portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

gender & sexuality | human & civil rights

Woody Allen, Rape Apologism and Fence Sitting

an analysis of non-feminist men who call themselves radical
Woody Allen is a man who, at the age of fifty-six, engaged in sexual intercourse with his nineteen year old step daughter, who he later married. Beyond any argument of cultural relativism, this is fucked up and wrong. Had she been a year or two younger, this would have been rape.

Roman Polanski is a man who raped a thirteen year old girl during a photo shoot, and had to flea the country to avoid prison. While on house arrest in Switzerland a couple of years ago, more allegations surfaced from another woman who spoke out about being a survivor of abuse from Polanski when she was sixteen years of age. While Polanski was in Switzerland and the United States was trying to bring him back, his friend Woody Allen was quoted as saying Polanski:

""has suffered" and "has paid his dues." He said Polanski is "an artist and is a nice person" who "did something wrong and he paid for it.""


Roman Polanski never actually did any time or was accountable for the abuse he inflicted upon children and women. Woody Allen is a straight up rape apologist, and a fucked up person in general. He is a fence sitter when it comes to issues like rape, misogyny, sexual abuse and oppression in many aspects of society, and any celebration of his existence without the acknowledgement of these facts about him make those who celebrate his existence rape apologists and fence sitters as well. I am bringing this all to the reader's attention, because recently there have been members of the radical community posting youtube videos of Woody Allen discussing how much nazis suck. To be sure, nazis are horrible beings on this planet who should cease to exist. However, there are lots of other people in the world who can state this better than a rape apologist, sexual abusive fence sitter like Woody Allen.

Sadly, it is no surprise to me to see rape apologists and misogynistic fence sitters being celebrated on the websites of men who allege to be radical, because in my experience getting to know such men, they are usually misogynists and fence sitters themselves when it comes to issues like abuse toward women.

I am posting this to let other womyn know that while I also dislike nazis, I would never celebrate the life of Woody Allen, just because I agree with him on an issue. If you feel you are oppressed by rape apologists, fence sitters, misogynists or abusers, know that you are not alone. You matter, you are powerful, and loud mouths within movements who taunt and dominate others are not as good as you are.

Roman Polanski and Woody Allen deserve the worst, and anyone who disagrees with this is a fucked up humyn being.

Guess I'm half fucked up because I half disagree 10.Jan.2013 03:54

mixing half strawmen

First, agree completely Polanski is a piece of shit.

Second, agree completely Woody Allen is being delusional and misguided by defending his Polanski.

But I don't agree Woody Allen is the equivalent of a pedophile or rapist just because IF his honey was two years younger it WOULD have been(statutory) rape. The fact is she wasn't. She was a legal adult, and the relationship was consensual. People had this problem with Sam Adams and Beau: OMG He's ONLY 19!!!!!! The fact is there is a point when the "kid" is not a kid and they can legally choose to fuck anyone they want, even if they're in a difference generation.

Was it healthy for her(Allen's GF)? Maybe. Maybe not. Believe it or not there are May/Dec relationships that are NOT based on mommy/daddy/issues/abuse/trauma. I've been in a couple. They don't tend to last.

Is it a sign Allen has an unhealthy fixation on dating way below his age? Possibly, if it's a habit. But being neurotic in one's choice of partners is not a crime.

Your outstanding point about Polanski's unaccountable crimes and Allen acting as his apologist is weakened by the strawman of implying Allen is a criminal when he isn't.

Polanski is a rapist and a pedophile. Allan is a fucked up neurotic little man deep in denial about his friend. There is a difference.

More info on case 10.Jan.2013 05:01

pretty damning

This is a better way to show apologists they are full of shit: damning evidence that, even for the time period Polanski knew he was fucking up:

"Contemporary reports in The New York Times and elsewhere captured a whiff of that attitude. In one article by The Associated Press, published in The Times on Sept. 20, 1977, Judge Rittenband scolded Mr. Polanski for taking advantage of his victim even as he was "noting the teenage girl 'looks older than her years' and was sexually experienced."

A 28-page probation officer's report completed in September of that year presented a broadly sympathetic portrait of Mr. Polanski and his behavior, even while acknowledging that the victim, Samantha Geimer (who has since publicly identified herself), had offered grand jury testimony of forcible rape."

