended. Heck, he is still being nominated for MoN. People want Season 3.
People are being arm chair judges you say. Judges of what? So should people remain quiet.? Why should they? The age of social media is a boon as such indignant and wrong sexual behaviour comes to light. Ten years ago the likes of Ansari would have gotten away with so much. So, how is this bad, what is happening.
Most of the writes have a valid say of why Ansari was wrong , why and where the woman went wrong too. It is these discussions that are making a slight (first step) but important important dent in changing the perception of what constitutes sexual harassment. This episode is not a sexual assault in legal terms , but it DOES NOT make Ansari less criminal in how he forced himself on her.
Men here, very very appalling and repulsive many of the comments above, show that they miss the point because they want the woman to yell NO at the first go. It does not happen at times, human nature you see. The problem with the woman here is that she had her agency throughout but exercised it much later , after half an hour or so. She definitely should have told him No, buzz off dude, the first time she felt being used, and left the apartment but she had her issues. We have to understand this, calmly and and lead women in such positions to be able to assert themselves. The environment should be made such conducive.
Men, as much as they deny, I don’t think they are blinded to clues of reluctance and resistance. Someone above wrote that Ansari was getting mixed signals so wasn’t sure. Really??? So mixed signals = having sex , that the woman is ready?? Absolutely not, and the men do not not know this. They simply justify the acts because there wasn’t a loud, clear NO.
Ansari agrees to the episode. So he agrees that there were non verbal cues that she showed resistance and yet went ahead with having sex. Is this not force?
Men are in so much denial that this isn’t rape and that they are not in the wrong, even though they are, simply because they are, have been allowed to get away with it. This episode is holding a mirror to 95% of the men everywhere, but are they willing to reflect upon, change and stop the violence they inflict on women?
Legally, what constitutes rape, well, it has to be more inclusive, at the same time, there will always be certain acts that they will leave out of the definition.
What is as important is that there has to be a cultural change where men have to respect women , their non verbal cues that they conveniently ignore or feign ignorance to. Women are not sexual objects. A man and women get together for an evening DOES NOT equal to the fact that the women will have sex with him later , earlier, whenever, during that meet. IT DOES NOT.
Women have to make this clear as well, when need be. They need not be afraid , scared or simply disappointed that the date did not go well. No obligation on their part. Grace did not quite do it, so what? Why are we pinning her down, and not allowing her the space to understand and learn from her experience that she could have been vocal.
Ansari, and all the men who can’t seem to take no for an answer, have to learn to do this. Be less violent. Reduce the violence on women who already have it really tough on dates and in life. Men writing above should read more and be ready to change. Manliness does not go for a toss because you agree to let the woman be in peace on your date, in your relationship, if she doesn’t like you, your sexual manners. Accept it , improve and move on, like a real man.
(There could be typos, as I ranted. But really some of the guys’ comments here are simply scary and infuriating.).
LikeLiked by 3 people
brangan
January 25, 2018
writeawordatatime: for you, BR. One individual. Its different for each.
But that is exactly what I said in the comment above. I have never ever said everyone should think the way I do — whether about films or anything else. I’m hardly the kind who grabs a bullhorn and says “I am the only one who is right here.” So many of my reviews have so many opposing viewpoints. Everyone speaks up.
I think people should not be armchair judges. You clearly feel differently. Am I telling you NOT to be an armchair judge? Please be my guest.
Only, please do not say I have to write articles endorsing armchair judgment, or that I should not feel that this isn’t the best thing. I can only write from the way I think.
But anyway, I don’t think my point about this being about FILMS and SPECIFIC SCENES is getting through — so I don’t think there’s any point in me commenting any more here.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Anu Warrier
January 25, 2018
Final words, because…
@sai Have you ever been in a situation (not just sexual) where you felt pressurised to say/do something just to get out of the situation? Ever been in a situation where your brain just doesn’t work, and you’re willing to do whatever it takes just to get the hell out of there? Aadhy explained very well indeed just why Grace may not have reacted the way she should have. Calling a cop – just take a look at this page. Have you seen the scoffing at Grace that is going on? Do you honestly think, in a situation like that, your first instinct is going to be calling the cops? We can all rationalise and look at it, because – a) distance b) we are not involved c) arm-chair quarterbacking is always perfect.
