Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her accusation wasn’t vague or flimsy at all, it’s absolutely in line with what experts in the field say people recall.

So much of this seems out of line with how victims behave. Initially tweeting her praise of her attacker? Editing her year-old blog to change her old story to align with her new story? Claiming she filed a report and then, only after Biden called her bluff, changing the nature and content of what she said she reported?

I was attacked 25 years ago and it never occurred to me to do any of these things. My attacker was pretty well-known in my field and I listened to people praise him. I've been silent, so in that respect I'm similar to Tara. But unlike her, I never praised my attacker. I never blogged about him and then edited my blog to put my own actions in a better light. I never made claims about my own response and actions that I later had to amend when somebody threatened to investigate me. When you're in the right, there's absolutely no need to defend or alter your account of what you did. It's really easy to stick to your story. The truth is bad enough, there's no need for all this drama.

Not when the person has power and prestige. Look at Weinstein cases. Some of them continued to see him even after being assaulted. They spoke positively about him and stayed connected out of fear of losing their careers if they didn't. Many of them said one thing back then and then another thing when they felt safe to speak out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most people here don’t seem to understand trauma.

Well, certainly - they “understand” it when it’s a woman they believe. If it’s a woman they’re trying to discredit, however, forget it. HYPOCRITES.

Agree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most people here don’t seem to understand trauma.

Well, certainly - they “understand” it when it’s a woman they believe. If it’s a woman they’re trying to discredit, however, forget it. HYPOCRITES.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her accusation wasn’t vague or flimsy at all, it’s absolutely in line with what experts in the field say people recall.

So much of this seems out of line with how victims behave. Initially tweeting her praise of her attacker? Editing her year-old blog to change her old story to align with her new story? Claiming she filed a report and then, only after Biden called her bluff, changing the nature and content of what she said she reported?

I was attacked 25 years ago and it never occurred to me to do any of these things. My attacker was pretty well-known in my field and I listened to people praise him. I've been silent, so in that respect I'm similar to Tara. But unlike her, I never praised my attacker. I never blogged about him and then edited my blog to put my own actions in a better light. I never made claims about my own response and actions that I later had to amend when somebody threatened to investigate me. When you're in the right, there's absolutely no need to defend or alter your account of what you did. It's really easy to stick to your story. The truth is bad enough, there's no need for all this drama.

Not when the person has power and prestige. Look at Weinstein cases. Some of them continued to see him even after being assaulted. They spoke positively about him and stayed connected out of fear of losing their careers if they didn't. Many of them said one thing back then and then another thing when they felt safe to speak out.

Because they wanted jobs. That doesn't apply here.

Anonymous wrote:It isn't uncommon for people to only give a few details at a time. This is true for people who are victims of sexual violence or domestic violence. They might even deny it happened or is happening. Often they will only want to share a little - they may see how people react or respond and if they feel safe and ready to add more. This can make it seem like they are lying or changing their story but it is very common to only share some details.

I have worked with women who have experienced trauma and they have denied x or y happened only to tell me years later that actually x and y did happen but they felt too ashamed or too scared or they just weren't ready to tell those details then. I guess to some people they are just dishonest liars but if you have a better understanding of trauma, these reactions make sense. Also there isn't one reaction. Some people are at the police station the morning after an assault and giving every single detail - but some aren't and that doesn't mean it didn't happen, they are just processing it differently. It isn't uncommon for people to take decades to talk about sexual trauma. That doesn't mean they lied.

I have no idea what actually happened or didn't happen - I don't know enough to come to any conclusion. Honestly right now, no one does, but there is nothing so far that would make me conclude that there is no way this happened. Trauma isn't textbook, it isn't linear, it isn't straightforward, it isn't the same experience for everyone. It can b messy and dark and the person often knows they may not be believed, they may be efforts to discredit them, to make them prove it...and it can take people a long time to feel strong enough to put themselves out there to take that. That is the case even when the person they are alleging hurt them isn't a public figure. To put yourself out there to be scrutinized by family and friends is one there - by a nation and media - you really have to be sure you are strong enough and in the right place to handle that. And you have to do it in a way and at a time that you think your voice will be heard, that you won't be silenced or pushed under the rug and you got up the nerve for nothing.