From: https://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/movies/11polanski.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

He knows he raped her, there's no evidence of him having a relationship before, so how can he know she was "sexually experienced?" He can't of course, this is a bs excuse to try to hold her responsible for their encounter. Cold blooded, narcissistic and premeditated. They guy is a sociopath. He might regret it...regret getting caught, or regret people won't let it slide anymore. But if he thought he could get away with it, he'd do it again.

Oh, and if you want to have at Allen, this is far more relevant:

"a teenager played by Mariel Hemingway delivers some good news to the 42-year-old television writer, portrayed by Woody Allen, with whom she has had a long-running sexual affair.
"Guess what, I turned 18 the other day," said Ms. Hemingway, in what was framed as a poignant encounter. "I'm legal, but I'm still a kid."

That was then."

Consensual, but irresponsible and inappropriate. and yes, Allen is a cowardly fencesitter vis-a-vis Polanski.

I'm curious: the article you link to is 3 years old...has there been new developments making it topical again?

K ur 100% right about Allen too 10.Jan.2013 05:21


Had to read the extra info in comments...rage on! He's a twisted SOB!

Still think it helps to keep as much straw as possible out of a good argument...:)

The Age Of Consent! 10.Jan.2013 09:01

Lloyd Hart dadapop@dadapop.com

The age of consent must be lowered to 14 years of age as this is when nature determines when men and women are capable of having children. The present day laws are left overs from the worst legacy of misogyny in the known history, christian imperialism, in which millions of women were burned at the stake for being their own persons and for resisting their parents designs to arrange their marriages off for influence and to form business alliances. The present laws are designed for the parents and the state to retain ownership of their sons and daughters for purposes ranging from war to labor arrangements. If you don't think the upper classes are still practicing arrange marriages then you haven't been to a debutant ball which are still being put on by the oligarchs and the upper middle class all over this country. When a woman has control of her sexuality at 14 and is educated to her sexual biology she can not be traded into political or business alliances by her parents.

The most likely scenario surrounding Roman Polanski's charges stem from Polanski having exposed the crimes of the conservative elites in California with films like China Town. Polanski is a left leaning Jew who were all the targets of the conservative elites during the Hollywood purge which never really ended just as racial segregation never really ended. I also suspect that the brutal slaughter of Polanski's pregnant wife was a put up job by conservative elites. There is no physical evidence of rape in the Polanski case but there is a great deal of evidence in the climate of the times that the conservative elites were resorting to assassinations and personal attacks on cultural icons. I personally doubt the veracity of the testimony of girl Polanski was supposed to have had sex with. If you'll remember, in the film China Town, there was a sub plot surrounding the story's antagonist a very powerful, very corrupt man who had a daughter by having sex with his other daughter. I think someone in California took this sub plot in the film personally and then began a war on of total savagery on Polanski.
Roman Polanski had to survive a Nazi extermination camp as a little boy and has never held back his in his identifying opinions of the scum of the earth that arranged the Holocaust, you know, like the American conservative elites like Henry Ford that financed the nazis into existence for the very purpose of doing something to stop Jewish migration to America.

As for Woody Allen, Woody has done nothing but a great service to this country by constantly pointing out all of it's tragic faults with his enlightened wit. I suggest the writer of this article is projecting her sexual insecurity onto the rest of us by attacking two left leaning Jews who grew up when America was exploring it's sexuality out in the open to the horror of aging conservatives elites who seem to be capable of only having naughty sex with prepubescent and adolescent boys and girls of the likes that our present day nazi pope criminally covered up within the church.

.......... 10.Jan.2013 09:47


The victim of Roman Polanskis crime has not only forgiven him but demanded the judge grant him clemency. Roman Polanski has spent four decades admitting that after his wife was hacked to pieces and the media tried to blame him for it that what he did was reprehensible. The worst? I admit it shouldn't be forgotten and a worthwhile critiques in order, but vegan bike mama...the worst?

What about casual violence and disturbing peoples right to security in their home? Should we answer that with "the worst?" What about internet stalking and impersonating another human being, actually two humanbeings, does this deserve "the worst." A fair critique and a demand for justice, is that "the worst
" Exactly what is "the worst?". Killing Roman Polanski is going to drive rapists out of your world?