Western women have sexual freedom, but this society is as patriarchal as any other, and they do not have enough sexual agency. They are socially conditioned to keep quiet, not make waves; to smile and be nice; to acknowledge a man’s presence as superior. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that the freedom to have sex means they have rights. Which is why the fight for equality, the fight to be listened to on an equal level is so important.
@smoke@dust: yes, but I did say I am conflicted. Aadhy’s post did cause me to re-evaluate what I initially thoughts.
@Venkatesh – ah, but you weren’t arguing that the woman was also in the wrong, implying that Ansari was to blame as well. Despite your ‘he acted like an idiot’ or some such. Because you specifically said this was a ‘bad date’. What you seem unwilling to accept is that Ansari was not just responsible for a ‘bad date’. He sexually harassed her. Others, apart from me, have specified how this was harassment. But no. It was a bad date, she regretted what she did and therefore, she threw mud because it would stick on a celebrity. What I am arguing is that regardless of what she did/didn’t do, what Ansari did constitutes sexual harassment.
As to why she called him out here and now, both Aadhy and Smokeanddust have elaborated on Ansari’s whole platform of feminism and equal rights. Can you understand what a slap in the face it must have been to see him standing up at the Golden Globes with a TImes’up pin, calling forth on women who have been sexually harassed to come forth and tell their stories? Can you not see that that must have added insult to injury, causing her to gp public with his behaviour?
As for my blaming her, do you know any woman who has been sexually harassed? I can assure you that every moment of every day, the woman will be blaming herself. ‘Why did I stay on?” ‘Why did I go to his apartment?’ Why didn’t I leave?’ ‘Why did I have to give in to his demands?’ ‘What did I do that I could have done differently?’ You know all those questions that are asked of women when they report sexual assault – ‘Why did you go out after dark?’ ‘Why were you wearing such provocative clothes?’ ‘Why did you go out with a boy?’ – yes, all these are questions that women are conditioned to ask themselves, because we blame ourselves just as much as society blames us.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Anu Warrier
January 25, 2018
And the last response:
@therag:This is not some John Doe hooking up with some Mary jane. Consent is does not even come into play here.
Consent always comes into play, celebrity or not, John Doe/Mary Jane or not. Always. It’s the cardinal rule of not being a sexual harasser.
It doesn’t matter whether going to a man’s apartment means you are willing to have sex or not. If you go up there and change your mind, and say so in as many words, that assumed consent is revoked. OR, you regrettably get called out for sexually harassing your date. Ansari is not innocent here. And it doesn’t matter how much you LOL.
And like the other women here, your attitude is appalling, your arguments are horrifying, and yes, please do stay away from dating any woman until you’re ready to come into 2018.
@vinjk – BR’s columns generally springboard other discussions. Here, he evoked Ansari, someone commented on the imbroglio, and this discussions sprung from that. Since my name is associated with my comments which you find incongruous in this setting, please scroll right past them.
@Prashila, Doba, anon, et al – thank you, ladies. I’ve done all the ranting and raving I can manage for now. And since I seem to be repeating myself ad nauseum without making any difference, it is time to take a break. 🙂
LikeLike
Rahini David
January 25, 2018
therag: At worst, Ansari comes off as socially inept but are you going to pillory him for that?
Actually, I don’t think people are pushing him into jail and torturing him. For someone who has kept a male-feminist persona in the personal sphere, his behavior is slightly more than “socially inept”. So some one who has seen a different side to him decided to call him out on it.
I meant normal dating situations which are an entirely different ball game with their own set of rules.
I completely understand that mixed cues can give out mixed reactions. But the attitude here seems to be that a woman saying “eeeks please don’t” and a man saying “you are lying, no? i am pretty sure you are” is exactly how this game is played anyway. No, it is not. It isn’t as if she is giggling or smiling as she says this. She was visibly emotional and uncomfortable. When someone is visibly emotional and uncomfortable, a decent man does not think “Well, I think one more peg will do it”.
Rahul says, “I think women may initially prefer non verbal clues to give the guy a decent out , a face-saving.” He is right.
Nobody wants to say “I didn’t think it would be like this, but your breath stinks and I feel nauseous”. They want to say something less offensive. So when a person considering his feelings and saying polite things to get herself out of it, it is best to take those minor cues and not act in a desperately hungry way.
