Objectively horrifying...

[devogue]

Girls creator and star Lena Dunham has said “every woman who comes forward deserves to be heard, fully and completely”, as she apologised for defending a writer on her show who was accused of sexual assault.

Dunham had been widely criticised for weighing in on allegations made against Murray Miller by actor Aurora Perrineau, who accused Miller of raping her in 2012 when she was 17. Miller has “categorically and vehemently” denied the claim.

In their initial response to the allegations, Dunham and Girls’ executive producer Jenni Konner released a public statement of support for Miller, which read: “Our insider knowledge of Murray’s situation makes us confident that sadly this accusation is one of the 3% of assault cases that are misreported every year … We stand by Murray and this is all we’ll be saying about this issue.”

The defence of Murray drew criticism in part because it clashed with Dunham’s public identity, and past statements, as editor of feminist newsletter Lenny Letter.

In August, for instance, she tweeted: “Things women do lie about: what they ate for lunch. Things women don’t lie about: rape.”

Dunham has now apologised for her initial defence of Miller, writing on Twitter: “As feminists, we live and die by our politics, and believing women is the first choice we make every single day when we wake up. 

“Therefore I never thought I would issue a statement publicly supporting someone accused of sexual assault, but I naively believed it was important to share my perspective on my friend’s situation as it has transpired behind the scenes over the last few months.

“I now understand that it was absolutely the wrong time to come forward with such a statement and I am so sorry ... We regret this decision with every fiber of our being.”

She continued: “Every woman who comes forward deserves to be heard, fully and completely, and our relationship to the accused should not be part of the calculation anyone makes when examining her case. Every person and every feminist should be required to hear her. Under patriarchy, ‘I believe you’ is essential.

“Until we are all believed, none of us will be believed. We apologise to any women who have been disappointed."

Scarcely believable - I've read it three times. Dunham's terror at being caught on the wrong side of the fence is palpable.

[Rum]

The objective truth almost seems irrelevant doesn't it?

Perhaps fewer public pronouncements and awaiting the results of some sort of judicial process would be a wiser course for some of these people whose loyalties to a public stance trumps the truth.

[devogue]

The objective truth almost seems irrelevant doesn't it?

Perhaps fewer public pronouncements and awaiting the results of some sort of judicial process would be a wiser course for some of these people whose loyalties to a public stance trumps the truth.

He was her friend, he protested his innocence, she defended him ... but apparently that is unacceptable now.

[Rum]

This 'believe' the victim - or supposed victim comes from a history where women were not believed as a rule of course or where life became so difficult for them if they made an accusation that it simply wasn't worth it. I saw the same change with kids when I worked in Child Protection in the 80s. Gradually as the default position was to accept the accusation, more and more cases - genuine cases, came to light. Of course so did fake ones. So the question is whether were were better off in the 'old days'. I don't think so generally speaking.

I also think it is possible to accept an accusation as likely to be true or accept the accuser's story at face value but to withhold judgment - and certainly condemnation and punishment - until the full facts are known and dealt with by the use of the law and its rules. It should not be impossible to do! But of course with the advent of social media, instant gratification and binary positions on everything, not to mention trial by said horror nobody has the time to wait for things to take their right and proper course it seems.

[Strontium Dog]

It is credible to believe that most accusations of impropriety are true, especially given that most incidents don't even come to public light, therefore I would argue it is perfectly reasonable to believe allegations outwith them being proven in a court of law.

I don't believe "guilty until proven innocent" is appropriate in a criminal court, but in the court of public opinion - why not?

On this basis, Dunham should have known better, and to her credit, she seems to have realised pretty quickly that she was wrong.

[mistermack]

I don't believe "guilty until proven innocent" is appropriate in a criminal court, but in the court of public opinion - why not?

Except in Liverpool. If you are a Liverpool football fan, you are to be considered completely innocent, even after crushing to death 96 of your fellow Liverpool fans. An easy mistake to make. Could have happened to anyone.

[Rum]

It is credible to believe that most accusations of impropriety are true, especially given that most incidents don't even come to public light, therefore I would argue it is perfectly reasonable to believe allegations outwith them being proven in a court of law.

I don't believe "guilty until proven innocent" is appropriate in a criminal court, but in the court of public opinion - why not?

On this basis, Dunham should have known better, and to her credit, she seems to have realised pretty quickly that she was wrong.

'Most' is the operative word I would have thought.

The problem is the catastrophic effects an accusation can have on people - 'no smoke without fire' etc. Lives can be ruined in a way that an accusation of - say theft or some such would not.

