Why the Daily Beast article about Dylan Farrow and Woody Allen is dangerously irresponsible

In recent days, the long-forgotten allegations that Woody Allen sexually abused his stepdaughter Dylan Farrow have resurfaced. Now, in a 5,636-word article in The Daily Beast, Robert B. Weide—producer of the PBS special Woody Allen: A Documentary—has come out swinging.

In so doing, Weide has proven himself to be an irresponsible, arrogant man.

The crux of his argument is this: Mia Farrow is a liar and a cheat who probably planted false memories in Dylan’s mind. How does Weide know this? Well, he explains, he produced a whole documentary about Woody Allen. A two-part documentary! So, you see, he knows things.

Some of the things he says he knows:

  • That the public has the facts wrong about Woody Allen’s relationship with Mia Farrow’s daughter Soon-Yi Previn. (In other words, Weide knows more than the public does about Allen’s private life.)
  • That Mia Farrow may have been cheating on Woody Allen during their relationship. (In other words, Weide knows Mia Farrow is not to be trusted.)
  • That Woody Allen is a claustrophobe, making it unlikely that he would have preyed upon a young Dylan Farrow in an attic, of all places. (In other words, Weide knows Dylan Farrow’s allegations just don’t sound right.)
  • That the evidentiary videotape Mia Farrow made of young Dylan explaining what Allen did to her in that attic contains several starts and stops—so Weide asserts it’s possible that Mia was coaching her daughter’s words off-camera between segments. (Again, Weide knows Mia Farrow is not to be trusted.)

Perhaps most importantly, Weide knows that he’s engaging in victim-blaming—but he’s doing it anyway. He states: “I know I’m treading a delicate path here, and opening myself up to accusations of ‘blaming the victim.’ However, I’m merely floating scenarios to consider, and you can think what you will.”

One does not merely "float scenarios" about sexual assault victims, Mr. Weide.The hubris behind this statement is staggering. Floating alternative scenarios to contradict the testimony of a survivor of sexual abuse is not something one “merely” does. It’s actually a big deal—and a dangerously irresponsible thing to do.

Weide needs to understand that his words on this matter have real-world consequences. Not just for Dylan Farrow, who is being told yet again that her experiences don’t count, don’t matter, don’t have weight; no. His words also have consequences for those who are currently victims of sexual abuse, and for all those who are survivors. He is sending a clear message:

Victims are liars.
Victims are not to be trusted.
Don’t bother telling—no one will believe you.
Your words are worthless.
You are worthless.

Weide’s article and his attitude are part and parcel of a culture that silences victims of sexual abuse every day, out of fear that no one will believe them.

They’re not just harmless words on a screen, Mr. Weide. They matter.

——–

Read Dylan Farrow’s open letter in which she testifies about her experiences here.

-———

Rebecca Hains is a media studies professor at Salem State University. You can follow her on Facebook and TwitterYou may also follow Rebecca’s blog by hitting the “follow blog” button at the top left of your screen. 

135 Comments on “Why the Daily Beast article about Dylan Farrow and Woody Allen is dangerously irresponsible

  1. I’ve been so concerned about this and the trend of blaming the victim that this represents. It mirrors so many of the other “celebrity” rape stories that I naively hoped we would start to move past. We have to open up the dialogue on this and question the motives of those who insist on perpetuating a negative stereotype of victims and womenl

    • I don’t think anyone blames Dylan – Robert Weide doesn’t in his essay. Part of the essay lays out facts and some is Weide’s observation. The sole purpose of Weide’s essay was to make light of Mia Farrow’s inconsistent behavior. It’s worth noting: Weide wrote his article days before Dylan’s open letter was published in NY Times.

      • I agree he didn’t blame Dylan. We have to consider every situation individually and seriously and to me it seems important to NOT have an automatic knee-jerk reaction either way.

    • Everyone knows the truth at this point, since Mia’s son came out and said that the abuse never happened, that he was there the whole time and no one was alone with Dylan, and that: “My mother drummed it into me to hate my father for tearing apart the family… And I hated him for her for years. I see now that this was a vengeful way to pay him back for falling in love with Soon-Yi.”

      • So, what you are saying is that Mia Farrow fooled the courts, the NY Department of Children and Family Services, the Connecticut States Attorney, the court appointed psychiatrists (not Yale-New Haven) and others? You think that Mia Farrow is that all powerful? Because the courts said that there was no evidence that Mia Farrow coached Dylan. The Judge was going on testimony and on reports from DCFS and the court appointed psychiatrists. So, really…..you don’t think that Moses Farrow could have just had a falling out with his mother and is just lashing out? Because Mia Farrow has FIFTEEN KIDS. Only TWO have spoken ill about her and it’s interesting that both are under the influence of Woody Allen.

        • yes, its easy for a woman to destroy a mans life in our society. i’ve been falsely accused and evidence was required to bring charges against me. and its interesting that whenever i speak to feminists about what happened to me they blame me. for some reason you guys always blame the victim if he is a man. its horrible and i am so happy that people are fighting back against women like you.

          • We don’t know what you were accused of, what sort of evidence there was, or what you said to those “feminists” (do you really just mean women?), so we can’t judge anything about your case. In the Woody/Mia/Dylan case, we know what charges were made and what the evidence was — except for the Yale-New Haven evidence that was deliberately destroyed, of course. It’s funny how much some people rely on that compromised report & ignore other reports.

            You know, I was once falsely accused of sexual abuse. It was nasty, but nothing like what sex abuse victims experience. And I don’t blame ALL women for what one pathological liar said about me, or for the people she managed to convince for a while. I certainly don’t deny that it’s completely plausible that Woody, who demonstrated in many ways that he had no boundaries nor judgement, did exactly what Dylan said. One thing I do believe is that Woody is sure that he never did anything wrong, with Dylan or with Soon-Yi. Oh yes, that’s right, it was “legal” so there’s nothing wrong. Yep.

            • i was raped by one of my gay friends and i also survived a false allegation case from an ex girlfriend. its far worse to have a false allegation. the rape was one night. the false allegation follows me everywhere i go. i can never have a normal life because of it.

              the fact that we allow false allegations in our society-y is the equivalent of punishing a rape victim. you survive the abuse in the relationship, and then your freedom is taken away from you, and you are branded for life as an abuser.

              you truly are sick if you believe the things you are writing.

            • Hey, mbravo3000, I’m very sympathetic to what you say happened to you. So I excuse your insult at the end. What, because you were badly treated ANY man is in the right, no matter HOW far out of bounds his documented sexual behavior is? And because of your ex-girlfriend, ANY woman who accuses should be condemned?

              It’s time to stop seeing yourself in every man accused of rape. It’s time to realize that most women who say they were raped really were. Your experience ought to give you sympathy with them because they suffer in the same ways that you do. There are always the abusers and the abused & the abused ought to stick together instead of siding with abusers.

            • no, innocence should always be assumed. due process doesn’t exist anymore in cases of rape or domestic violence.

              the system we have now is just as bad as the old days when rapists got away with their crimes, except instead of allowing the rapist to get away, we allow false rape accusers to get away with their crimes. its feminists creating this situation with their insistence that women are not capable of lying.

              if feminists actually believed in equality they would know that there are just as many evil women as evil men. and both need protection. the only reason you believe that false rape is so rape is because feminists keep putting out fake statistics on rape. they keep pounding it into everyones head that guilt should be assumed and that if you dont agree you are a rape apologist. these women are incredibly dangerous.

            • We are not a court. We get to use our brains to decide what is more plausible. And my brain tells me that you have chosen your world and don’t want to come out or consider any alternatives. My sympathies. Good bye.

            • i’m telling you men and women both need protection and that’s how you react? nice. you must be a feminist.