LikeLike
"Original" venkatesh
January 25, 2018
@Anu : ” What I am arguing is that regardless of what she did/didn’t do, what Ansari did constitutes sexual harassment”
This is NOT the fucking same.
And if you class this as Sexual Harassment then what the fuck do you call what Weinstein did.
Super Califragilistic Especialodocious Sexual Harassment.
And your use of the word “regardless” is wrong. She is as culpable as he is.
This is exactly what Jagten , the film was cautioning about. Throw in an allegation at a known person in the community and boom everyone believes it. No proof, no nuance, no subtlety.
@BR : “I don’t think there’s any point in me commenting any more here.” – I try and stay out of non-film discussions on this board. And i apologise for my part in participating in it.
LikeLike
writeawordatatime
January 25, 2018
“,,please do not say I have to write articles endorsing armchair judgment, or that I should not feel that this isn’t the best thing..”
This isn’t said.
These lines – “Shouldn’t we leave them to courts of law? Of course, that’s not how we function in this age of social media, because we have to have an opinion. We turn into armchair judges. It’s the court of public law.”
The opening lines of the article is premised on the reasoning that rather than people being judges it is better that these issues be left to the court of law.
No one is stopping the court of law to act, rather its the opposite wanting by many.
The response was for this written.
LikeLike
GODZ
January 25, 2018
Anu..You are exactly the subject matter of this article. You just made a judgement “He sexually harassed her”. The evidence/argument you are using right from beginning is that Aziz apologized and he did not contested womans account and he is guilty of sexual harassment. And never you have once seem to listen what Anzari is saying “Mr. Ansari, in a statement responding to the account, said that “by all indications” the encounter was “completely consensual.”” What does “by all indication means?” Why should he feel that way? What are the indications? Did she smiled?” We never knew. Here everyone goes with the account of what women said. What about Anzari? Just because he apologized does it mean he accepted what all Grace said? I dont think so.
You can say ‘UGH’ or ‘Ahh or UGH AHH”, If someone hanging out naked with a man,Its most likely that man is going to have sex. Thats how it works. Lets forget what happened in Apartment, the girl should have ended right when she felt offended by the choice of wine. And I see Rant Against someone “Come to 2018”. Its not him who have to come to 2018. Its woman like Grace who have to 2018. When she felt pressured, She should have used the four letter word and get the hell out of their. Woman should learn to act like Adults and should not allow themselves to be a victim of situation. And Again putting the blame for not getting up and get out on Anzari is not right at all. Grace has to take responsibility for her actions. For her actions of hooking up with a guy whom she did not know fully or did not feel comfortable right from the restaurant. For her action of not getting up and getting out of their. Instead she chose to Rant and show herself victimized which she is not. By all means she allowed herself to get victimized and unless woman keep blaming men and not taking responsibility for their actions, this will not end.
I see everyone talking about Verbal, non verbal cues, taking her hands off etc. The question is simple why did not she get up, shown the middle finger and get out their? Why? So again Anzari is responsible for that? Its 2018. And when you not owning up the consequences of actions and blaming others based on the consequences, its most likely you will never change or act when the same situation happens again.
Somebody mentioned here “but she could’ve been in a daze as all of this was happening pretty quickly, and anyway that’s totally beside the point”. Thats the total Point. Just get the hell out their. Not calling police. Not feeling brain freezes. Just get the hell out of their. And if Grace did not do it in a situation by all means bought on by herself, the conversation should be like how woman should “Learn” to Act and get the hell out in situations like this and not to discuss whether Anzari assaulted or not. As I said, all the subsequent actions of Anzari based on her account, is consequence of her failure to Act which should be the topic.
#metoo movement or exposes like this will not stop harassment. In fact men are very good adapters and they will find new ways to exploit woman without getting caught. So unless woman Act without excuses of brain freezing, nothing will change. Woman like grace should realize they do have agency by all means and is not just for feminist and thats where the change and real empowerment starts. Is it a bad sex? Is it an Assualt? I wont judge based on a single person account.
LikeLike
Vivek narain
January 25, 2018
For me any kind of wine stinks,white or red, i prefer scotch or vodka martini. When i let a woman into my apartment i never doubt that she will be fussy, infact , odd as it may seem, i am extraordinarily fussy myself. Not saying she ain’t good enough for me, but whether she’s bad enough for me.