......... 10.Jan.2013 09:58


And Woody Allen has always portrayed himself as a neurotic fense sitter. I don't think cutting him or committing "the worst" is going to do nything more than irritate anarcha feminists. Maybe a more thought out statement and maybe showing "leftist" hypocricy and learned helplessness in regards to acceptence on a cultural level of sexual violence will go a bit farther than "the worst.".

@wrong vegan feminist (original poster) 10.Jan.2013 12:22


The victims wishes shouldn't be taken into consideration in asking ourselves whether or not this guy deserves forgiveness? Really? But your opinion...not the victims though, yours....not the victims 40 years later....

So who does deserve forgiveness Rabbi?

jesus... 10.Jan.2013 21:23


You know, even a thoughtful criticism of why the victim shouldn't have forgiven Polanski would be more significant than this. And in regards to Woody Allen, I don't even know where to start. But it sounds like, and I'm being a bit presumptuous, but it sounds like the original poster has been victimized sexually. That is tragic. For what its worth you have my condolences. It sounds like this is coming from a place of helplessness. Again, I'm sorry. But calling out Roman Polanski on the internet, all things considered to polarize people in your immediate environment to draw attention to your suffering isn't going to work. For so many reasons, its not going to work. If this were a rational critique of the situation I could get behind it and say, "forgive but never forget." Which is akin to I'm sure how Polanski views his own childhood, which after reading his wiki sounds just as tragic. I'm not saying you have to defend or support Roman Polanski, but you should attack your own trauma directly. I hope I'm wrong but if I'm right I hope your attacker is brought to some sort of significant justice.

(23 comments) PDX IMCers find this more important than 2nd Amendment? 10.Jan.2013 21:41



@J 10.Jan.2013 22:16

uh huh

Sorry, but it sounds like, and I'm being a bit presumptuous, but it sounds like you are a troll.

Implying anyone calling out Polanski has been sexually victimized and is therefore unable to make rational judgement of the case IS TROLLING. And it's sick twisted trolling.

But wait! By your logic it applies to Lloyd Hart! So why don't you tell Lloyd Hart to "attack his own trauma directly." and not make excuses for Polanski? Since Lloyd has voluntarily shared his story and your speculation about OP are just that SPECULATION. That you spent an ENTIRE POST REFUTING SPECUALTION ie something your just made up.

Or "J" could be someone who knows OP IRL and his/her fake concern is actually a subtle threat by showing they have privileged information. Because otherwise "J" comment is bizarre:

But it sounds like, and I'm being a bit presumptuous, but it sounds like the original poster has been victimized sexually. That is tragic. For what its worth you have my condolences. It sounds like this is coming from a place of helplessness. Again, I'm sorry. But calling out Roman Polanski on the internet, all things considered to polarize people in your immediate environment to draw attention to your suffering isn't going to work. For so many reasons, its not going to work. If this were a rational critique of the situation I could get behind it and say, "forgive but never forget."
Normal people don't write crap like this. You either think you know OP and are exploiting your knowledge about a person's tragedy to intimidate them...which makes you a Piece Of Shit

OR you're lying and just want to cast aspersions on the validity of OP by pretending to know, etc, etc...which makes you a Lying Piece Of Shit.

As someone said earlier, HOLY SHIT, YOU NEED TO GET LAID! :P

I'm trolling? 10.Jan.2013 22:49


I disagree with Lloyd, and had it been reasonably laid out I could get behind worthwhile criticisms of his logic, (even though he sounds like a good hearted person) but sure, I'm trolling, like comparing someone to a child molestor on indymedia and using a fourty year old rape conviction where the openly voiced and at one time pursuing of justice victim has accepted his apology as a gauge as to whether or not someone is a "rape apologist." If you haven't suffered sexual violence, maybe you should do womyn a favor and shut up about it because not only do I find your logic one sided and pointlessly antagonistic, but I don't care about this. This womans voice is heard, justice has been meted out to her satisfaction been meted out,what would you have society as a whole do? Seriously. What do you suggest?

@J 11.Jan.2013 00:14

just gets moar funni

"but I don't care about this. "

Says the guy(gal?) who invented/imagined OP as some deranged abuse survivor projecting/acting out.