This has been discussed at length in other threads, but Dev's shock at the person choosing the herd rather than friendship rings a bell with me too.

[Forty Two]

The objective truth almost seems irrelevant doesn't it?

When your ideology does not hold that there is anything that is true, other than by argument and perspective, then there is no "truth" to find. Reality is just a function of class struggle and power.

Perhaps fewer public pronouncements and awaiting the results of some sort of judicial process would be a wiser course for some of these people whose loyalties to a public stance trumps the truth.

That seems appropriate, but one faction is in favor of public pronouncements, as long as it is the "correct" pronouncement.

[Forty Two]

The objective truth almost seems irrelevant doesn't it?

Perhaps fewer public pronouncements and awaiting the results of some sort of judicial process would be a wiser course for some of these people whose loyalties to a public stance trumps the truth.

He was her friend, he protested his innocence, she defended him ... but apparently that is unacceptable now.

The take-away should be that Lena Dunham doesn't know what happened, and that any conclusion she draws based on media reports is pure supposition based on hearsay and preconceived notions.

Even a jury may never be able to determine the truth based on what evidence is made available to them.

However, the Lena Dunham article in the OP exposes the key flaw in "listen and believe" philosophy. It's just a power struggle. It's the assertion that women are oppressed, therefore, right or wrong, every woman must be believed. That's ridiculous on its face, in terms of what justice is. But, it is the seriously advanced position of the SJW crowd.

Also, Lena Dunham has no idea, and can't know, that only 3% of allegations in this arena are "misreported," because that statistic is not available. Nobody knows.

[Forty Two]

It is credible to believe that most accusations of impropriety are true, especially given that most incidents don't even come to public light, therefore I would argue it is perfectly reasonable to believe allegations outwith them being proven in a court of law.

I don't believe "guilty until proven innocent" is appropriate in a criminal court, but in the court of public opinion - why not?

On this basis, Dunham should have known better, and to her credit, she seems to have realised pretty quickly that she was wrong.

This analysis applies to all crime, not just sexual assaults and such. The police generally don't arrest innocent people. People are free to believe whatever allegations they want to believe. But, what value is "belief?" It's of no more value than "belief" in God.

The belief that Jane Doe or Richard Roe's allegations are "true" is simply a statement that one thinks allegations of those kind in general are usually true. Of what relevance is a general statistic to the specific? It's just an ecological fallacy to infer a specific person is X because the general category of such persons is statistically X.

Most people who identify people in line-ups as having robbed them are telling the truth. Does that mean that we "listen and believe" people who identify others in line-ups because most people tell the truth?

In the end, "listen and believe" is just a prejudice. We're supposed to believe "women" and disbelieve "men."

[JimC]

It's a matter of pendulum swings. There is absolutely no doubt that, in the not so distant past, many cases of sexual assault (at whatever level, mostly against children and women) were either not reported because of fear and power inbalances, or if reported, were commonly ignored. This had to change. Now, perhaps the pendulum has swung a little too far the other way, but as Rum said, the corrective is careful investigation and robust legal processes.

[Strontium Dog]

I don't believe "guilty until proven innocent" is appropriate in a criminal court, but in the court of public opinion - why not?

Except in Liverpool. If you are a Liverpool football fan, you are to be considered completely innocent, even after crushing to death 96 of your fellow Liverpool fans. An easy mistake to make. Could have happened to anyone.

There aren't the words in the English language to describe what a truly detestable human being you are.

[Rum]

I don't believe "guilty until proven innocent" is appropriate in a criminal court, but in the court of public opinion - why not?

Except in Liverpool. If you are a Liverpool football fan, you are to be considered completely innocent, even after crushing to death 96 of your fellow Liverpool fans. An easy mistake to make. Could have happened to anyone.

There aren't the words in the English language to describe what a truly detestable human being you are.

There are.

[mistermack]

There aren't the words in the English language to describe what a truly detestable human being you are.

A lack of vocabulary balanced by an excess of standards.
Double standards doesn't do you justice.

You're happy to presume other people guilty of life-changing charges, but not when it gets close to home.

It's not innocence or guilt that's important, it's just whatever suits your ego.

That's not detestable, though, just pathetic.

[Rum]

There aren't the words in the English language to describe what a truly detestable human being you are.

A lack of vocabulary balanced by an excess of standards.
Double standards doesn't do you justice.

You're happy to presume other people guilty of life-changing charges, but not when it gets close to home.

It's not innocence or guilt that's important, it's just whatever suits your ego.

That's not detestable, though, just pathetic.