            • One last try & then I’m really out of here. I certainly did not say that men & women don’t both need protection — I’m making a conclusion about THIS case where there is lots of evidence. As for you…

              Suppose someone (let us say a woman) falsely accuses a man of robbery. Maybe she made up the evidence entirely, or maybe he knows that she gave him the money as a gift & she now claims it was taken by force or intimidation. If the man is convicted, naturally he would feel bitter toward his ACCUSER. But would he feel bitter toward ALL people who say they were robbed? Would he leap to the defense of ANYONE accused of robbery, despite credible (though not undeniable) evidence that a robbery had taken place? Would he blame ALL people with money for the fact that he was falsely accused? Would he attack anyone who says they believe the evidence that a robbery took place in a given case?

              No, of course he wouldn’t — he’d be injured and bitter, but he wouldn’t claim that many if not most robbery accusations are false. Or blame other people who accuse someone of robbery for what happened to him or who are convinced by the evidence. That would be crazy.

              But that’s what you are doing. The charge against you was imposed on you, but you impose your responses on others. Of course you are bitter. Your right to be bitter stops at the point where you harm others by projecting your experiences onto what (I hope and trust) is a very different situation than the charge made against you. But no outside input can make you see that — you have to see it for yourself.

              And now goodbye to you and this whole thread. It’s been educational.

            • you are doing what men did back in the 50’s and 60’s when rape laws were not as strict. first they would deny that the rape occurred, or they would blame the women. then they would say, we don’t need stricter laws because you are just being bitter blah blah blah. they would ignore the evidence and fake false analogizes.

              the truth is that there are many dangerous violent people in the world. some of them are men, some of them are women. if you only protect one group you victimize the other. its as simple ass that. an allegation of burglary is pointless. its doesn’t have the desired effect. you actually need to provide evidence that the burglary occurred and the punishment is not very harsh. the point of making a false rape allegation is to rape your victim.

          • No, sir, I just follow the facts. And the facts are pretty overwhelming. I think that men who claimed to have been “set up” in custody disputes (unless I know the facts of the case, I don’t make determinations) tend to side with Woody Allen and want to be blind to facts.

            • Really? So, because I choose to read the court findings and the Connecticut State’s Attorney’s office, read the articles of two investigative reporters and the articles from many other reputable news organizations instead of the word of the suspect, I have a mental illness?

            • yes, you are mentally ill. if you think you know the ACTUAL facts in this case then there is something seriously wrong with you and people like you.

            • Why? Because I am literate? Or because I don’t assign my personal baggage to this case? The facts are there for the reading and watching. They were not ambiguous.

            • the worst thing about people like is that you think you’re good person. you think you’re protecting your daughter. in fact, you are ruining her life. you are making her as paranoid as you. do you know that millions of men are avoiding relationship all together because of women like you? you are essentially unlovable. you life is so controlled by fear that you are dangerous to be around.

            • I will be sure to tell my daughter’s boyfriend that you said so. My husband of twenty-two years is just laughing at you. My pitbull only snorted.

      • I agree, Moses has had a lot of time to consider whether he wants a relationship with his Dad and whether to speak up for him, and he is now an educated successful adult, in addition to family practise counselor.

  2. Yet I have also read that Dylan’s previous accounts of this event were not consistent. And we also know that the children in the notorious McMartin Preschool case were impressionable recipients of the dark scenarios that adults planted in their minds, so we know that *does happen. I don’t have enough knowledge to assume anything about this Farrow/Allen story. Of course it’s wrong to blame victims; but it’s also wrong to blindly assume the victim’s story is perfectly accurate. Having said that, I *do think Allen is worthy of investigation. His history with the old-man-young-girl trope is a very suspicious one.

    • Weide’s piece is full of careful caveats and is the most convincing thing I’ve read explaining the facts of both the Soon Yi and Dylan situations.

      As Weide says “If you are creeped out by the fact that a 55 year old man began a relationship with his ex-girlfriends adoptive daughter, fine.”

      But lets not believe as most Americans seem to that ” Woody Allen married his step daughter.” Not true..

      Your article, Ms. Hains is simply a polemic screed.

      Bravo to Weide.

      • I agree. The collective speaks of Dylan as a “victim” without evidence of having been victimized except perhaps by her mother. What about the victimization of Woody Allen? I’d long been under the impression that these allegations had more substance and now that someone has taken some time to clarify these issues I think these continued allegations speak more to the need that many have to join the victim-hood causes which they in their own lives do absolutely nothing about other than perhaps wear these “I-support-so-and-so-victim” as a badges of honor.

        • Wow, am I noticing a trend here? More men coming to defend Woody Allen. I see this all over the place. I keep seeing men rushing in to defend this guy and I just cannot believe that they can all be fans of Woody Allen films.

          • Karen, I have a thought on this.

            Women and girls are far more likely to be victims of sexual assault than men are to be sexual predators. Therefore, while females may fear the very real possibility of harm being done to them, men fear the far less likely possibility that they will be falsely accused of a crime they never committed.

            And this makes sense: for the vast majority of men, the idea of committing such an act is nauseating–so nauseating that they themselves can’t imagine being a perpetrator. But thanks to the narrative that perpetrators use to discredit their victims–“she’s lying!” “she was asking for it!” “don’t believe her–she’s not credible!”–they sincerely fear that they could be wrongly accused.

            So when a situation like this comes up, I can understand healthy men’s tendency to identify with Woody Allen. But if they would stop and really listen to what women like Dylan Farrow have to say, I think they would understand.

            That’s why these conversations are so important.

            • I tend to agree. But I also think it’s more sinister. My husband’s co-worker use to call his ex-wife “the bitch” when referring to paying her child support. Never mind that his adultery was the cause of the end of the marriage (which he fully admits to!) It’s been drilled into men that mothers are nothing but “bitches” looking to drain their bank accounts. I think that is why so many men, who would normally make fun of Woody Allen and probably couldn’t name one Woody Allen movie, are defending him. In our society, child support is viewed as “bitch support”. Believe me, I have heard that term on many occasions. That is why they keep going after Mia Farrow. I didn’t realize it until I kept debating this topic today. It’s not the love of Woody Allen. It’s just plain old misogyny at work. And, because it was DYLAN who made the claim. they think it’s just Mia being a scheming bitch. But, I think that if it had been RONAN to make the accusation, I not only think that we wouldn’t hear a defense of Woody Allen, we would be hearing a lot of anti-Semetism and threats of bodily harm.

            • Nobody should forget how important it is to future true victims of child abuse to weed out false allegations. If we don’t stop those who cry wolf we not only demean true victims, we make the world less sensitive to their cries.

          • I am a woman with some childhood traumas, and I don';t defend anyone, I am merely pointing out thatI don’t see why its ever ok to rush to judgement either way., I do find Moses very credible.,

    • It was consistent. And McMartin was a completely different case. Dylan’s case was well documented and investigated in depth. The McMartin case was a circus with the assistant DA, Lael Rubin, having a sexual relationship with an editor at the Los Angeles Times, the woman who interviewed the children was not only asking the children leading questions and putting words in their mouths, but Kee McFarland was having a sexual relationship with a man who was a reporter from the local ABC affiliate! And do you want to know who was the initial complainant? A woman who was a paranoid schizophrenic with a severe alcohol problem. Instead of doing a quiet investigation, the idiots at Manhattan Beach PD sent out a FLYER! It cases a panic. The two cases are no where near the same. And it no longer happens. We have learned since 1980 on how to investigate child abuse and how to interview children.

      • How was it consistent? There was never any mention of a train before, for example.

  3. I do see that many people on twitter are posting Wiede’s article as a counter to Dylan Farrow’s NYT oped.

    • It’s worth noting: Weide’s essay came out prior to Dylan’s open letter. Weide was not happy about Mia and company blasting Allen after the Golden Globes tribute – given that Mia signed a release form consenting to her image used in the Globes montage of Allen’s work.

