Swans: Classic or Dud?

Honestly, neither one of them is particularly reliable. The only thing I see changing this is if other women come forward regarding Gira, which could happen.

This quote really doesn't sit well, "My story with Michael Gira is an absolute tragedy that I have kept secret for too long. I am only speaking of it now because after being accused of "lynching" Thomas, I cannot ethically keep Michael's secret any longer. He's a white guy, and his crime was far worse than what Thomas did to me or Margaret."

But at the same time, I'd have no trouble believing Gira did what she says. So, yeah, we'll never know (probably).

I had to choose between the two, and I was like, "I already worked with Michael Gira. So...I'm going to try this guy out.

But I thought she was "dropped" when she confronted Gira about the alleged rape?

― Wimmels, Tuesday, 1 March 2016 20:22 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Two reasons?

xp So, this "power dynamic" I am ignoring...just so I have this right: this relatively minor figure who owns a small indie label (which seems to currently only exist to release his own music, which is itself often funded by crowdsourcing) is an untouchable tyrant used to "getting what he wants" without consequences, taking advantage of the vulnerable artists on his roster under penalty of being "dropped." This is what you're saying? Sorry, but that's absurd. I would guess that Larkin got "dropped" for the same reason anyone gets dropped: because her records didn't sell. See also: Flux Information Sciences, Mi & Lau, Windsor For The Derby, every non-Swans band to ever record for YGR, etc.

― Wimmels, Tuesday, March 1, 2016 2:59 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the argument that "he's just a minor figure in indie music, there CAN'T be a power dynamic there" is the most fucking bizarre thing I have read in this thread and that's a high bar.

also, if you think a puff-piece interview in phoenix new times with the answer "oh, well, I just felt it was time to try something else" is the more credible answer here, then you know very little about journalism

why does "innocent until proven guilty" not apply here

because this is not a court of law, it's the internet

― Οὖτις, Tuesday, 1 March 2016 Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

It doesn't have to be the internet at all - just not a court of law. We aren't considering evidence in a case over a number of days, and "Swans bro" wouldn't be considered to sit in the jury.

Of course the "innocent until proven guilty” concept (which comes up a lot in conversations about of sexual abuse, even when criminal charges are not involved) doesn't apply here.

“Beyond a reasonable doubt” is a legal standard used exclusively in criminal cases and is the highest evidentiary standard in all of American law -- so it makes sense that, in that context, there is a “presumption of innocence” that puts the burden of proof on the accuser. After all, the court is potentially incarcerating or even executing someone.

But the evidentiary standards used in other legal cases is far lower; often it's "a preponderance of the evidence," meaning “more likely than not.”

Like, a court of law could take your kids away from you if they’re 51% convinced you abused or neglected them. To suggest that a vastly higher standard should apply to conversation is at best misguided.

so fucking otm

hell even ILX itself usually doesn't put most other issues up to such scrutiny.

I love that I read Wimmel's post until I blanched at "two (credible) women", immediately stopped reading, scrolled down & the next post but one was Adam Bruneau blanching at the same thing

It's enough to make me want to start a band called Two Credible Women, except that I'm not a woman, and I don't want it to be one of 'those bands'

also, if you think a puff-piece interview in phoenix new times with the answer "oh, well, I just felt it was time to try something else" is the more credible answer here, then you know very little about journalism

or human beings and their behaviour

Power dynamics exist pretty much any time 2 human beings are in the same place

^^^^

I am only speaking of it now because after being accused of "lynching" Thomas,

i think i missed what this refers to ... was this part discussed in another thread?

Yeah I've been confused abt that

https://www.facebook.com/larkin.grimm.1/posts/1283943221623036?pnref=story

don't think it was discussed here

Prior to her facebook post about Gira, she had accused Thomas Sayer Ellis of sexual harassment.

Brooklyn Vegan has a fairly comprehensive overview:

http://www.brooklynvegan.com/larkin-grimm-ac/

I think it's worth reading everything to really get a sense of the dynamic of what's going on. But to rephrase Grimm's quote, "I'm getting a lot of shit for the sexual harassment accusation I recently filed because the man involved is black, so *for no other reason* ["I am only speaking of it now because after being accused of "lynching" Thomas"] I am going to accuse someone who is white of rape."

And I'll say once again, that I have no idea what happened 8 years ago, and part of me doubts if Grimm or Gira do either. I don't think either of them are particularly credible. But the idea that Grimm's story "rings true" or anything like that is insane.

Dude, that is straight up bullshit

I'm not sure which part is bullshit. The full quote is: "My story with Michael Gira is an absolute tragedy that I have kept secret for too long. I am only speaking of it now because after being accused of "lynching" Thomas, I cannot ethically keep Michael's secret any longer. He's a white guy, and his crime was far worse than what Thomas did to me or Margaret."

BV has pretty much everything pertinent, including a discussion that's not that different from the one here.

