Dearest #MeToo: Caucasian Men Are No Angels.
BROOKLYN, USA — Those who claim that I am making excuses for Black men accused of rape, allow me to set the record straight. I do not, in any shape or form, condone inhumane behavior. More, “accused” remains the operational word here. This means, I do not believe that people who are accused are angels in the same manner that I do not accept that accusers are angels either.
All I point to is the double standard of the drive-by Caucasian controlled mass-media, which it seems, is double bent on a project that involves the shrouding of the face of rape, sexual assault, sexual abuse, in the United States with the image of the often fabricated narratives and portrayals of the “predatory Black man” (which seems to have persisted, at least in white media, since Birth of a Nation aired in 1915).
Let’s take the white media coverage of R. Kelly for instance; a Black man, a rapper, who has been accused of raping an under-aged girl. Documentaries, upon documentaries, media coverage upon media coverage, has honed in on this Black man as if R. Kelly is the first man and the last one to have been accused of raping a woman.
Very little mention is made of Woody Allen, a white Hollywood mogul, who did not only rape his own adopted daughter (and who he is about 40 years older than she), but ended up actually marrying her. Allegations about Woody Allen barely makes media coverage. In fact, you would be hard-pressed to find any mention that Woody Allen’s marriage is a “child marriage”.
Still, another instance involves the myriad allegations of child molestation and pedophilia, pervasive in the public discourse, levelled against the late Michael Jackson. However, one would be remiss to find any coverage about real and confirmed actual pedophilia about David Bowie, the late English singer-songwriter and actor in the same media. In fact, when David Bowie passed away some of the most prominent Caucasian controlled drive-by networks launched attacks on those who dared to raise sexual allegations about Bowie.
The Daily Beast wrote after Bowie’s death: “Times have changed. A culture of hedonism was standard back then” in an apparent effort to persuade readers that Bowie’s pedophilia was actually “somewhat” acceptable. The Daily Beast continued and chastised those who challenged their hypocritical standards on morality by writing: “But apparently we can’t resist imposing today’s cultural standards on a different time… We can’t resist dancing on our heroes graves, viewing their death as an occasion to champion our pet political causes… Now, the poison arrows aimed at our heroes take on an extra velocity on the internet.”
Juxtapose this strong defense of Bowie against the white-media complicity in demonizing the legacy of Kobe Bryant (via instruments like CBS’ Gayle Skunk’s interview with Lisa Leslie). Recall that Kobe was found innocent of an alleged rape of a white woman from the racist state of Colorado, USA.
Neither can we forget that Bill Cosby’s accusers all pull out of the sky encounters they claim to have had with Cosby from the same time frame that the Daily Beast refers to as a period in which “a culture of hedonism was standard.” Yet, Bowie gets a pass for he is white. Cosby doesn’t. There’s two sides to Bowie’s story, you know. He is white. There’s only one side to Cosby’s story. He is Black. Plus women can lie, you know, when they accuse white men. When its a Black man, however, women must be trusted, and there’s only one side to the story.
On the contrary, notice (below image) how Gayle Skunk defends her friend, Charlie Rose (a white man with a determined list of myriad rape allegations and charges) and notice how the New York Slimes writes adoringly about Gayle Skunk’s committment to Gayle’s friendship with a known rapist (in public), Charlie Rose.
More, Gayle King will not mention or interview her former boss and admitted sexual predator Les Moonves (Molester Moonves). In fact, none of the top “journalists” working for the drive-by Caucasian media industrial complex (including Joy Reid, Orca Winfrey and Agent Duvernay), dares to talk about the white men who run the media and who happen to be the biggest predators in the world.
The Daily Beast and the New York Slimes are not alone to quickly stage a defense for David Bowie or Gayle Skunk using the drive-by white media template. Which goes to show that much of the drive-by Caucasian media pretend that white men are not rapists, and they do their very best to either ignore allegations of rape against famous white men, or they turn the force of their networks against those who confront the “angelic” narratives they paint of white men in America.
In fact, this brings me to my point. I am one of those who consistently challenges these hypocritical narratives of the drive-by white media. I leave no stone unturned in addressing their pharisaism. I do not accept that Black men are worse human beings than white men and I certainly reject the insidious narrative that white men do no wrong. Plenty white men are rapists, murderers and pedophiles. Their victims too deserve the full force of the media in shedding light on the atrocities of white men.