      Weide published facts that are merely not fully known to the public. what’s wrong with a little insider insight? No one would have known Mia Farrow was sitting at home criticizing everyone about the Golden Globes tribute all the while she participated in it.

  4. Wiede’s article reads to me like he has appointed himself Defense Attorney to Woody Allen. I see this in the way he leaves out information that doesn’t fit the story he’s selling & pitches the standard memes that are used to defend accused sexual abusers, as Rebecca itemized. I can only assume that he did this on purpose.

    FWIW, I was told while serving on a grand jury that most rape victims have inconsistencies in their stories, as indeed happens commonly for far less traumatic events. The DA even told us that his advice to all rape victims is to write down NOTHING about it, because if they do & it differs in ANY way from what they say later in court, the defense attorney will claim they are lying. Yet another standard that isn’t applied to other crimes.

  5. I’m no fan of Woody Allen or his movies. I’d never even heard of Wiede before and the Daily Beast is pure garbage IMO, but, under our justice system, the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of our peers.

      • So what you’re saying is Dylan Farrow can make whatever allegations wants and no one can challenge her? Talk about irresponsible

        • That isn’t what ANYONE but YOU is saying here, and you are only saying it because you have no other way to weasel your way out of your bullshit position. Challenging someone about their story is in NO WAY the same thing as throwing someone under a bus. Asking questions is NOT the same thing as accusing someone of lying, and you damn well know it. We have a presumption of innocence, yes, but that presumption is the government’s to bear. We as non-participants in the justice system (for this particular case, I have no idea what you do for a living but I am dead certain you aren’t a lawyer) have no duty to presume his innocence, and we certainly have no moral obligation to act as though this woman is a liar just because the government isn’t allowed to presume guilt.

          You basically just came in here and used some side-eye to accuse a woman of lying. Then you called anyone who disagreed with you irresponsible, as if you are somehow the arbiter of responsibility as it applies to the legal system – talk about arrogant, ignorant and total douchebaggery.

      • > I don’t think that writer is throwing her or anyone else under the bus, he’s challenging the memory of 4 year old. I have no recollection of things when I was 4.

        • She was seven, not four. And traumatic things do tend to stick in the mind. I remember having my tonsils out at age ~5. I remember a lot from when I was 7. And I had just turned 8 when Kennedy was assassinated — I’ll never forget where I was when I heard. So yes, it’s entirely credible that a 28 year old remembers being sexually assaulted at age seven, plus the incidents she mentioned that led up to it.

          Anyway, it’s one thing to sift the evidence to try to reach a conclusion. It’s quite another thing to twist some facts & ignore others, while taking a hostile “they are bitches, you can’t trust them” attitude toward her mother. As Weide does. This does not mean that Dylan’s story is proven true. It means that Weide wrote a hit piece, not an attempt to find the truth.

      • I think people are more or less throwing Mia under a bus. Mia even had to release a statement via twitter regarding the light she’s been put under since Dylan’s NY Times letter.

        • And do you notice that MIA said it. She didn’t send her lawyer out to savage anyone. A simple statement that was supportive of her daughter. Don’t you wonder why Woody Allen sent his mouthpiece onto a morning news talk show? Dylan is not asking for money, is not suing, is not asking that charges be brought. She wrote a letter in the NYT. Woody Allen couldn’t just make a simple statement and let it go. He sent his lawyer (the one who HANDLED this case) to go out and savage her and Mia Farrow on national television. I found that really odd. Especially in light of Mr. Weide’s claims of how Mr. Allen “doesn’t read social media and doesn’t really care anyway. It was twenty years ago.”

      • Dylan is demanding for us all to adjudicate her truthfulness by not only make her statement about what happened but by getting in the faces of anyone who would star in, make, or see a Woody Allen film. She is not simply asking for our sympathy but demanding we judge Allen and act according to a moral code after doing so.

        • Really? And where in her letter did she say any of that? I didn’t see that part. I saw a letter that told her side of the story and then to decide what your favorite Woody Allen movie is.

  6. I think that whether or not you believe Dylan’s story we can (and should) all reevaluate how there is the trend for the media to “blame the victim.” Weide and his defense of Allen is just another example of many that show the reaction to simply blame the victim in cases of sexual assault. While not all media states, “Oh that person must be lying,” when articles mention how a girl dressed provocatively in a story about how she was then sexually assaulted it paints an unhealthy picture of victims. I think that your points are great and I hope this is an issue that we can make progress with.

  7. It is the height of irresponsibility to ignore the relevant facts (e.g., the abuse charge was originally made by Mia Farrow in her vicious bitterness at Woody Allen’s perfectly legitimate choice to end their relationship in favor of a new relationship with Soon Yi, an investigation at that time cleared Woody Allen of the alleged abuse, etc).
    It is also the height of irresponsibility to take an an accuser’s allegation at face value simply because the accuser is a woman and the accused is a man (a recurrent irrational pattern in abuse allegations).
    It is also the height of irresponsibility to take recourse to abuse allegations to settle scores out of a despicable sense of vengeance (a recurrent strategy of rejected or disgruntled women).
    It is the height of irresponsibility to consider the accused guilty until proven innocent!

    • It would be the height of irresponsibility for the *legal system* to consider Woody Allen guilty until proven innocent. Why shouldn’t we take Dylan Farrow’s accusations at face value? In our culture, where victims of sexual assault are routinely overscrutinized, pilloried, and quickly discredited, she has nothing to gain. Only 2% of crime reports are false; that statistic is the same regardless of the type of crime. But 20% of girls are sexually abused, and 75% of those by someone close to them. Do the math: the odds are that Farrow was indeed the victim.

      Also, if you think it’s perfectly legitimate for Allen to begin a relationship with the teenage daughter of his girlfriend, then your morals are out of step with the rest of society’s.

      • “Also, if you think it’s perfectly legitimate for Allen to begin a relationship with the teenage daughter of his girlfriend, then your morals are out of step with the rest of society’s.”

        It’s amazing to me how many people ignore that point. As a guy just a little older than Woody was at the time, I find it INCREDIBLY CREEPY and a reason why he should NOT be given the benefit of the doubt about relations with even younger girls, especially ones in the same family.

      • Also, if you think it’s perfectly legitimate for Allen to begin a relationship with the teenage daughter of his girlfriend, then your morals are out of step with the rest of society’s.

        Agreed. But have you read that Mr. Weide mentioned Soon Yi is NOT Allen’s daughter? There’s a reason why she’s called Soon Yi PREVIN and not Soon Yi Allen. Have you read that when Mia married Sinatra she was 21 and he was 51? Tell me about it.

        • Well, yes–I thought it was common knowledge that Soon Yi is not Allen’s daughter. She is the daughter of Farrow and Previn — and was Mia Farrow’s daughter while Allen and Farrow were a couple. I said exactly what I meant: it’s out of step with society’s morals for a man to cheat on his girlfriend with his girlfriend’s teenage daughter.

          21 and 51? To each their own. It doesn’t sound like Sinatra’s relationship with Farrow was predatory — he was not her mother’s boyfriend, for example.

          • I am the mom of an eighteen-year-old girl. She will be nineteen in June. I can tell you that if I had found pornographic pictures of my daughter on my fifty-something lover’s mantle, I would not have had the restraint that Mia Farrow had. In fact, you would have found pieces of Woody all over Manhattan, including tiny pieces stuffed into his stupid clarinet. And it wouldn’t have been out of jealousy, either. If he came into my home, on pretext of being with me and seduced my daughter, that is predatory behavior. Woody Allen didn’t “fall in love”. In fact, the court made quite a point about his behavior with Ms. Previn. The judge was very disturbed by the fact that Mr. Allen had cut off Ms. Previn from her family and friends (Soon-Yi left her summer camp job and moved in with Mr. Allen without Mia Farrow’s knowledge. Mia Farrow did not kick her out) and, when she wasn’t attending Columbia, she was with Woody Allen. That is not a lover’s behavior. That’s an abuser’s behavior. And it’s doesn’t have to be physical abuse. In this case, Mr. Allen is a controlling person, as his behavior was described by the court. He cut Ms. Previn off from any support (her father, Andre Previn,, cut her off because of her relationship with Woody Allen, which I think was a huge mistake) and she is wholly dependent on him. She has nothing without Mr. Allen. No money, no safety net, no friends, no family. So, really…….how exactly was Mia Farrow in the wrong for being upset about Mr. Allen’s actions with her daughter? How would YOU be if you found pornographic pictures of YOUR daughter on your buddy’s table and you found out he was doing her? How restrained would you be?