LikeLike
writeawordatatime
January 25, 2018
“This is exactly what Jagten , the film was cautioning about. Throw in an allegation at a known person in the community and boom everyone believes it. No proof, no nuance, no subtlety.”
God, No. The film’s narrative is designed that Mikkelson is framed by a five year old, the audience knows he did not do wrong. It’s the community in the film that has no evidence and they simply go by the kid’s allegation.How does Mikkelson come back into the fold again? Can he? The important thing here is that HE IS NOT GUILTY OF THE CRIME AS A FACT OF THE NARRATIVE.
About Ansari, the participant of a sexual encounter ,with a 23 year old woman, not just acknowledged the texts’ contents but AGREED TO its detailed description. That the incident happened just as the woman described. Her reluctance, her giving in and he being forceful and all that happened. HE HIMSELF SAID YES. How is this the same as the film? I can’t believe I’m arguing for this straightforward fact staring at us. And that I’m talking about some film that is said to be compared to Aziz’s case which serves no good.
Anyway for what you wrote, Aziz then in a typical yet contradicting manner (that this is of no matter, he knew he was aggressive , crossed the line , yet did not rape , in legal terms, so chill) casually says oh, I thought so otherwise sorry. What he is saying is not the same. But he didn’t care then, until it rightly blew up in his face when the incident went public.
Now, Harvey Weistein and Aziz Ansari are both sexual harassers. Your outrage simply likens Aziz’s behaviour as normal and accepting while only Harvey is the monster. But women all over marching and voicing issues of sexual harassment and rape are identifying with Aziz’s case more. And rightly so. It’s more more common, prevalent and ingrained, his kind of sexual crime. One does not need to have a case of forced penetrative sex to consider it to be rape, women have been saying this for ages. Now its getting some rightful ear. Just some.
In legal terms there definitely are differences in the definition of rape, else 95% of the men of the world would be behind bars. So legal takes (should) care of some, ideally speaking on paper (Weinstein hasn’t even been criminally charged till now), ensuring a mature culture where men respect women, where women, children and men are not unwantedly touched, groped and kissed and harassed ( which is rape too) is the other part that completes the whole.
LikeLiked by 1 person
anon
January 25, 2018
BR, your reviews are great. Whenever you write think pieces on trending events (and link it to film or not), they tend to be cliched and sub standard and bordering on ignorant when it comes to women’s stuff (you would think of yourself as a progressive liberal, i presume?) Disappointing. I don’t expect the comments to be any different either, considering how far behind the first world India is when it comes to freedom, respect and liberty for women. Not claiming first world is ideal, just that we are very far behind in many aspects.
I watched some episodes of Solvathellam unmai after aruvi – it made for interesting viewing in terms of what is ok and what is not (morality and freedome for women aspects) among the folks that show up to the show.
LikeLike
JalabulaJugs
January 25, 2018
@BR: I am with you on the piece being about cinema and really piqued by how many commenters here almost want to hammer down the point that your take is ‘biased’. it’s almost as if they want you to accept that you indeed had a subconscious bias when writing this!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aadhy
January 25, 2018
Well, I want to say so many things but feel limited by my words. But Godz,
“Thats the total Point. Just get the hell out their. Not calling police. Not feeling brain freezes. Just get the hell out of their. And if Grace did not do it in a situation by all means bought on by herself, the conversation should be like how woman should “Learn” to Act and get the hell out in situations like this and not to discuss whether Anzari assaulted or not. As I said, all the subsequent actions of Anzari based on her account, is consequence of her failure to Act which should be the topic.”
Failure to act? You mean, failure to act against getting harassed? How about men not harassing in the first place? Why not hold it in a bit longer till she clearly consents to sex? Passivity/non-response is not consent. I’m not saying she’s the best communicator or her’s was the best crisis-management behavior. But the crisis was primarily caused by Aziz’s refusal to take a NO for an answer. Being not empowered or agencied enough (is it the right word?) to push him away and get out is not her fault . As I said there could be infinite reasons for why she didn’t do what we expected her to do (shock, cultural conditioning etc.), If it’s cultural conditioning, it has to be addressed for sure. But we’re getting there. Till then, it’s best to follow this simple rule – it’s a NO until there’s an explicitly conveyed YES. I don’t want him jailed, disgraced or whatever (I don’t even care). The takeaway I would have liked to have from this whole controversy is this simple rule I mentioned above. But I guess we still are not in the same page with regards to consent. So I will leave it at that.