That's quite different to your "rephrase"

I'd say not, but really this is turning more into a Rorschach test than anything else.

you said it

http://i56.tinypic.com/20tji8g.jpg

dlp, you are saying that Larkin's story is false. "The idea that Grimm's story 'rings true' or anything like that is insane" = you do not believe this woman. That is your prerogative, but an anti-misogynist will unequivocally believe the woman in this instance, as statistically and sociologically, there is no reason not to. Gira framed this as "a regrettable mistake", Grimm framed it as "I was raped". Ghomeshi framed his activities as "some may find it perverted, others might find it enticing", his victims framed it as "he beat the shit out of me without consent". You are picking your side and it is not the side of anti-misogyny.

What fgti said.

That is not correct. Story doesn't ring true has nothing to do with what actually happened. I've been painfully clear on that.

Within a week or so, I'd guess that either someone else will come out with another accusation against Gira, or they won't.

Above, the speculation was that her story felt true, and his felt false, especially because he (supposedly) changed his story.

That does seem fairly likely, yes.
xp

i think it's a tad unfair to pin dlp as a misogynist based on the fact that he's questioning grimm herself saying "im saying this bcuz ppl are mad i accused a blk guy of things"

nostradamus here

heh yeah really putting a stake in the ground there

xps

I don't think it makes logical sense to say that Larkin's story is only legitimate if Gira raped other people. I know what rape looks like in the 24-hour news cycle but I don't think you can use that as a template to determine what is rape and what isn't unless you are arguing that serial rapists are real rapists and someone who had sex with someone without their consent once is not.

Also, this is a no-win situation for everyone involved:

- If Larkin is lying/misrepresenting what happened, she comes out the other end as a duplicitous person willing to ruin someone to protect herself from charges of racism and Gira has to rebuild a reputation shredded by a false accusation.
- If Larkin is telling the truth, she comes out the other end as a person who has been raped by one man, sexually assaulted by another, and accused of being a racist for speaking up about the sexual assault, while Gira comes out as a rapist.

I don't see what upside lying brings Larkin, so right now I believe she is telling the truth.

Nobody is calling dlp a misogynist, I am saying that he is not an anti-misogynist

dlp, did Michael Gira rape Larkin Grimm, yes or no

Based on the facts in front of you

Facts include Gira "a regrettable mistake" and Grimm "he put his penis in me no condom without consent"

Neither one seems particularly believable, and only they were there. Life is like that sometimes.

I'll throw Gira to the wolves as fast as the next person if the story changes.

dude if you're holding out for watertight evidence one way or the other you're probably not going to get it. but that would be more relevant if you were on an actual putative jury.

if you're not, staking out an opinion - obviously without all possible evidence! - is simply staking out a political stance. is it more important to uphold the status quo, the default, whereby victims of rape face an uphill struggle to be believed, to not be labelled crazy, let alone to win actual court cases? or is it important, politically, to assert belief in victims, to help create a climate where we can, as a society, decrease the shaming and the stigma that currently attaches itself to them?

that's even before you go into the statistics re: numbers of "women who falsely cry rape" vs "rapists", and the plausibility of the accounts they've both put forward.

i thought her statement on race was re: the self-questioning she did after she called out a black man for sexual assault, having been silent about a white man's rape for years, and her realisation that remaining silent in that context would be the racist act

^^^

I don't see how you can read this as being driven entirely by self-questioning:

I will give you some history about why I am sharing the story about Thomas Sayers Ellis’s abusive behavior now. I didn’t always stand up for myself. Rape is a loaded word. No man wants to be a rapist. It implies cowardice as well as violence. It undermines the sexual power and magnetism that every man would like to have. No woman wants to be known as a rape victim, either. I want to be known for my strength, intelligence, and talent. Not known as a victim. My story with Michael Gira is an absolute tragedy that I have kept secret for too long. I am only speaking of it now because after being accused of “lynching” Thomas, I cannot ethically keep Michael’s secret any longer. He’s a white guy, and his crime was far worse than what Thomas did to me or Margaret.

(I mean, self-questioning is self-evidently there, but it appears there were also some external accusations she was responding to.)

I don't see what upside lying brings Larkin

Unless she's a sociopath who also is using this as damage control re: accusations of racism and oh yeah enjoys seeing her name in print

but those are all longshots, of course

the people who asserting Gira's innocence here -- what does the "regrettable mistake" line make you infer happened?

You've never had--or have known anyone who has had--a consensual sexual relationship that could be considered a "regrettable mistake?"

Maybe "getting involved with an artist on my roster when I have a wife and kids" is the regrettable mistake he is referring to?

and oh yeah enjoys seeing her name in print

i think you slept through women's studies classes

Given his prickly and vehement defense ("slanderous lie" etc) the previous day, this is how I read it, anyway. Not saying that's the truth, only that that's what I figure he meant

xp