    • What’s irrational is calling speculation, opinion and misinformation ‘facts’. It is not a fact that anything was done in ‘vicious bitterness’ – this is speculation and rumor. It’s not a fact that Woody’s choice to be with Soon-Yi was ‘perfectly legitimate’ – this is opinion, one that many disagree with. It’s not a fact that Mia brought the charge (a doctor did), nor that he ended the relationship with Mia to be with Soon-Yi (it was an affair, and he tried to stay with Mia). You can’t argue for the importance of giving the benefit of the doubt and avoiding speculation while drastically failing to do so yourself.

      • What’s irrational is dubbing something “speculation, opinion, and misinformation” because you disagree with it.
        What is irrational is conflating reasonable or plausible judgments with mere “opinion”.
        Anyone with a cursory familiarity with Mia Farrow’s actions in the aftermath of Woody Allen’s decision to leave her for Soon Yi would know that “vicious bitterness” is an entirely plausible description of her state of mind and motives. Judgments on motives can be plausible given the record of behaviors and actions. Such judgments are not necessarily “speculation and rumor”.
        Soon Yi (the adopted daughter of Mia Farrow and Andre Previn) was at least 19 yrs old at the time of Woody Allen’s intimacy with her. Since it was a consensual and legal relation (and it is still ongoing!), it is a (legally) legitimate relation in stark contrast to the “relations” some female teachers have with some of their high school pupils!

        • Really? Can you provide us some facts that Mia Farrow acted “bitterly” towards Mr. Allen? Here, let me help you……this blog is nothing but articles from the custody case. Please, show me where Ms. Farrow acted improperly……http://theawarenesscenter.blogspot.com/1993/03/case-of-woody-allen.html

          And here is the Appellate Court Summary……please, highlight where Ms. Farrow acted in “vicious bitterness” outside of the Valentine incident and her emotional reaction when she found out about Soon-Yi and Mr. Allen. http://www.leagle.com/decision/1994524197AD2d327_1461

          I await with baited breath for your answer.

        • Oh, Woody had an AFFAIR with Mia’s teen-age daughter while he was shacking up with Mia? That’s even more creepy & disgusting than I thought. There will never be proof of whether Woody abused Dylan, but how can anyone know about his deciding to have sex with the teen-age daughter of his girlfriend and then deny that it’s possible that he decided to have a sexual encounter with Dylan as well?

    • You are assuming facts not in evidence. Ms. Farrow did not make abuse charges. Dylan told her mother about the events that took place, Ms. Farrow took Dylan to the pediatrician, under advice from her lawyer and the pediatrician, who is a mandatory reporter, reported the molestation complaint. Also, Mr. Allen was never “cleared” of charges. The State’s Attorney, Frank Maco, chose not to go forward with an indictment because Dylan was just to fragile after the custody case. And, the relationship between Mr. Allen and Ms. Previn was not “perfectly legitimate”. Ms. Previn was Ms. Farrow’s daughter and was barely legal. She found out about their sexual relationship by finding nude photos of Ms. Previn on Mr. Allen’s mantle. Ms. Farrow was not “viciously bitter”. Was she angry? Yes. I would be too if my fifty-seven-year-old lover seduced my teenaged daughter. Frankly, I found Ms. Farrow’s reaction restrained compared to most mothers reactions. Frankly, Mr. Allen is very lucky to be walking upright. The worst thing Ms. Farrow did was send a Valentine with a picture of her family to Mr. Allen with toothpicks through the hearts of the children, saying, “See what you have done?” Wow. Vicious.. The “Mia Farrow is a crazy bitch” stories have come from Mr. Allen and his camp.

      Everyone keeps making this about Mia Farrow, discounting Dylan Farrow. I think that is because they just do not want to face the fact that Dylan’s accusations ring pretty strong. There was some pretty strong evidence. But, without penetration. molestation cases are difficult to prove. And. Mr. Allen proved that he wasn’t above playing dirty, even at the expense of the daughter he claimed to have loved so much.

      Here is my article, rebutting Mr. Weide’s article, that I am sure you will discount……. http://aviewfromsuburbia.blogspot.com/2014/02/a-rebuttal-to-robert-weides-daily-beast.html It has links to all the articles that back up my claims. Read it, don’t read it.

      Here is the story about Frank Maco, the State’s Attorney who handled the molestation case……http://www.connecticutmag.com/Blog/Connecticut-Today/September-2013/Mia-Farrows-Vanity-Fair-Interview-References-1997-Connecticut-Magazine-Article/index.php?cparticle=1&siarticle=0#artanc

      Here is the Appellate Court ruling summary……http://www.leagle.com/decision/1994524197AD2d327_1461

      Here is the Vanity Fair article with direct interviews with Dylan and Ronan.,,,,http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2013/11/mia-farrow-frank-sinatra-ronan-farrow

  8. The notion that one is blaming the victim in asking for evidence, checking the relevant background (e.g., the abuse allegation was originally made by Mia Farrow in her vicious bitterness in the aftermath of Woody Allen’s decision to terminate his relationship with her and start a new one with Soon Yi) etc., is truly irresponsible and dangerous.
    The assumption that Dylan Farrow is truly a victim must first be corroborated before one engages in this rhetoric on not blaming the victim, etc.
    And we are in “Dark Ages” of justice (and reverse discrimination) if we think that a woman’s accusation is self-certifying simply because the accused is a man!

  9. I strongly recommend including a link to the 1994 Vanity Fair article. There were numerous witnesses who saw Allen engaging in “inappropriate” behaviour with Dylan.

  10. False allegations of abuse are common in custody cases.
    Children are notoriously unreliable as recorders or reporters.
    False memory syndrome is real.
    Parental Alienation is real.

    Your blog post is noise and innuendo. You dislike what Weide says therefore he is a horrible and arrogant man.

    You are not the best feminism can do. Do better.

    • If my post is noise and innuendo, then what’s Weide’s? His is an outright smear campaign against the Farrows, meant to discredit and silence them.

      Here are some facts:

      – 20% of girls are sexually assaulted — that’s 1 in 5 of all girls in the U.S.
      – Of those, 75% are victimized by someone they are close to.
      – False crime reports account for 2% of all reports across the board (whether discussing rape or robbery).
      – False memory syndrome is most common in children under the age of four.

      In short, it’s far more likely that Dylan Farrow was actually sexually assaulted and is remembering it correctly than it is that she is the victim of false memory syndrome or that she and her mother made a false crime report.

      • And Weide engaged in some deliberate misdirection as well as ignoring key facts, like that Dylan claims a pattern of behavior, not just one incident. He says Woody & Mia weren’t “living together” (which is a euphemism for regular sex) because they had separate apartments. He says Woody taking up with his girlfriend’s teen-age DAUGHTER, 37 years younger than him, is OK because she was (presumably) over 18. No, it’s not a crime but it’s awfully suggestive.

        Worst of all, Weide casts doubts about the motives of OTHER PEOPLE at the time to imply that Dylan is telling a false story TODAY. Yeah, that’s exactly how people who report other kinds of crimes are treated. Not.

        Where ever the truth lies in the conflicting stories, Dylan has a right to make the accusation & Woody has a right to deny it. Weide, in his deceptive accuser-shaming attacks, deserves all of the contempt being heaped on him.