Regarding babe and its motives, I hear you all. Though not completely convinced of an ulterior motive to all of this, I agree they did a sloppy job, which is not helping the cause they apparently seem to endorse. I’m not the best judge to say if it falls under #MeToo, but I believe they all are interlinked through the topic of consent. As for us being armchair critics or being SJWs, I’m happy to take those labels as long as we’re engaging in a conversation. For me, that we are debating about this again and again is a heartening fact that we aren’t taking things for granted anymore.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Anu Warrier
January 25, 2018
@Venkatesh – because you asked: Just because Ansari’s actions do not reach the magnitude that Weinstein’s did, it doesn’t mean that it was NOT sexual harassment. The term ‘sexual harassment’ is a continuum. On a scale of A-Z what Ansari did would be in the lower registers. However, that does not make it ‘not sexual harassment’ however much you profane or however much you seek to normalise such behaviour by men.
If you kill somebody, it is called a ‘homicide’ whether it is murder in the first degree (cold, calculated killing), justifiable homicide (as in self-defence) or manslaghter (say, an accident). Which one it is, depends on the context of the killing. Similarly, women such as myself can call out Ansari for sexually harassing his date, without baying for his blood the way we did for Weinstein’s.
And no, this was not what Jaagten was cautioning against.
Anyway, this is the second time you have used profanity in your response to me. I think it would be better for the world at large, and certainly for BR’s blog if we ignored each other from here on.
@Godz, I don’t want to argue this again. If you cannot see it for what it is, I can only say I’m glad I do not know you in real life. I’m sure you feel the same about me.
Thank you to the few men on this board (and the many men outside – I couldn’t be more proud of my son) who get it – without any explanation whatsoever. You restore my faith in humanity.
@anon – WORD!
LikeLiked by 1 person
GODZ
January 25, 2018
@Anu – Metoo – I dont want to Argue on this anymore. Fortunately my faith in humanity is not hinged on few blog comments. Good for me.
@Aadhy. Thanks for being a reasonable voice here and taking the time to see someones point of view.
LikeLike
anon
January 25, 2018
Anu, I have some thoughts, not regarding this discussion but in general. I used to be like you in my twenties. I, however, had to move back to India and my work circle was predominantly South Indian middle class. I can’t express any of the thoughts you express here without being considered a feminazi. They don’t like you, if you do. period. From not caring about that in my twenties, I’ve come to the state of complete hopelessness. I try to keep to myself and have to take tons of steps to protect myself since I’m single. The men here will not get it – not any time soon anyway. 99% of them have NO idea what the women here go through, many of them will not care if they do. The worst part is how much the women are complicit – it is not surprising in a patriarchy but in the last decade I’ve felt just as let down by the women as men. I sound very defeatist, I know – but it has been slow and sad realizations built up over 2 decades. I’m not in the least surprised that some of your feminist thoughts are called rants and raves here. Please don’t stop posting though. I’ve posted on contentious stalking threads here anonymously before but it takes courage to express these thoughts as yourself and stand by them.
LikeLiked by 5 people
"Original" venkatesh
January 25, 2018
@Anu: “Anyway, this is the second time you have used profanity in your response to me. I think it would be better for the world at large, and certainly for BR’s blog if we ignored each other from here on.”
Consider it fucking done.
LikeLike
smokedustandhaze
January 25, 2018
@Anu: yes, I see know. And thank you for your great comments. I find it impossible to engage with some of the commenters. Your determination is admirable.
@BR: re who is doing the judgement, as writeawordatatime wrote, societies mold laws and institutions. To do that, they need to decide when things need changing, so the armchair judging is an important part of that.
About the art making its own case, I mostly agree (with some reservations for actual monsters, because they do exist). Similarly, I feel that stories like Grace’s make their own case. That case is not deciding whether Ansari in particular is good or bad. More broadly, I think metoo is not (just) about ousting particular bad men. When we put together multiple accounts from women, we learn something about society. We also learn something from our responses to them.
LikeLike
Vivek narain
January 25, 2018
@anu, It’s a relief that you’ve not included me in your wrath, that’s the biggest advantage of being a non-entity, beneath the contempt. And my role model is not uniatz or saint or girland or statham but relatively obscure backgrounder, Jack Kerman, who regularly rescues girland. Whatever your righteous indignation is, gets clouded by your obvious weight in the film fraternity, and it shows. If only you shed some weight, it would be marvellous.