Anonymous wrote:It isn't uncommon for people to only give a few details at a time. This is true for people who are victims of sexual violence or domestic violence. They might even deny it happened or is happening. Often they will only want to share a little - they may see how people react or respond and if they feel safe and ready to add more. This can make it seem like they are lying or changing their story but it is very common to only share some details.

I have worked with women who have experienced trauma and they have denied x or y happened only to tell me years later that actually x and y did happen but they felt too ashamed or too scared or they just weren't ready to tell those details then. I guess to some people they are just dishonest liars but if you have a better understanding of trauma, these reactions make sense. Also there isn't one reaction. Some people are at the police station the morning after an assault and giving every single detail - but some aren't and that doesn't mean it didn't happen, they are just processing it differently. It isn't uncommon for people to take decades to talk about sexual trauma. That doesn't mean they lied.

I have no idea what actually happened or didn't happen - I don't know enough to come to any conclusion. Honestly right now, no one does, but there is nothing so far that would make me conclude that there is no way this happened. Trauma isn't textbook, it isn't linear, it isn't straightforward, it isn't the same experience for everyone. It can b messy and dark and the person often knows they may not be believed, they may be efforts to discredit them, to make them prove it...and it can take people a long time to feel strong enough to put themselves out there to take that. That is the case even when the person they are alleging hurt them isn't a public figure. To put yourself out there to be scrutinized by family and friends is one there - by a nation and media - you really have to be sure you are strong enough and in the right place to handle that. And you have to do it in a way and at a time that you think your voice will be heard, that you won't be silenced or pushed under the rug and you got up the nerve for nothing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her accusation wasn’t vague or flimsy at all, it’s absolutely in line with what experts in the field say people recall.

So much of this seems out of line with how victims behave. Initially tweeting her praise of her attacker? Editing her year-old blog to change her old story to align with her new story? Claiming she filed a report and then, only after Biden called her bluff, changing the nature and content of what she said she reported?

I was attacked 25 years ago and it never occurred to me to do any of these things. My attacker was pretty well-known in my field and I listened to people praise him. I've been silent, so in that respect I'm similar to Tara. But unlike her, I never praised my attacker. I never blogged about him and then edited my blog to put my own actions in a better light. I never made claims about my own response and actions that I later had to amend when somebody threatened to investigate me. When you're in the right, there's absolutely no need to defend or alter your account of what you did. It's really easy to stick to your story. The truth is bad enough, there's no need for all this drama.

Not when the person has power and prestige. Look at Weinstein cases. Some of them continued to see him even after being assaulted. They spoke positively about him and stayed connected out of fear of losing their careers if they didn't. Many of them said one thing back then and then another thing when they felt safe to speak out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her accusation wasn’t vague or flimsy at all, it’s absolutely in line with what experts in the field say people recall.

So much of this seems out of line with how victims behave. Initially tweeting her praise of her attacker? Editing her year-old blog to change her old story to align with her new story? Claiming she filed a report and then, only after Biden called her bluff, changing the nature and content of what she said she reported?

I was attacked 25 years ago and it never occurred to me to do any of these things. My attacker was pretty well-known in my field and I listened to people praise him. I've been silent, so in that respect I'm similar to Tara. But unlike her, I never praised my attacker. I never blogged about him and then edited my blog to put my own actions in a better light. I never made claims about my own response and actions that I later had to amend when somebody threatened to investigate me. When you're in the right, there's absolutely no need to defend or alter your account of what you did. It's really easy to stick to your story. The truth is bad enough, there's no need for all this drama.