      • Your “reasoning” here is flawed! Other things being equal, the statistics you mention only warrant taking an abuse allegation seriously and investigating it. They do not constitute Evidence for a particular abuse allegation!

      • Your “reasoning” here is flawed! Other things being equal, the statistics you mention only warrant taking an abuse allegation seriously and investigating it. They do not constitute Evidence for a particular abuse allegation!

        • No, but they *are* factors that should give one pause in discounting a person’s testimony about what they claim was done to them by an abuser. I offered them specifically in response to the laundry list “Foo” offered upthread as reasons to discount Farrow’s allegations.

          • There is nothing “evidentiary” about a video made by Mia Farrow’s in which Dylan Farrow makes those allegations. This is an abuse of language!
            Also, the $ 64 million question here is this: Did the alleged abuse of Dylan Farrow take place before Woody Allen split with Mia Farrow? If so, why didn’t Mia Farrow report it earlier?

            • Mr. Allen and Ms. Farrow were in the middle of discussing custody arrangements for Moses, Dylan and Ronan when Dylan told her mother about the abuse. The courts found Ms. Farrow credible. They did not find Mr. Allen credible and, in fact, found him unsuitable as a parent and a divisive factor. http://www.leagle.com/decision/1994524197AD2d327_1461

      • Many children have had to recant a false allegations against a family member. Here is an article discussing what the term is called. I’m not saying Dylan is lying but the possibility is not exactly out of this world.

        http://katiecouric.com/features/how-false-accusations-affect-families/

        If you have any moral standing, you would know it is terrible to bad-mouth another parent. No matter how grave the situation is, any good parent knows you have to just move on. Moses, Farrow’s estranged son and a family therapist, stated the environment Mia provided growing up spewed of toxicity towards Allen.

        This situation is unhealthy all around and ultimately a private matter, which keeps making its way to the public thanks to Mia and Ronan. Dylan is the real victim here and Weide is well aware of how terrible it is to put her through a public ordeal. Mia is under the microscope now and insist it is all about Dylan. If Dylan is really a victim of sexual assault I think she is entitled to move on with her life.

        And you wonder why Dylan’s being “thrown under a bus.” Look to Mia Farrow; the responsible party as the person driving the bus.

    • Actually, I did some checking on this. They are not as common as you might think, especially now. It’s actually pretty rare. It’s more of a media phenomena than a real one.

      The Sanford Health Dakota Children’s Advocacy Center is a program that is committed to improving the response to child abuse. We are a community partnership that utilizes a comprehensive multidisciplinary team approach to investigating child abuse.

      Professionals from social services, law enforcement, prosecution, victim advocacy and the medical and mental health communities come together under one roof so that a child only has to tell of his or her abuse one time.

      False allegations

      When deliberate false allegations are made, they appear more likely to come from adults than from children. False allegations made by children range in studies between 0.05 percent and 5 percent. Risk situations for adults making false allegations include divorce or custody disputes and adults with mental health problems. Multiple studies reflect much lower rates of false reports of abuse during custody and parenting time disputes than is commonly believed. Less than 2 percent of contested cases involve allegations. A study looking of 7,600 cases looked at all forms of abuse and neglect. Of that 7,600, they found only 4 percent to be intentionally false. False reports were made by the following:

      15 percent non-custodial parents
      2 percent custodial parents
      17 percent relatives, neighbors, family, acquaintances
      Rate highest in sexual abuse cases—6 percent
      None made by children
      In divorce and custody situations, false allegations were higher (3 percent vs. 12 percent). Non-custodial parents made 43 percent of intentionally false allegation. False allegations for neglect were far more common than abuse.

      https://bismarck.sanfordhealth.org/dcac/families/overview.asp

  11. Your reply here is only for the first half of Weide’s article. And from what I see he was trying to explain things from various perspective. Even if the allegations were true, what he proposed is that Mia doesn’t have any ground to be the one to make noise and defend the daughter; more of a hypocrite.

    Moreover making a statement at the point when his ex is being awarded seems more like a vengeance move out of jealousy. Once again if the allegations were true, why open it again after 20 years? Dylan is living a good life now why open the scars again? If they demanded justice, this case wouldn’t be kept silence for 20 years.

    Read the whole article again without a coloured eye.

    • For a survivor of sexual abuse, seeing the abuser awarded and feted by society would be very, very triggering. The fact that he won the award is what opened Dylan’s scars. As explained over at the Good Men Project:

      “[Dylan Farrow] has the right to be heard and to express her feelings. The timing of her statements are not coincidental to his awards; The awards are the cause of the pain that prompted her to speak out. She was deeply hurt that Allen received the award. It isn’t like they generally give people who’ve been accused of child molestation such awards. So the fact that it was offered to him has led her to see this award as a tacit statement that the public refuses to see him as an abuser and that makes her either a liar or brainwashed.”

      http://goodmenproject.com/opeds/dear-stephen-king-calling-dylan-farrows-abuse-story-bitchery-shesaid/

      I hope this perspective helps answer your questions.

      • The article also mentioned that Mia was asked for approval for the clip when woody is to be awarded, before the award day itself. Meaning they should have pre-knowledge that woody will getting this award. Why allow it? Why not stop it if not for making a show out of it? Besides within this 20 years I believe woody had been awarded for many times and doesn’t that hurt?

        I don’t say I don’t believe in Dylan, but I also believe in giving woody the benefit of doubt, and not jumping into conclusion of hysterically accusing woody after seeing the open letter.

        Furthermore Ronan is getting a job on TV, bringing this up might be the right amount to bring woody down, at the same time bringing Ronan up. Read the article by Woolf on The Guardian.

        I believe in Dylan, but I believe more that this is a manipulated show instead of a way to bring justice to not only Dylan but to all sexually abused victims. The objective seems to be bring woody Allen down rather than giving back Dylan justice, at the expense of already hurt Dylan.

      • Oh my… Allen received an award because he is not a criminal in the eyes of the law. I agree with you that some criminals, like Roman Polanski, are awarded despite their official status as a child molester. But Allen has not been found by legal ground to be a criminal. Yet Mia and company are publicly throwing stones at Allen.

        As a victim, Dylan cannot blame the public or make anyone feel guilty for liking Allen’s films. If Dylan feels strongly about calling holding Allen responsible for the alleged sexual abuse then there are legal avenues, such as a civil lawsuit, she can pursue.

        • She doesn’t want money and the statue of limitations on her case has expired. So, what was wrong with what she did, really?

  12. Certainly Weide is writing a polemic defending Allen. What is wrong with this, given the renewed attack on Allen by the Farrows, which coincides with Allen recent honors?

    Are any of Weide’s assertions actually wrong?

    I would expect Weide to know more Allen than the public since he did a film on him, so yes I would expect him to know more about Allen than the public. .

    Farrow has publicly implied that Ronin could be Sinatra’s son; so she has herself implied she was untrustworthy.

    Weide also discusses the relationship between Andre Previn and Mia Farrow, which harmed Previn’s wife, and for which Farrow is at least half responsible. And the tape did start and stop, which at least implies Dylan could have been coached. A number of Farrow’s behaviors, including her failure to bring the molestation allegations to light until Allen’s despicable betrayal of her with Soon Yi Previn. And more. In short, Weide cites several facts and behaviors by Farrow that imply she is not trustworthy, none of which you mention in your post.

    All in all, I find Weide’s article far more compelling than your re-hash of his article and the events (none of which you deny or refute) or obvious their polemical implications.

    And simply stating general crime statistics about the inequalities and injustices perpetuated on women does NOT make it “far more likely” that they apply in a SPECIFIC case; statistical parameters are a tool for general inference. It is absolutely and 100% incorrect to use sociological evidence you cite to come to a decision about the probability of a particular case.