LikeLike
GODZ
January 25, 2018
@Anon – I am sorry. You comment is one of the most ridiculous comment i have ever read. Can you please stop making judgements here. Just because men here supported Anzari in this specific case where so many factors needs to be considered and every one is entitled to have opinion. You cannot Judge men without knowing who they are and simply coming to conclusion based on blog comments. Its ridiculous. Its as if pointing finger and saying “You could be a harrasser too?” Really? Dont you see that absurd? For Gods Sake its opinion. Seriously its because of people like you, every one is running off on hearing the feminist. All i want to say is this. Please stop making judgement about people based on blog comments. Just because some one have a different opinion and all people here are asking to be more rational does not make them anti feminist. If you are burning people who have different opinion, then you are DEFEATING you own purpose of what u r doing. Its kind of a bullying and Harassment too. Thankfully, We do have reasonable people like Aadhy, who make my hope on blogs like this alive and enable to have an opinion and express and have a meaningful argument. Not making character assessment and judgement. Having known myself, I am absolutely confident in my abilities of respecting Men, Woman and Human beings and their feelings. IT does not need any assessment from People like you.
LikeLike
anon
January 25, 2018
@GODZ All i have to day is lol. thanks.
LikeLike
Anon
January 25, 2018
@GODZ ” Having known myself, I am absolutely confident in my abilities of respecting Men, Woman and Human beings and their feelings.”
So you basically gave yourself a pat in the back. Such a magnanimous and humble gesture.
“I am sorry. You comment is one of the most ridiculous comment i have ever read”
The fact that my response to @therag’s comment about defending one’s actions in an inebriated state sounds more ridiculous to you is the real shame.
“IT does not need any assessment from People like you.” Why are you being so defensive about a comment that wasn’t even directed at you.
“For Gods Sake its opinion.” Yes its MY OPINION that what he said is ridiculous.
So please stop this policing.
LikeLike
Anon
January 25, 2018
@GODZ: “Seriously its because of people like you, every one is running off on hearing the feminist.”
Let me add that I am a guy. I am not a crusader for the feminist cause. I don’t think the feminist tag is needed to call out on some of the comments in this thread.
I do believe that Grace could have left earlier. i understand how when someone you are in awe of, starts giving you this much attention, you can get swayed. But she could have left after the incidents on the couch.
Also the sensationalist nature of the Babe piece has done itself a great disservice.
LikeLike
Anuja Chandramouli
January 25, 2018
Just a couple of not so random thoughts… When Babe carried this article there was a lot of confusion about what exactly Ansari was guilty of doing, or even if he was guilty of anything other than insensitivity and horniness. In the first wave of outrage, a lot of misguided folks called it sexual assault and rape which saw furious rebuttals from the likes of Bari Weiss, Caitlyn Flanagan, Ashleigh etc who insisted that this would detract from the #MeToo movement while showering Grace and Babe with varying degrees of scorn. There was a backlash to their pieces as expected but now I think we can all agree that Ansari is not guilty of a serious sexual misdemeanor and there are some who are now calling it sexual misconduct. How different is this from sexual harassment? Molestation? Gross behavior? Who the hell can say? We will probably have a brand new term soon and believe me, there won’t be anything approaching a consensus even then. What are you going to do?
As for those who have been going back and forth about why Grace did not leave or why Ansari did not quit it when she said no, I have a single point to add… When Grace told Ansari that she did not want to do it on their first date and both agreed to just chill, she said she wanted him to rub her back and play with her hair. Instead he tried to initiate oral sex. Which got me thinking that this could be about thwarted expectations as well as miscommunication. Grace was looking for intimacy whereas he wanted to get laid. Men are from Mars, women are from Venus right? So perhaps Ansari does not deserve to be hanged and Grace does not deserve to be scorned. Period. Why do we have to have the whole ‘either you are with us or against us’ mentality which can quickly escalate to the ‘join us or die’ madness which spawns creatures like the Karni Sena? Whatever happened to moderation and listening to those whose opinions may be at odds with ours? Why are we attacking each other and using profanity in a civilised space? Geez!