What Woody Allen did, is that illegal?
Yes, it is! What country do you live in?
Narmer Amenuti well, respectfully, a simple Google sear h shows what you posted is not accurate, you are misleading the public.
Soon-Yi is not Woody’ Allen’s Adopted child.
Look Nana Kwame Bonsra, if you just graduated from middle school, then leave my page! Thank you! Nonsense!
Narmer Amenuti “Soon-Yi Previn is the adopted daughter of actress Mia Farrow and musician André Previn, and the wife of filmmaker Woody Allen. Soon-Yi is notable for her relationship with Allen, who was Mia Farrow’s romantic partner before becoming involved with her.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon-Yi_Previn
Nana Kwame Bonsra your entire reasoning hinges on the fact that: it was Mia Farrow rather than Woody Allen who had adopted Soon-Yi Previn. But that is sheer semantics. The fact remains Allen and Farrow were married; Soon-Yi WAS his stepdaughter; she was barely 15 when Farrow discovered Allen had taken nude pictures of Soon-Yi and had been sleeping with her, although!
STOP ? the insincere HOLOCAUST DENIAL and face the facts. It is ethically, legally AND morally reprehensible to sleep with one’s 15 year old stepdaughter. Read this:
‘THE WARPED REALITY OF WOODY ALLEN AND SOON-YI PREVIN
In a recent ‘New York Magazine’ interview, the couple would like you to forget everything you know.
POWER
THE WARPED REALITY OF WOODY ALLEN AND SOON-YI PREVIN
In a recent ‘New York Magazine’ interview, the couple would like you to forget everything you know.
Laura June SEP—19—2018 01:24PM EST
Suffice it to say that this past weekend, just one month before the anniversary of the twin bombshell exposes on Harvey Weinstein and the subsequent deluge of #MeToo-related headlines, was a weird, cynical time for New York Magazine to run a “profile” of Soon-Yi Previn, the wife (and former sort of step-daughter) of Woody Allen.
There are about 500 things wrong with this “profile,” which was written by Daphne Merkin, a journalist and friend of the couple, but in order to even begin to separate the tendrils of the mistakes made here, one needs a basic working knowledge of the characters involved. Some of us know more than others, because we’re older, and we’ve been hearing about this on and off for more than two decades. Others need context. Here we go.
Woody Allen is an iconic director who has written and starred in some extremely wonderful films; he is known for being a quintessential New Yorker in that he is both neurotic and Jewish. Allen was in a long-term relationship with the actor Mia Farrow, who starred in the classic film Rosemary’s Baby, directed by another problematic man. Before she was with Allen, Farrow was married to the German musician André Previn and, before him, Frank Sinatra. All told, Farrow has 14 children: three biological and four adopted ones with Previn, including Soon-Yi, who is now Allen’s wife. Soon-Yi was adopted from a Korean orphanage by Farrow and Previn in 1977 when she was approximately seven years old. Her exact birthdate is not known. While she was in a relationship with Allen, Farrow adopted another child, Dylan, on her own (Allen said he didn’t want to do childcare initially but quickly considered himself Dylan’s father; he legally adopted her December of 1991). Later, Farrow and Allen had a biological son, Ronan, who has become, somewhat confusingly and seemingly unrelatedly, a very important journalist in the #metoo movement, one known for getting the goods on many bad men.
In January of 1992, when Allen and Farrow had been together for 12 years, Farrow found nude photos of Soon-Yi, who was 21 at the time, in Allen’s house (Farrow and Allen famously lived separately across Central Park from each other during their relationship). When confronted by Farrow, Allen, then 57, said that he had sex with Soon-Yi for the first time two weeks before. In August of 1992, Allen released a statement that he was “in love” with Soon-Yi. Allen and Farrow’s relationship ended.
In August of 1992, Dylan Farrow, who was at the time seven years old, said that Allen had sexually abused her. Though he was never charged with a crime, Allen lost custody, permanently, of his children. Allen claimed Dylan had been “coached” by Farrow; Dylan has stuck to her story: she was, she says, sexually abused by her father.
Last fall, the Los Angeles Times published an essay by Dylan in which she asked a simple question: why had Allen, in the wake of all the #MeToo revelations, been given a pass? Why had his career not suffered? Why had actors continued to work with him? It seemed that after this, Allen finally began to suffer, insofar as a few actors like Greta Gerwig and Mira Sorvino said they wouldn’t work with him again.