    (Except in DNA cases where the nature of the evidence is physical rather than sociological.)

    • There’s a lot going on in this comment, so I’ll just respond to a few points quickly:

      1. You mention that the renewed attack on Allen coincides with his honors. Well, yes–this is to be expected. For a survivor of sexual abuse, seeing her abuser awarded and feted by society would be very, very triggering. The fact that he won the award is what opened Dylan’s scars. As explained over at the Good Men Project:

      “[Dylan Farrow] has the right to be heard and to express her feelings. The timing of her statements are not coincidental to his awards; The awards are the cause of the pain that prompted her to speak out. She was deeply hurt that Allen received the award. It isn’t like they generally give people who’ve been accused of child molestation such awards. So the fact that it was offered to him has led her to see this award as a tacit statement that the public refuses to see him as an abuser and that makes her either a liar or brainwashed.”

      http://goodmenproject.com/opeds/dear-stephen-king-calling-dylan-farrows-abuse-story-bitchery-shesaid/

      2. I, too, would expect Weide to know more about Allen than the public does. That doesn’t mean he knows more about what happened between Woody Allen and Dylan Farrow in an attic when she was a child than the public does. There are two people who know exactly what happened: Allen and Farrow. Who is better served by lying about the subject?

      3. You asked whether any of Weide’s assertions are actually wrong. Well, that depends on what you mean by “wrong.” My point is not that Weide’s assertions are factually incorrect. It’s that he’s misusing them to smear the credibility of the Farrows–to silence them. Victims of sexual assault are routinely silenced, undermined, with their credibility and/or moral fiber called into question–and that is a reprehensible thing to do. In other words, his article is *morally* wrong.

      That is the entire point of my piece, and if you don’t find it compelling, that’s fine with me. But this is an important conversation to be having, because our culture’s default position of trying everything possible to discredit those who report sexual assault is very, very wrong.

      • I believe his piece was meant to defend Allen, and if that means analyzing the actions, character and possible motivations of the Farrows in this very public case, then so be it.

        Weide’s article does not focus specifically on “what happened between Woody Allen and Dylan Farrow in an attic when she was a child;” Weide admits he cannot know that. It focuses on other factors and circumstances of the case, including Mia Farrow’s behavior before, during and after the allegations. And yes, there is an attempt to discredit Mia Farrow by citing her previous behavior with Andre and Dory Previn, and her recent rash statements about Sinatra possibly being Ronin’s father.

        But associating Weide’s polemic with ” trying everything possible to discredit those who report sexual assault” in general is not the way I see it; the Farrows freely reported this alleged sexual assault decades ago; it was investigated by two separate agencies (the DA and the State Police) and neither found enough evidence to bring the case to trial.

        Nothing Weide writes in defense of Allen in 2014 changes the Farrows past allegations and nothing he writes will prevent them from repeating their allegations now or in the future.

        But I really can’t see how his very specific defense of Allen should discourage others from reporting sexual assaults today or encourage the accused from trying to discredit victims; those inclined to do so will do so. To me, this is all about the facts and circumstances of a very notorious and specific case, and not about the case’s very limited impact on our current culture or system of justice, which I agree is manifestly flawed in many respects including the treatment of sexual victims.

        To me, careless and poorly evidenced accusations against Weide’s article, create a very poor departure point for having a serious discussion on our cultural deficits and injustices, and is as flawed as digging up the Tawana Brawley case to suggest that victims always lie.

        • Also, there is questions if Tawana Brawley really did lie. I have been doing a lot of reading of articles at the time and I seriously question this whole premise. Let’s just say that the facts are not so cut and dry.

      • “our culture’s default position of trying everything possible to discredit those who report sexual assault is very, very wrong.”
        This is an Orwellian inversion of the truth. The truth is that this society is rife with accusations and allegations by women against men and the general tendency is to take those accusations and allegations at face value and to treat the accused, particularly if it is man, as guilty until proven innocent. (Contrast this with the “thunderous silence” on female school teachers convicted of illegal sexual relations with boys!)
        The claim that Allen’s lifetime achievement award (given for his significant artistic achievement, not moral standing!) was the needed trigger for renewed accusations by Dylan Farrow is wildly implausible. Woody Allen had received other honors and acclaim for some of his films (e.g., Midnight in Paris) in the recent past. Why did these events not trigger Dylan Farrow’s memory of the alleged abuse? The shadow of a bitter, vicious, hateful, implacable older woman who cannot let go even after many other relationships over the years is clearly discernible over the renewed accusations at this time.
        P.S. Given the nature of Dylan Farrow’s claims, how can we possibly find out whether her accusations are true? It was Mia Farrow who first advanced the claims in the middle of a bitter split and custody battle with Woody Allen. It is farfetched to think that if the abuse had occurred earlier, Mia Farrow would have had to wait for the split and the custody battle to gain knowledge of it! And if she knew it earlier, it would have been good grounds for her to end her relationship with Woody Allen.

        • Our society is FULL of thunderous silences. Like the silence over priests whose victims were girls instead of boys — whatm you though the pedophile priests ONLY raped boys? The fact that people see some things as more horrible than others that are really the same does NOT excuse the cases that people do see as horrible.

          You offer not facts to back up your assertion that there are huge numbers of false accusations against men — presumably you mean huge in comparison to the true accusations. It must be an article of faith, but studies don’t support you. Nobody denies that there are false accusations and that they harm men. But do you have the LEAST idea of what most women go through if they say they were raped? ESPECIALLY if the guy they accuse is respected?

          PS: As everyone has said, we can’t know for sure whether Dylan’s statement is true. But some victims go years or even decades before telling anyone. Do you really think that children who are told by a trusted adult to keep quiet immediately run to tell their mothers? Do some research & maybe you won’t find it so far fetched that it was a while before Mia learned of it. And if the accusation is true, then why are you criticizing Mia for still being bitter about it? Talk about betrayals!

    • I find it interesting that the defense of the abuser is so much more compelling than the defense of a female victim. I do have a feeling that if the child had been RONAN and not Dylan, every man who has been throwing themselves all over Woody Allen would be the first in line to want to do physical harm to him and would be making Mia Farrow a saint.

      • You are assuming that Dylan Farrow is a victim. It is irrational, irresponsible, and dangerous to believe in a seriously damaging claim without evidence. What is your evidence to show that Dylan Farrow is the victim of sexual abuse by Woody Allen?

        • Surely you know that in many, many sexual abuse cases, there is no evidence, right? Predators are savvy. They know how to avoid being caught, which is how so many continue their abuse for so long.

          So, her testimony is her evidence. To not take the testimony of a seven year old as evidence (or her firm restatement of that testimony as an adult) as an indicator that something bad was going on is unjust.

    • Seems like a lot of people, including Hains, are misinterpreting Weide’s article. Yes, Weide is apparently a defender of Allen but lays out why he has given Allen the benefit of doubt. Mia’s life is wrought with ironic twists and seems to enjoy publicly putting Allen through the wringer, which in turn puts Dylan through the wringer.

      Live and let live. If Allen is the pedophile creep Mia wants people to see then I’m sure he will get his comeuppance. Again, unless Allen wore a prison number and is a legally registered sex offender, then sure why the public has to know about it.

  13. Thank you! I am sick and tired of the Robert Weide piece, where he cherry-picked his information. I wrote a rebuttal piece and have been posting it when people post his awful article. Do you want to know the responses I get? That I am wrong. When I ask the person to correct me….no response. I get corrected on my word use, on my “not understanding the criminal justice system” (even though I have never called for Woody Allen’s arrest or any litigation), that I leave out facts (when I ask them to tell me what facts I leave out, I get no response) and a slew of other personal attacks. But no one has yet corrected any of my facts. But, they cling to the Weide piece like they cling to their idol’s piece of clothing. Here is my piece. I make no claim of being a professional anything. Not a writer or a researcher. But, trust me, neither is Mr. Weide.

    http://aviewfromsuburbia.blogspot.com/2014/02/a-rebuttal-to-robert-weides-daily-beast.html

    • Great post! It’s a little hard to read on my screen (the white on red is really tough on the eyes), but you make some great points. And honestly, at this point, it doesn’t sound like Weide is just a member of the Woody Allen Fan Club–he sounds like the president. Go figure.