Maybe you should write novels. Or you can tell us more about how you "don't care".

Keep movin those goal posts, brah!

@J -forgot to add 11.Jan.2013 00:17


Which was your choice?

And, question for the brahs: given the choice of

a)beating off with your HAND or
b)sticking your dick into a ragged plaster hole, WHICH WOULD YOU CHOSE?

You answer will help "Fidelity" strengthen his tenuous grip on reality. :)

?! 11.Jan.2013 00:50


@the boys here- why do you guys insist on arguing with high school girls on indymedia? it makes everybody look foolish.

@the ladies here- why do you cite roman polanski and woody allen if you to be taken seriously when discussing rape? it makes everybody look foolish.

good one!!! 11.Jan.2013 00:52


Because its a pointlessly antagonizing article that never mentions the victims perspective and only puts forth the logic "there are no forgivable crimes." I lost my cool and its a drag, but not in a sense that he should be forgiven based on this fact, but to put it into perspective, he suffered through the nazi holocaust. What does he think about the people he meets in the streets of Paris, Warsaw, Rome? "Forgive but never forget." Because the end point of this logic is horribly obtuse and one dimesnional. It also fails to overlook the case study evidence against child molesters and repeat behavior even after voluntary castration. Using this one example as a way to gauge "rape apologists," with no worthwhile examination of the facts, six sentenses slapped together and two out of date articles and no mentioning of the fact that the victim has forgiven him...well, they had fourty years to sort this out, OP couldn't have put a couple of hours into writing something that didn't polarize us into "yay rape nay rape." Because his sentiment passed relavency 2 decades ago.

And yeah, 30 years ago I would have sided with the rest of society and called this guy a "creep.". And I'm not defending his character, at all. But the victim holds precedence over this and if she didn't forgive him Id feel differently.

I'm sorry for using hostile language.

Golly Holly! What is your point? 11.Jan.2013 05:09


If we were on 4chan I know the PERFECT rejoinder. It would be on topic and everything. Lucky for you we're NOT on 4Chan.[give you a hint: _ _ _ _ or GTFO]

"@the boys here- why do you guys insist on arguing with high school girls on indymedia? it makes everybody look foolish."

Whatcho talkin about? Ain't no girls on the Internet!!!  http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/there-are-no-girls-on-the-internet

"@the ladies here- why do you cite roman polanski and woody allen if you to be taken seriously when discussing rape? it makes everybody look foolish. "

mfw assumes only ladies are citing polanski and allen. also assumes only ladies take rape seriously.

Well Holly, while you may have tits, you've confirmed you DON'T have ESP.

@ J-brah

"It also fails to overlook the case study evidence against child molesters and repeat behavior even after voluntary castration. "

Wat? Where did that come from? How is that even replying to anything written here that's not trolling?

"I'm sorry for using hostile language. "

Actually don't recall hostile language from "J". Maybe when you were posting as "........."?
Hey you never did answer the question of which you prefer when you can't get laid: a hole in plaster or your hand. Fidelity needs to know most men really do just use their hand. Unless you are Fidelity---?

......... 11.Jan.2013 22:08


And this is why you can't deal with sexual violence. You put it on the banners "no rapists," yet the numbers probably don't drop off much for sexual violence in the radical community. And when it hapens no one knows how to deal with it because everyones polarized between fear of what retribution looks like and empty rhetoric inspired by totalitarian fundamentalist "white bkyz" from the burbs. Sexual relations in your community are a disaster. I never sided with fidelity, because as wrong as he is a proper argument was never posed to him. This is the way a swaddling brat acts, not someone looking to dismantle patriarchy.

clarification 11.Jan.2013 22:34


Let me clairify, natural tendencies towards learned helplessness, lack of education and ignorance are probably more prevalent factors in the radical communities abilities to deal with sexual violence, not being able to adapt to using community as a means to combat it without state interference, etc. But this doesn't make things any better. This is posturing and troling. And IT switched named because another "...." took it over. But given the circumstances the only relavent question left is "how does society deal with the Roman Polanskis," to which your answer scares me. Especially when your solutions also remove state intervention and only leave angry reactionary peasants who scream "therew no forgiveness in my world."

