Swans: Classic or Dud?

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

and oh yeah enjoys seeing her name in print

maybe you should take these thoughts of yours to https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/

Longshot? 2 adults in a too small space, both asleep drunkenly one reads the other's unconscious body movement as a come on. The other is unaware because asleep. Excuse would have to do with the drunken semi consciousness and subsequently be a regrettable mistake?

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

― Wimmels, Wednesday, March 2, 2016 1:40 PM (13 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

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

so you think in the wake of an accusation of rape, with a bunch of people waiting to hear his response, michael gira chose to address it by referring to a "regrettable mistake", with the assumption that everyone reading it would understand that to mean that the sex was consensual, while the broader relationship itself was the mistake. there is a one is a ten fucking trillion chance that he would commit

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

this whole thing is definitely a rorschach test. what do you think of the moon landing? fake, right? there's a one in five trillion chance it was fake, so higher than the chances that gira's "regrettable mistake" was an incredibly fucking confusing reference to their broader relationship rather than to the very serious, explicit, defined thing he was being accused of.

Then how do you square the initial response (again, "slanderous lie," also Jennifer Gira's threats about 'proving' that the accusation was a lie, etc) with Gira's actual statement not 24 hours later? I agree it isn't clear, but...it isn't clear.

we're still waiting on all this "proof" correct?

I'm gonna step off this convo, as somebody who is friends with Larkin I don't think I'm equipped to participate in this conversation without wanting to murder myself and everyone else