      • I have been trying to fix it but have had little luck. My HTML is rusty. I am use to WYZWIG and have gotten lazy.

        • Karen MCHale, here is a correction of one of your “facts” from the very beginning of your post: Weide’s documentary on Allen is not upcoming; it aired on PBS in 2011.

          Apart from this, I did not bother to fact check the rest of your post.

          • Yes, Chris, that is generally the reply I get from Woody Allen defenders. They never want to even read my article. They pick one thing (that is usually utterly irrelevent, like Mr. Weide’s documentary) and say, “LOOK! You forgot to dot your i! I’m not going to bother with the rest!” Whatever, man. If it helps you defend an abuser, so be it. But it’s pretty telling that you won’t read my links. You don’t have to like my writing style or even my spelling but for you to not even look at the links tells me you don’t WANT to know.

            • I DID read your article. That is different than fact checking the entire article. Please re-read my 6:10 PM post.

              When I was taught to write academic articles and later government papers, I was taught never to make obvious, easily found mistakes, to always fact check every assertion, and to re-read and edit several times because simple mistakes that are obviously wrong lead the reader to believe you may be a lazy researcher and writer, and a sloppy thinker.

  14. Assuming Farrow was not coached or assuming her accusation is true, because she says so, is as dangerous as what Robert Weide has done? Are *you* personally intimate with the actual facts? How do *you* know the re-emergence of this claim isn’t cause by vengeance or greed or pure caprice? How do *you* know what Woody Allen did or didn’t do? Why is accepting the alleged victim’s claim always done without questioning their motives or the motives of those who have something to gain from distorting or even fabricating the truth? The ground you’re on is as shaky as Weide’s.

  15. “Mr. Allen and Ms. Farrow were in the middle of discussing custody arrangements for Moses, Dylan and Ronan when Dylan told her mother about the abuse.”
    It was a bitter custody battle and the naivete of anyone pretending that this is NOT a context fraught with all sorts of allegations and accusations, including abuse allegations by children who have been coached by one or the other adult partners, is breathtaking!
    And there is another $ 64 million question: Why has Dylan Farrow repeated and embellished on her accusations NOW after Woody Allen got the Golden Globes Award For Lifetime Achievement and not earlier? I don’t think this is a coincidence and it is clearly an effort to portray him as undeserving of the award. There is more than a plume of Mia Farrow’s lingering and simmering bitterness in all this.
    But Woody Allen’s art will survive the accusations and allegations by those who have nothing else to contribute!
    I hope he will make a new film based on the ordeal he is going through!

    • You are the equivalent of the child putting his hands over his ears and yelling, “I CAN’T HEAR YOU!!” I have posted many links and my own post from my blog rebutting Mr. Weide’s article. You refuse to acknowledge them or dismiss them out of hand. I really do not know what more to show you. Dylan has not changed her story, Mia Farrow has not had anything to do with Woody Allen for twenty years and, frankly, I doubt you can be convinced of anything other than Woody Allen is being targeted.

  16. Why don’t you consider Stacey Nelkin’s testimony on Mia Farrow’s machinations?

    (Stacey) Nelkin, who dated Allen when she was a teenager 35 years his junior, appeared on CNN’s “Piers Morgan Live” on Monday and discussed their relationship, which she insisted was entirely consensual.

    The recent allegations are the result of an ugly separation between Allen and Mia Farrow, Dylan’s adoptive parents, Nelkin said.

    “These accusations came on the heels of a horrible custody battle, of Mia being extremely upset,” Nelkin said. “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, and she was hell-bent and determined to destroy something that he loved. Woody loved Dylan. We were in contact at the time, and he would talk about her a lot. He loved the kids that they had adopted together, and she took Dylan away by creating this whole scenario.”

    PHOTOS: Celebrities by The Times

    Nelkin also said that someone from Mia Farrow’s camp had tried to convince Nelkin to testify against Allen during the custody battle. This person wanted her to “admit that I was 15 when we dated, and I said no, because I was not 15,” Nelkin said. “I was 17, 18 and 19, and to me there’s a big distinction between that, and I think they were looking for the fact that, you know, 15 is jail bait. Seventeen is a very different story. And I would not go along with that.”

    http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-mn-barbara-walters-stacey-nelkin-defend-woody-allen-20140204,0,5821584.story#ixzz2sPRn4LUd

    • “”These accusations came on the heels of a horrible custody battle, of Mia being extremely upset,” Nelkin said. “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, and she was hell-bent and determined to destroy something that he loved. Woody loved Dylan. We were in contact at the time, and he would talk about her a lot. He loved the kids that they had adopted together, and she took Dylan away by creating this whole scenario.”

      That’s not what the courts said……..http://www.leagle.com/decision/1994524197AD2d327_1461

      • Well, Nelkin did say what she said, and it was obviously a horrible custody battle and break-up. The public record shows that.

        The fact that the court record did not say that “she (Mia Farrow) took Dylan away by creating this whole scenario” is not surprising because Farrow was never investigated for “creating this whole scenario.”

        • Chris,

          Who is ignoring facts now? Karen has pointed to lots of evidence of major warning signs regarding Woody’s behavior toward Dylan, which would be a pretty clear motivator for Mia’s “fury”, along with being cheated on with their own child. Who in the whole world wouldn’t be furious about either one? What parent wouldn’t fight as hard as they could to keep their other children away from someone who’d do either of those things?

          But as Rebecca reminded me elsewhere, this blog is not about re-litigating the trial, nor even about deciding whether Dylan’s story is true. This blog is about Weide’s article. The INCREDIBLY relevant facts that he deliberately left out show that it is not in any way objective. The style he used brands it as an attack piece — specifically, one that uses the classic ways that people (mostly men) use to discredit and destroy those who dare say that they were sexually abused.

          THAT is the point. If you can’t see it, you are part of the problem.

          • Correction: “HER own child”. YES, I know she wasn’t Woody’s child.

          • Not only that but to say that Mia Farrow “wasn’t investigated” is downright laughable. What do you think a custody case is? Especially one that was instigated by Woody Allen? When a custody case happens, you are investigated down to the color of your underwear and what you think and dream about. Believe me, the woman was investigated. One of Mr. Allen’s accusations was that Ms.Farrow was poisoning the children and had planted the molestation into Dylan’s head. That was investigated by the courts. Now who is a sloppy thinker?

      • Nelkin also said that someone from Mia Farrow’s camp had tried to convince Nelkin to testify against Allen during the custody battle. This person wanted her to “admit that I was 15 when we dated, and I said no, because I was not 15,” Nelkin said. “I was 17, 18 and 19, and to me there’s a big distinction between that, and I think they were looking for the fact that, you know, 15 is jail bait. Seventeen is a very different story. And I would not go along with that.”

        http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-mn-barbara-walters-stacey-nelkin-defend-woody-allen-20140204,0,5821584.story#ixzz2sPRn4LUd

      • This speaks volumes on Mia Farrow’s motivations! Soon Yi was at least 19 at that time.