Solidarity with Kerry Cunneen

really? 13.Jan.2013 10:49

"inbound pass from Paxon...to Pippen to..."

I found it shitty that the second a real argument was posted no one engaged with me. So I'll follow up. We can act like internet tough guys, and get all puffed up with hot air over something that though we should always be keenly aware of, isn't immediatsly significant in any way. My point is this, all the radical community has is the accountability process. You can't criminalize someone and meet them with an accountability process. That's not to say that the lrocess is the problem, but mysogeny is a sickness. And in the radical community you treat it as such. It'd be easier to garner support for a victim by saying, so to a victimizers friend, "your friend has a problem," and then treat it as any addiction. "Get help or get lost." The threat of violent retribution will never be removed from the equation, but maybe it shouldn't. But most, not all cases of sexuL violence should be treated as a victimizing addiction. That isn't to say that those unwilling to acknowledge its shouldn't be held accountable if not outright dismissed.

That being said, yeah I'm a male. But if I were victimized sexually, and my fucking cimmunity not only didn't acknowledge it but had had a history of such behavior, Id be looking for other people who had suffered similar injustices and looking to have a fucking conversation about it. Gotta fight these attitudes on the homefront before we can go out and dismantle patriarchy. Anyone is subceptible, I myself have had to go back and follow up with past sexual partners to make sure everything was cool. It took how many centuries for us a s aspecies to acknowledge what sexual exploitation even meant, gotta get the work in chilluns. I'm sure it would be easier than you think. Even if we fail miserably, we still want to end patriarchy...

....overwhelmingly most radicals aren't rapists.

Not sure which history you're reading 13.Jan.2013 12:54


>>>It took how many centuries for us a s aspecies to acknowledge what sexual exploitation even meant, gotta get the work in chilluns.

as a species it was never a problem until imperial warlike culture got out of hand. prehistoric women had no problem just killing someone who was a threat.

be very careful. if you respond it will reveal whether
a) you are a very sophisticated right wing troll in the anarchist movement

or b) just an anarchist with innocent but limited understanding of human history.

it's almost exclusively far right operatives who push the fantasy that women were always culturally second class citizens until forward thinking males "gave them" rights. part of this is this is a comfortable frame that soothes there egos. another part is they really can't conceive of human culture in any other way...in spite of the fact Northern European tribes lived without "misogyny" for centuries before the Romans and Christianity came.

Northern European tribes weren't the only ones...just off top of head for right now.

Don't overstate the serious problem of misogyny. It is a very late addition to European culture, no more than 1,500 to 2,000 years. The Middle East OTOH has had it for 4,000+ years. But even that's not a species problem. Humans are social animals. We would never have survived to have this problem if we STARTED out trying to oppress MOTHERS.

This may sound like nitpicking, but it's important to understand misogyny isn't an inherent human trait...it's a sickness imposed by imperial cultures. Once you understand that, you can intelligently try to UNDO the process, not reinvent the wheel.

I refer you to an excellent book:
Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven


........ 14.Jan.2013 13:20


No, I'm a realist. We, and I mean we, have a tendency of pushing to the forefront the best examples at the expense of the whole when looking at history. Even our best examples are not those that exist in the narratives that we, you and I were brought up with. That's whats shaped us up until the age of....now. Its not a healthy paradigm to look at nothing but world history, but it is something that you have to take into considerarion that we are using these examoles you've given and our ideogy to progress as human beingsand achieve somerhing that better. Something new bur old. Were trying to find ohrselves in a historythat arguably might not be ohr own, but find ourselves in univesal commonalities. I personally have had to rearrange the way I view the world. If I didn't, god only knows where Id be.

I'm not naive I'm just a bit of an Individualist in the classic sense of the word. A bit.

......... 15.Jan.2013 02:43


"Friends hold other friends accountable." A lesson taught in recovery. If you've run a successful accountability process, teach. Open up discussions and make sure bystandereds know how to react when their friends are accused of sexual violence. Their friends need help, not another beer. Not only is that a cowardly rewponse its being a shitty friend. An enabler in the sense of giving a junky a fix. Again, these are isolated incidents I'm basing this off of, but still too many acknowledged to feel comfortable about. And its the bystandered, the hgh fiving m.f.s who are dropping the ball.