Finally, all the statements and crappy Babe written reports notwithstanding how can we presume to know what exactly happened between Grace and Ansari? I mean the two of them seem to disagree about it and they were there for Chrissakes! I am sick and tired of WhatsApp forwards, Twitter feeds, news articles and what have you masquerading as the absolute and only truth. Get a grip folks! We may have more access to info than ever before but that does not mean we have to buy everything that is fed to us by those with agends (the do gooders and minions of evil both!). Don’t believe everything you read or hear, make ill advised judgement calls and head off to war promptly. There, I am done!
LikeLiked by 3 people
Gautham
January 26, 2018
I haven’t followed Ansari’s career or the allegation but from what little I have read about the Woody Allen sexual assault allegation (and going from memory), I believe a multiple scenarios of differing probabilities are possible, with, (i) Allen being guilty, (ii) Allen being innocent with Dylan coached, (iii) Dylan, Allen and Farrow are innocent with a series of misinterpretation of events occurring, being among them.
In any case, I don’t feel a need to judge or paint any one of Woody Allen, Dylan or Mia Farrow in any light. I do feel sympathy for Dylan though, since, irrespective of the course of events that precipitated the allegations, she’s the one that has lost out the most.
Allen’s relationship with Soon-Yi is something I don’t, and maybe hope that i never do, understand. But then, there are manifold things which I don’t understand.
I think art and the artist can be separated if the ideas, and themes, that resonate with you are abstract enough. I like the bleak, cynical worldview in Chinatown. It doesn’t really matter if Polanski and/or Towne arrived at such an outlook, prodded and fuelled by something vile – say sexual depravations (for anyone wondering my reasons are mundane). Likewise the man that’s abandoned by both science and religion in A Serious Man, or the conclusion that those of us who take the high road end up loveless in, In the Mood for Love, resonates with me. The need to discover shared experiences might make me wonder if the Coen brothers, for example, have a deterministic construct of reality with limits to knowledge accrual, or if Wong Kar-wai has been in similar situations. The voyeur in me might be interested in Polanski’s story.
But they don’t affect the the movie as a standalone piece.
It, though, would be problematic if the link(s) between the creation and the personality of the creator are more tangible. For instance, said problems would be dime a dozen in sport.
BR: I feel such films end up being contrived or messagey for they aren’t – and probably can’t be – as nuanced as the reality they are based on. For some reason, I couldn’t help but think that they might work better, rather than drama, as horror and was reminded of The Mist.
LikeLike
Anu Warrier
January 26, 2018
@anon – thank you. And I hear you loud and clear. You do what it takes to take care of yourself. Isn’t it funny that we should get an example of what you just said, though? 🙂
In my case, I never say anything in public that I’m afraid/ashamed to put my name to – I have been through too much to worry about what people will think or say about me, profane or otherwise. But, thank you. Your words were sorely needed.
Sai, thank you too for that vote of confidence. I’ve no problem with disagreement. Madan and I had a civil discourse and he disagreed with parts of what I said, and I disagreed with parts of what he said. At the end, though, we had some thoughts in common. And that’s fine.
Like Aadhy said, I’ll gladly wear the labels of social justice warriors, or armchair critic or as anon said, ‘feminazi’ – if it means that this discussion will continue – even if only to counter my rants and raves.
Cheers, ladies. One day – some day – we will eventually be considered equal. A toast to that.
LikeLiked by 4 people
therag
January 26, 2018
Last comment on this. This is clearly going nowhere.
Note 1: I did not bring up Ansari being inebriated to defend him. It was just an a posteriori explanation – What is the most likely explanation for the events that we know occurred.
@Madan, Oh so your question was what if a man had been invited instead of a woman. I have no idea what the code is among gay people but I’m sure they have one. And if Neil Patrick Harris invites me home after a first date, I’m sure I’ll have a good idea what is on his mind. Cause why would NPH invite me over? Maybe the point is clearer this way.
LikeLike
AK
January 26, 2018
Aziz Ansari inviting Grace (who he does not know) to his house, and Grace expecting him to give intimacy & affection while both are naked.
Grace pull-out at the last minute and Aziz Ansari keep trying after she says no. By this time he should have realised that Grace is not for there for sex. As much as Grace is star-struck, he is also all charged-up to think rationally at that moment.
Despite the bad episode, Grace strategically sold her story to some salacious website.