        “While the parties had difficulties which grew during Ms. Farrow’s pregnancy with Satchel, it was the discovery of the relationship between Mr. Allen and Ms. Previn that intensified Ms. Farrow’s concerns about Mr. Allen’s behavior toward Dylan…”

        http://www.leagle.com/decision/1994524197AD2d327_1461

        • You don’t have kids, do you? Mothers don’t compete with daughters for men. Mothers kill grown men who seduce their teenage daughters. Especially when they were your lover. Not only are you angry, you feel guilty for bring the monster into the house. Mia Farrow wasn’t jealous. She’s a mother who loves her kid. Trust me, if he had done that to MY daughter (who is now around the same age as Soon-Yi was), Woody Allen would have been a wet spot. You do NOT touch my kids. Ever. And it’s not a threat. It’s a promise. As I tell my kids all the time, I would throw myself in front of a speeding car to protect them. And I would kill anyone who hurt them. So, seriously, rethink that whole, “jealousy” think. Moms don’t think that way.

          • It’s also worth remembering that Soon-Yi wasn’t just his girlfriend’s daughter. She’s his own children’s older sister. Even if some men might be able to justify having an affair with their girlfriend’s teenage daughter, there’s hardly anyone who would think it reasonable to date your own children’s sibling. With good reason: That is the kind of move that tears families apart, as it did in this case.

            I think it’s totally legitimate in such a case to worry about what your boyfriend has been up to with the other girls in the family–especially someone like Woody, who has an established pattern of unreasonable behavior around young girls (see list of examples here: http://defamer.gawker.com/the-internet-digs-up-woody-allens-creepy-child-loving-1515815185 )

  17. That is quite the conclusion you came to in reading the Weide’s essay. Weide decided to speak out after Mia Farrow and company persistently bad-mouth Allen via Twiiter – or any other media form. Particularly after the Golden Globes when Mia criticized the tribute she willfully participated in. Why Mia continues to lambast Allen publicly is truly bad form given a panel of experts concluded Dylan had not been molested. Had Allen been tried and convicted then this would be a different story.

    Of course you don’t mention how Weide is merely laying out facts that Mia doesn’t make public knowledge via Twitter or Vanity Fair (friendship with Polanski, child-molesting brother, estrangement from her son Moses, Golden Globes media release form, etc).

    Ultimately, this is none of our business and Dylan is the real victim here. Whether or not the abuse occurred, Dylan is in a no-win situation. Dylan shouldn’t make the audience, who like Allen’s films, simply because she feels Hollywood is celebrating a pedophile. If that is the case then Dylan should look at her own mother and the friendship Mia has carries with Roman Polanski.

    Whew… Talk about irony!

    • Did you notice that Rebecca’s blog is not about whether the charges are true? It’s about the manner in which Weide chose to respond to them. And not just the way he twists some facts & ignores others.

      Consider the TONE of his article. Consider how much his attack style is like what nearly always happens to women who say they were abused. That’s the issue here. If you can’t see it, then I guess you’ve never had it directed at you. But you’re in good company — and that’s the problem.

      • God save us from these irrational purveyors and advocates of abuse allegations!

        “Meanwhile the Connecticut police turned for help to a special investigative unit they relied on in such cases, the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of the Yale-New Haven Hospital. This group of impartial, experienced men and women whom the district attorney looked to for guidance as to whether to prosecute, spent months doing a meticulous investigation, interviewing everyone concerned, and checking every piece of evidence. Finally they wrote their conclusion which I quote here: “It is our expert opinion that Dylan was not sexually abused by Mr. Allen. Further, we believe that Dylan’s statements on videotape and her statements to us during our evaluation do not refer to actual events that occurred to her on August 4th, 1992… In developing our opinion we considered three hypotheses to explain Dylan’s statements. First, that Dylan’s statements were true and that Mr. Allen had sexually abused her; second, that Dylan’s statements were not true but were made up by an emotionally vulnerable child who was caught up in a disturbed family and who was responding to the stresses in the family; and third, that Dylan was coached or influenced by her mother, Ms. Farrow. While we can conclude that Dylan was not sexually abused, we can not be definite about whether the second formulation by itself or the third formulation by itself is true. We believe that it is more likely that a combination of these two formulations best explains Dylan’s allegations of sexual abuse.”

  18. Pingback: Michael Wolff Must Apologise | Ending Victimisation & Blame

  19. Let the irrational and rancorous purveyors and advocates of abuse allegations take note of this important question from Woody Allen!

    “After all, if speaking out was really a necessity for Dylan, she had already spoken out months earlier in Vanity Fair. Here I quote Moses Farrow again: “Knowing that my mother often used us as pawns, I cannot trust anything that is said or written from anyone in the family.” Finally, does Mia herself really even believe I molested her daughter? Common sense must ask: Would a mother who thought her 7-year-old daughter was sexually abused by a molester (a pretty horrific crime), give consent for a film clip of her to be used to honor the molester at the Golden Globes?”

    • Yep, he took out the script from 1992 and gave it a polish. Go out to YouTube and pull up the 60 Minutes interview he gave. Same script. All “I,I,I” and “Me, Me,Me”. All he cares about is whining about himself and sticking it to Mia Farrow, whom he blames for everything, it seems, down to if his toast is burnt in the morning. If she didn’t give consent, it would have just been more Mia bashing, so she is damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t. As for Moses Farrow, something I noticed……his words are very juvenile. For a licensed marriage and family counselor, his words sound like those of an angry teenage boy who is so mad at mom because she kept him away from dad. They are not the words of a trained professional, who should have a better insight into this situation. He is a thirty-something man who is a license therapist. Go read his interview again and tell me what you hear.http://www.salon.com/2014/02/05/moses_farrow_defends_woody_allen/

  20. The idea that Mia would deliberately traumatize her child because she was mad at Woody is absurd. It’s far less likely than the alternative. Even if it were possible. And there’s no evidence of it, whatsoever. Defense attorneys and abusers will grasp at any straw to distract attention from the actual charges. Implanted memories-in a 7-year-old? Two days after the reported incident? Give me a break!

  21. Courts encounter exactly what Mia has done to Dylan on a daily basis from personality disordered women, and that is to use their children as a pawn, just flick through some Dr.Phil episodes on Youtube if you want to see them in all their disgusting glory. Mia is quite clearly a control freak as stated by Moses who actually lived the dream and has now luckily escaped….unlike any of you. That their are a plethora of women who use their children in such a fashion cannot be debated….it is fact. It is as if you women seem to be hanging on the very fabric of sainthood when history has clearly shown you are most certainly not above reproach.

    We have a system in place to deal with crime, a court heard this case and did not proceed, simple as that. Until Woody Allen is charged and convicted you are just getting all your curlers and hair dryers in a knot.

    • you dont need to watch doctor phil to know that false allegations of harassment, violence, and sexual abuse are rampant in our society. its in the news every day. certain people choose to ignore it because they are hysterical parents. they think that by support inquisition type laws they are protecting their family. they are actually putting their family, and society in general, at risk.

  22. Figures sighted at 2% of false sexual abuse claims are a nonsense as this statistic alone comes from only one study in one area on a moderate sampling of cases. Mothers are increasingly using sexual abuse amongst other abuse claims as a weapon to not only keep full custody but to also get revenge on a father for any number of perceived transgressions by the mother. Parental alienation is a fact of life and given that over 90% of mothers have custodial custody it is much more prevalent amongst women. The type of woman that would inflict this type of pain on both the father and the child is the true child abuser and should be thoroughly evaluated for a personality disorder when an accusation is made as a matter of course. That a number of women here just blindly jump on a bandwagon convicting someone of a most atrocious act, because they want it to be so, shows a very poor intelligence level. We may as well not have courts and just go back to lynch mobs.

    For me one of the many telling behaviours of Mia’s narcissism is that she allowed the Golden Globes to use her image in a tribute to Woody. If she truly believed he sexually assaulted Dylan there is no way known on Gods green earth that she would have allowed this…..full stop. But Mia not only allowed it she then went on “twitter” after to boldly announce that a paedophile has received this honour. This is exactly the type of behaviour you would expect to see of a personality disordered person. Dylan is just collateral damage to one such as Mia….as ultimately the world revolves around Mia.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,722 other followers

%d bloggers like this: