What bolder attack could there be on women’s freedom, reproductive or otherwise, than telling a woman that she may not work – that she is not entitled to economic independence – unless she continues to do so with the man she alleges sexually and psychologically abused her for over a decade?
This is what a judge told Kesha last week: that her own insistence of abuse wasn’t enough. That her words and thoughts and own understanding of truth on her terms weren’t enough. That surely her judgment couldn’t be as sound as that of her employer, Sony, and what they insist is best for her economic and emotional wellbeing. Really, it’s not any different than the anti-choice legislators who tell women that the state is better inclined to make decisions regarding a woman’s healthcare access and choices.
That’s a reasonable weighing of the evidence, isn’t it?
Jennifer Gerson Uffalussy was one of the founding editors of Jezebel.com and the founding fashion editor at RalphLauren.com. Her writing has appeared in Elle, Paper, Washingtonian Bride & Groom, LearnVest, Forbes and Tablet. She now lives in Atlanta, Georgia.
Hmm.
“That’s okay, your tears say more than real evidence ever could.”
According to another article I read via Twitter, Sony offered her another producer to work with but she declined believing Sony would not promote her work as much as with the current, supposedly abusive, producer.
She wants to get out of her contract with Sony? Am I following that story correctly? I am prepared to believe that the music industry is so full of low life scum that anyone and everyone probably raped her. But I am pretty sure Sony did not.
It would have been the gang bang of all gang bangs if they did.
In the end this boils down to whether contract law is over ridden by a feckless moron’s feels. I am prepared to bet contract law won’t long survive the feminist assault.
Maybe she should take to carrying a mattress around.
Listen and Believe™
“Maybe she should take to carrying a mattress around.”
I’m sure Rolling Stone are preparing their cover story as we speak…
“….that her own insistence of abuse wasn’t enough. That her words and thoughts and own understanding of truth on her terms weren’t enough.”
Yep that’s what happens when you lose an argument. Mind you, lord knows what ‘truth’ on a personal set of terms is.
” That surely her judgment couldn’t be as sound as that of her employer, Sony, and what they insist is best for her economic and emotional wellbeing. ”
Wait, what? That’s something entirely different, and unrelated to the previous statement. Is the author being disengenuous?
She could change her name to an unpronouncable symbol that demonstrates her struggle for independence from her oppressive label and then…
No. Forget that. Already been done.
That her words and thoughts and own understanding of truth on her terms weren’t enough.
I am not au fait with modern Leftist thought but is she saying that if I really really really believe Jews killed gentile children to make their Passover bread, I can lynch as many as I like?
This is the Mackinnon Doctrine again. Objectivity is male oppression of women, the law should listen only to the female subjective.
This woman’s marriage has it’s own website. FFS.
I think people in Britain tend to assume that American right-wingers are swivel-eyed loons and the left-wingers are the moderates. But it’s becoming increasingly clear that it’s if not mainstream then acceptable amongst septic progs to believe that:
a) Abortion should be legal at any time up to birth
b) An accusation of rape is tantamount to a conviction for the same.
Neither of these opinions is supported by logic (how could they be?) but arguing against them will get you branded a psychotic tea-party RETHUGLIKKAN who probably posts at Breitbart.
It’s pretty alarming.
“What bolder attack could there be on women’s freedom, reproductive or otherwise …”
Eh?
Is Sony stopping her having babies? Is Sony stopping her working in some other field? She signed a contract and is not successful enough to buy her way out of it.
Besides which I’m sure killing women would be a far bolder attack on their freedoms.
Hmmm, so here’s a pretty simple situation; woman alleges rape, demands to break her contract (that means she has to work with alleged rapist) despite never getting the police involved in her allegation. Contract lawyers say ‘Nuh-uh, lady, this ain’t grounds’ and woman throws public hissy fit, demanding to have her allegations accepted at face value.
“And that, in turn, their worth was meaningless without a man or a corporation to reify it.
Hmmm. Sounds like Islam. I eagerly await the hashtag you’re going to raise about that, Jennifer.
You are going to raise one, surely?
All of history proves, I say PROVES that there are not and never have been ANY women who tell lies at ANY time about ANYTHING and especially not about being sexually assaulted.
Do y’all hear . NOT ONE EVAH!!!
So here we have a woman who claims she has been raped–and won’t co-operate with the coppers in prosecuting the alleged assailant but wants the courts to let her out of her contract on the basis of an entirely unsupported allegation–one that she won’t even take any steps to back-up herself. As the septics put it–Say What?
It is clearly a brazen attempt to use wicked allegations for naked self-interest. Any jail time going should be hers to serve. And some contracts are null and void if one of the parties end up in jail are they not? Lots of UK employment contracts seem to be as most people who go inside lose their jobs.
So if she receives adequate punishment for her antics she might get the contract release she is after as part of the process.
What does the female subjective say about a woman who believes she was raped by aliens?
Are we meant to take it as truth just because she REALLY BELIEVES it happened?
Magnusw-
Yes you are. The truth of rape lies in the mind of the victim, not in the so-called “facts” peddled by the patriarchy. Claims of objectivity are how men objectify women. Which is where the “objectification” word derives from in feminism. The assertion of the objective is the subjection of women to the male gaze in the courtroom.
What is this “Kesha” of which they speak?
Employment contracts aren’t “null and void” if the employee is imprisoned but they are almost always “frustrated”.
Johnnydub here is the Rolling Stone piece you expected. To save you the trouble it doesn’t tell you everything you need to know. All I got after reading was an evil ear worm.
Even assuming all of Kesha’s allegations are true I haven’t seen legal justifications to break the contract. The only winners in this are the lawyers and my ears.
Err, I understand less about the case having read that Rolling Stone piece. Maybe that was the point?
Philip Scott Thomas – “She could change her name to an unpronouncable symbol that demonstrates her struggle for independence from her oppressive label and then… No. Forget that. Already been done.”
From that Rolling Stone article I have learnt she is going the other way. She used to write her name “Ke$ha”, but has now reverted to her actual birth name “Kesha”.
Yes that is her actual birth name.
Although her mother’s name is Pebe so what can you expect from dysfunctional Poor White Trash? This is child abuse. She should be suing her parents, not her producer.
SMFS, you will like this…
https://youtu.be/lmCjJ0VBjjU
SE and SMFS was the warning about the Rolling Stone piece not clear enough?
Perhaps it’s time to add a Ragging on Rolling section.
But it’s really quite simple love, just give them the transcript of the court case where the Sony producer was convicted of sexual assault / rape and job done.
What do you mean there isn’t one?