“I’M NOT A RETARDED LITTLE UNDERAGE FLOWER WHO WAS RAPED, MOLESTED, AND SPOILED BY SOME EVIL STEPFATHER — NOT BY A LONG SHOT.”
— Soon-Yi Previn
Soon-Yi, for her part, hasn’t given an interview, so far as anyone can remember, since her Q&A with Newsweek magazine in 1992, after the public learned about her relationship with the man who she said was definitely not her father. In it, she said: “I’m not a retarded little underage flower who was raped, molested, and spoiled by some evil stepfather — not by a long shot.” Merkin’s article, despite being the first formal interview with Soon-Yi, does not do much to shed new light on her. Instead, the profile functions as a way to attack Mia Farrow, to question Ronan’s parentage (via a long-rumored affair that Farrow had with Sinatra during her relationship with Allen), and to again deny that Allen abused Dylan. It exists to repeat the same shit Allen has been parroting forever: Farrow is an insane liar who treated her adopted children like shit, and he never touched Dylan. And maybe Ronan isn’t his either, so can he get back that child support?
But all of this is just the tip of a really fucked-up iceberg. Let’s say, just for a second, that maybe Woody Allen is right: Mia Farrow is actually crazy and that Dylan is actually a liar. We still would not be reckoning with the fact Allen married a girl 35 years younger than him, whom he’d met when she was 8 years old. And she was the daughter of his then partner. We are not grappling with the fact that in 1997, just a few years after his relationship with her mother imploded, Allen married his former stepdaughter. Even though Allen has always claimed that he had very little contact with Soon-Yi until 1990, the facts are just about as stark as they get. The New York profile (which includes a photo of Woody and Mia and the kids including yes, Soon-Yi, in 1986, when she was 15 years old so yes, they definitely knew each other) doesn’t really tell us very much about Soon-Yi Previn as a person, but it does reveal some things about her “enduring” relationship with Allen:
Both of them are vague on how and when their friendship turned sexual — “It was 25 years ago,” she says — beyond the fact that it was a gradual process.
Hmm… okay. They are “vague,” for good reason, sure. But the relationship doesn’t sound like it started “two weeks” before Farrow found the photos, described this way:
Early on, Soon-Yi says, she and Allen had a conversation about how their relationship might affect Farrow and the family if it were discovered — they had planned to keep it secret. But neither imagined that what Allen called their “fling” would last. “I’d meet someone in college, and that would be done,” Soon-Yi says. “It only became a relationship really when we were thrown together because of the molestation charge.”
But the molestation charge came in August of 1992, seven months after Mia’s discovery of Allen’s relationship with Soon-Yi, so none of this makes very much sense at all.’
THE WARPED REALITY OF WOODY ALLEN AND SOON-YI PREVIN,
https://theoutline.com/…/woody-allen-soon-yi-previn…
STOP ? playing word games. THINK!
Kofi Nyaako The fact is Allen never got married to Mia, hence Soon-Yi was never Allen’s step “adopted” child. Allen was in a long term relationship with Mia. That is why I hold the view that this marriage is not illegal. We can argue it is not acceptable per our moral and society standards, but the position of the law is different. Lastly, today Soon-Yi is an adult and have decided for herself who to marry.
And please, this is not in defence of Allen’s his other sins. I like the fact that you spoke to the issues without insults. My respect to you.
Nana Kwame Bonsra even so, you miss the crux of the matter – the ethical, moral, legal repugnance of Allen compiling nude pictures and sleeping with 15 year old Soon-Yi while a partner (considered marriage in law) of Mia Farrow.
All you’re saying is devalued contrasted with the facts of the matter. Don’t be a moral holocaust denier!
Kofi Nyaako Well, that is another argument. My point is the post is mot accurate.
Nana Kwame Bonsra OK then could you please answer these questions cogently?
* Does cohabitation the length of time Allen and Farrow were together – barring prenuptial limits – constitute marriage in family law?
* How old was Soon-Yi when Allen slept with her?
* Is sex with underage children not rape?
* If the purpose of intelligent reasoning (discourse) not consensus? If so, why did you overstress your point till it became belligerent? ?