Aziz Ansari is now in a fix not knowing what should be the best next move in the times of #metoo
This matter needs to sorted between themselves; and both of them are not as naive as both of them have self interest to get something out of this encounter, it’s just that there is a mismatch of expectations. This absurd news should not deserve our attention and time. It is not only distracting but insulting #metoo
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madan
January 26, 2018
“Oh so your question was what if a man had been invited instead of a woman” – Yes, but NOT homosexuals. If it was just A man inviting you, there is no presumption of sexual activity, is there? So why is there this presumption if a man invites a woman home? I understand that this is the norm but that doesn’t make it right, nor that the norm shouldn’t be questioned. Unless and until the woman indicates she is game, just merely accepting the invitation doesn’t mean she is ready to get laid. We work with this assumption because women have understood over the years that if say a senior invites her home or at a hotel, it is likely to lead on to that but by no means should it be assumed.
Again, I am not talking about what all Grace could have done to avoid the situation and surely she could have. I am talking about the entitlement that comes with celebrity culture. There is nothing wrong if it gets criticised because their fame doesn’t make them some superior species of human being. Just because Ansari invited somebody home doesn’t mean he can assume he is entitled to his fix and be unreasonable with her if she resists; that IS harassment.
What I do have a problem with is Ansari being singled out because I wouldn’t be surprised if this kind of behaviour was pervasive in the case of celebrities. But let’s see, maybe bigger fish will get fried too. Some big heads have already rolled. Who imagined that Spacey would lose his signature show after all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Vivek narain
January 26, 2018
A time was when Elvis Presley screwed more than 1000 panting floozies before his marriage, for any given day he had more eager fans than he could possibly cavort with and had to pass them on to his cohorts. Shammi kapoor similarly followed his inspiration so much so that his aghast son had to manouvre the second marriage. And here we are stuck with the unfortunate sucker Ansari who couldn’t charm the bird in hand, and gets paraded as if he’s a lecherous cad. Like Meg said,men are stupid animals.
LikeLike
Madan
January 26, 2018
Vivek Narain: I have been watching and waiting for when the Pandora’s Box is opened in rock music. There won’t be space on the planet to hold the skeletons that will tumble out. But maybe the groupies themselves were so badly stoned they have no memory of what happened and/or with whom.
LikeLike
Vivek narain
January 26, 2018
Madan: Not only junkies and beatniks but people from all walks of life including honchos and squares go for sleaze in a big way. Those who detest such behaviour are in minority, and in plain language are called tarts or grouchos. It’s the strict secrecy similar to a cabal that keeps people unaware of the reality.
LikeLike
private cips
January 29, 2018
Thanks Rahini for the answer – I will be a really stupid person to allow somebody to put the chicken into my mouth (without force), even though I dont want. Either I will getup and move some feet away. Even if I swallow it by then, I will not go out and claim I had the worst dinner of my life. That would be really silly.
Thanks Rahul – If that is the case, she should have stopped after getting the apology from Aziz (next day in SMS). Should not have given that piece to Babe.net
Also, after hearing about James Franco and Aziz Ansari, I did not read about any new metoo revelations. Can there be a link?
LikeLiked by 1 person
sreeramgopinath
January 31, 2018
Regarding the Woody Allen discussion here, I think what Seinfeld said about Bill Cosby might be relevant here:
I kind of thought that I would separate comedy from life, because so many comedians have horrible lives, and they’re oftentimes people you don’t admire, or they’re not likable. And I didn’t want that to ruin my appreciation of their comedy. But I had to admit, as we discussed it, the more I thought about it, I couldn’t listen to [Cosby’s work] and enjoy it in the same way that I did before, and I was not able to separate it. So the wall kind of caved in.
And more about on the issues of Seperating the Art from the Artist :
LikeLike
lata
February 1, 2018
Like many of the above, I too wondered at the choices of movies used to illustrate your point, BR.
I could have written the first half of the piece and ended up with say, Monsoon Wedding or Highway – to point out stories where a girl is molested by a respected uncle figure and struggles to accuse him, is disbelieved when she does, and so on – that would have given such a different slant to the subtextual beliefs you have – as it is, it looks as if, despite your claim ha that art can be divorced from the artist, as a huge fan of Allen, you are uncomfy in your fandom of his work
LikeLike