Not when the person has power and prestige. Look at Weinstein cases. Some of them continued to see him even after being assaulted. They spoke positively about him and stayed connected out of fear of losing their careers if they didn't. Many of them said one thing back then and then another thing when they felt safe to speak out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her accusation wasn’t vague or flimsy at all, it’s absolutely in line with what experts in the field say people recall.

So much of this seems out of line with how victims behave. Initially tweeting her praise of her attacker? Editing her year-old blog to change her old story to align with her new story? Claiming she filed a report and then, only after Biden called her bluff, changing the nature and content of what she said she reported?

I was attacked 25 years ago and it never occurred to me to do any of these things. My attacker was pretty well-known in my field and I listened to people praise him. I've been silent, so in that respect I'm similar to Tara. But unlike her, I never praised my attacker. I never blogged about him and then edited my blog to put my own actions in a better light. I never made claims about my own response and actions that I later had to amend when somebody threatened to investigate me. When you're in the right, there's absolutely no need to defend or alter your account of what you did. It's really easy to stick to your story. The truth is bad enough, there's no need for all this drama.

Not when the person has power and prestige. Look at Weinstein cases. Some of them continued to see him even after being assaulted. They spoke positively about him and stayed connected out of fear of losing their careers if they didn't. Many of them said one thing back then and then another thing when they felt safe to speak out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her accusation wasn’t vague or flimsy at all, it’s absolutely in line with what experts in the field say people recall.

So much of this seems out of line with how victims behave. Initially tweeting her praise of her attacker? Editing her year-old blog to change her old story to align with her new story? Claiming she filed a report and then, only after Biden called her bluff, changing the nature and content of what she said she reported?

I was attacked 25 years ago and it never occurred to me to do any of these things. My attacker was pretty well-known in my field and I listened to people praise him. I've been silent, so in that respect I'm similar to Tara. But unlike her, I never praised my attacker. I never blogged about him and then edited my blog to put my own actions in a better light. I never made claims about my own response and actions that I later had to amend when somebody threatened to investigate me. When you're in the right, there's absolutely no need to defend or alter your account of what you did. It's really easy to stick to your story. The truth is bad enough, there's no need for all this drama.

Anonymous wrote:Question for those who have worked in Senate offices....

I watched Tara Reade give an interview. It was on Democracy Now, but I don't know if they actually did the interview or were just showing a clip. In the interview Reade recounts the events surrounding the alleged assault. She specifically says that it started with someone in the office telling her that "Joe" wants his gym bag.

I know this seem insignificant, but it seemed odd to me that any staffer would call the boss (Biden) by his first name. I thought everyone in the office called the person they worked for by "the Senator" or "Senator Biden."

When I worked for judges, we ALWAYS called them "Judge (Last Name)" The secretaries who worked there for years and years called them "Judge (Last Name)".

I was under the impression that ALL the staff in a senator's office would only call the Senator by their title.

Which makes me wonder about the rest of her recollections, such as Biden supposedly saying "you're nothing to me" and "c'mon man, I thought you liked me." Those just seem really odd statements and they don't ring true to me.

But, my question is really about whether a senate staffer would ever call a senator by his first name, "Joe wants..."

Anonymous wrote:Eva Murry post went “poof!”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her accusation wasn’t vague or flimsy at all, it’s absolutely in line with what experts in the field say people recall.

So much of this seems out of line with how victims behave. Initially tweeting her praise of her attacker? Editing her year-old blog to change her old story to align with her new story? Claiming she filed a report and then, only after Biden called her bluff, changing the nature and content of what she said she reported?

I was attacked 25 years ago and it never occurred to me to do any of these things. My attacker was pretty well-known in my field and I listened to people praise him. I've been silent, so in that respect I'm similar to Tara. But unlike her, I never praised my attacker. I never blogged about him and then edited my blog to put my own actions in a better light. I never made claims about my own response and actions that I later had to amend when somebody threatened to investigate me. When you're in the right, there's absolutely no need to defend or alter your account of what you did. It's really easy to stick to your story. The truth is bad enough, there's no need for all this drama.