Seriously, I am tired of this crap
By Betty Fokker on February 24, 2014
Y’all, watching/hearing/reading people defending Woody Allen, the same rotten jackal's taint whose movies repeatedly reference the Fun and Normalcy of Incest and Child Molestation, is wearing on my nerves. I want to be able to see an article, think “I already blogged about that particular segment of rape culture” and move the fuck on with my life. But no. No. No. No. Thundertwats keep on flapping their pieholes and spewing raw sewage that must be addressed because it causes sociocultural cholera.
New York Times book critic Janet Maslin, who is also the President of the Jacob Burns Film Center, has been defending Woody Allen under the guise of defending Cate Blanchett's chances for winning an Oscar. If Maslin had just said, “Cate Blanchett’s acting should stand independently from the Woody Allen controversy,” that would have been fine. I could have understood the self-centered and heartless place the shithead was coming from; thinking the Oscars are more important that a kid getting raped so let’s all focus on the Oscars. It would have made me curl up my lip in disgust, but I wouldn’t have needed to blog about it. I cannot blog about every rampant anus pustule in the world, obviously.
However, Matlin had to go the extra mile and claim:
“ that Allen “managed to rehabilitate himself through his work” and that “he went through a very dark period creatively.” She then touched on Maureen Orth’s recent Vanity Fair article about Mia Farrow:
One odd thing about that Vanity Fair piece, that one that ran a few months ago, was that the big news in the piece was supposed to be ‘Dylan Farrow Speaks Out’ and what happened, just purely by chance, was that the news became, 'Ronan Farrow May Be Frank Sinatra’s Son.’ And Dylan Farrow, I happen to know this through a friend very close to the story, was very unhappy that this suddenly wasn’t about her. And I think that’s that part of why she decided to start calling attention to herself.
“Of all the things that have been parsed by total strangers about what went on in that family,” Maslin added a few minutes later, “no one has ever dared to consider the sibling rivalry issues in there. It’s just too much to think about.”
First, fuck you Janet Maslin as the vile blob of dog excrement on the sidewalk of humanity that you are. If you think being ripped to shreds by rape culture is tons of fun and a good way to get attention, you are not just an misinformed asshat, you are a cretinous bit of smegma.
Secondly, do you, a New York film circle groupie, think that you have some sort of inside scoop to the story just because you hang around other Woody Allen fans? Just because you and your friends and your “source” are all busy trying to suck Woody Allen’s dick the hardest and the source came up with a new smokescreen doesn’t mean the source is telling the truth around Allen’s withered old dick in his or her mouth. The statistical odds that Dylan Farrow is telling the truth is higher than 90% and the odds that Mia Farrow made the whole thing up is less than 1.3%. That means there is there is about a 95% chance that Woody Allen is a child rapist.
Thirdly, for Janet Maslin to say that Allen “managed to rehabilitate himself through his work” is so disgusting and egregious that I am having trouble forming words to describe my revulsion. If Woody Allen was a hero who died while foiling a 9/11 like terrorist attack and saved thousands of lives after admitting he was a rapist and serving his time in prison and trying to atone for his evil – that might go some way toward redeeming him. However, making movies celebrating his own narcissistic justification for his pedophilia and incest does not even BEGIN to rehabilitate him. It makes him even WORSE.
Finally, someone in the comments section argued that because there was no physical evidence of Dylan Farrow’s rape (her testimony and the corroborating testimony of multiple adults who were there the day he raped her don’t count if they contradict Woody Allen, apparently) her accusations must be lies.
Pediatricians are explicitly warned in training that in cases of child sexual assault:
- Many types of sexual abuse do not include acts that would be expected to cause trauma to skin or body tissues.
- Delays in seeking medical care decrease the likelihood of positive findings.
- Evidence of ejaculate is unlikely to be found if many hours have elapsed since the assault (particularly if more than 96 hours).
- Semen and evidence of ejaculate are unlikely to be found in sexually abused children if the child has washed, urinated, or defecated.
- Rape can occur without ejaculation or damage to tissues.
- Hymenal tissue is elastic and penetration by a finger or penis may cause invisible trauma or simply stretch the hymenal opening.
- The anal sphincter is highly elastic and may not be damaged by penetration.
- Injuries, when they do occur, heal rapidly and often completely.
- A child may interpret a painful sexual act as intercourse, when it may have been vulvar coitus.
- With onset of puberty, evidence of injury can be obscured by changes in hymen tissue due to estrogen effect.
Thus, Woody Allen could have easily raped his adopted daughter without leaving behind the CSI-like proof his defenders think should be there. Too bad none of Woody Allen’s defenders bother to research even the most basic facts before they rush to defend him on behalf of the patriarchal hegemony, rape culture, and boring self-absorbed nilistic movies posing as “wit”.
In short, you have to know practically nothing about child sexual abuse in order to delude yourself into defending Woody Allen. Ignorance is not only bliss, it is a bias that only serves to create specious arguments to convince the fellow uneducated.
More Like This
Recent Posts by Betty Fokker
Most Popular on BlogHer
By Melissa Ford
Most Popular on Current Events
Recent Comments on Current Events