Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can PP’s still say things like “I hope he’s happy” after reading about the hazing? Are you parents? Imagine his victim were your son. Or you believe it’s not true…or that time heals all wounds? Please explain it to me because I genuinely don’t get it. I can’t see a photo of him without feeling revulsion

Because I'm 50 years old and I'm not going to allow a fraternity hazing incident from over 30 years ago, one for which he was prosecuted, punished, and then received received probation for influence my perception of him for all time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lawyer here.

You are pulling all these "facts" from the lawsuit itself, filed by the plaintiff, which never went to court. Assault charges were filed but then dropped so any allegations of assault are unsubstantiated. He was convicted of hazing meaning he participated in in hazing, which sucks. But the whole point of fraternity hazing (which is awful) is that it is institutionalized abuse. You take insecure college kids who are looking for somewhere to belong, you abuse them, and then you tell them they now get to abuse other people who want admission to their club. Hazing is terrible but it is on the organization.

Keep in mind if Hamm joined that fraternity, he must have gone through the same hazing rituals. Meaning the stuff he participated in with the plaintiff in that suit likely happened to him, too. And then recall this was a guy who'd lost both his parents, had been neglected growing up... it's not an excuse for committing acts of violence against something but basically he joined a cult and bad things were done to him and he did bad things to others. And after that happened there's not a single report of Hamm being violent or hurtful. He spend nearly 20 years in a relationship with a woman who still speaks of him affectionately. He is well liked by friends and castmates, including the children he worked with on Mad Men.

There's nothing to indicate that he for sure did the things he is accused of having done, only in participating in hazing rituals in this messed up fraternity he joined. It's really good the hazing came to light and the fraternity was shut down. I feel awful for what happened to the plaintiff in that case. But you and I don't actually know exactly what transpired or what Hamm's role was, and all indications are that he never did anything even resembling those allegations ever again. Also, he was held accountable for the hazing! And he didn't fight the assault charges, they were dropped.

I am really big on accountability but to me it sounds like Hamm was accountable for his actions, and that the real culprit there was the fraternity that was rightfully closed. It's weird to keep holding this against Hamm simply because he's the one person involved in that incident who you know later became rich and famous.

Good post!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Hysterical” poster here. I shouldn’t be surprised that grown men (I presume) try to bury the obvious sadism and trauma of this case in legalese because they think Don Draper is just so cool and “the courts took care of it”. All successful male predators have their cultural and institutional enablers (male and female)…and they always use the same tactics of contextualizing away the harsh reality and calling their critics crazy.

Sure, context matters. But only so much. War crimes are still crimes even if everybody else is doing it. Rapist priests are still guilty if they were victims themselves. All deserve due process and to have their own side heard. But to actual defend and look up to someone you know committed a series of violent acts with the level of personal anger described? Who expresses no remorse?

I hope that with Harvey Weinstein, Woody Allen, Cosby, Batali, etc., this pattern is shifting. These men ruin lives and get to go on and have amazing careers because it’s more important to you to *under* react and stay calm, cool and collected like your on screen idols.

This. It was “a bummer” and “*he’s* moved on from it?” What a creep.

Callous here - I am a 50 year old woman and the mother of two daughters.

Sorry, but a lot of this sort of thing went on in fraternities and those you are accusing are probably the dad's of your kids' friends, your lawyer, your doctor, your dentist, etc. I certainly hope the culture and fraternity culture has changed or is changing, but if you think Hamm is some kind of psychopath for a fraternity hazing incident where the details about it were presented by a lawyer for a plaintiff in a civil case then you are hopelessly naive.

I’m 48. This stuff may have been done in our era but it wasn’t okay then either. I hear this kind of defense when someone’s husband, brother, good friend did this stuff which they have to reconcile in their minds.

I mean, at the time 30 years, people knew it was wrong and disguisting to behave as Hamm did. You are justifying something unjustifiable.

Anonymous wrote:I’m the lawyer from the long post. I’m a woman and a rape survivor. I’m not so much defending Hamm as defending people who might choose to forgive him, or not judge his entire character based on unsubstantiated reports from one event. I just don’t think we know enough to evaluate the situation and draw a final conclusion about a person. Comparing it to Weinstein is not apt, IMO— Weinstein’s abuse went on for years in the industry. He was hugely powerful and used his hate keeping position both to abuse his many victims and to keep them from being believed. Hamm is just an actor, not a producer with the power to make or break careers. I suppose it’s possible Hamm has done other terrible things, but we just don’t know. Honestly, his career has not even been that great. Outside of Mad Men, he’s made a handful of movies and done some smaller character roles in other TV shows. It sounds like his drinking has curtailed a lot of opportunities.

I also don’t get the assumption he’s lying about his childhood but willingness to take the one account from the lawsuit as gospel. Sure, he might be lying. But anyone might. These people are all strangers to me and to you. We are not well positioned to evaluate any of these claims.

All I’m saying is that I think it’s okay to decide you don’t know enough about what happened to draw a conclusion, and that you are not required to hate Jon Hamm for this. You can if you want, but I choose not to and feel fine about it even as a rape survivor myself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Hysterical” poster here. I shouldn’t be surprised that grown men (I presume) try to bury the obvious sadism and trauma of this case in legalese because they think Don Draper is just so cool and “the courts took care of it”. All successful male predators have their cultural and institutional enablers (male and female)…and they always use the same tactics of contextualizing away the harsh reality and calling their critics crazy.

Sure, context matters. But only so much. War crimes are still crimes even if everybody else is doing it. Rapist priests are still guilty if they were victims themselves. All deserve due process and to have their own side heard. But to actual defend and look up to someone you know committed a series of violent acts with the level of personal anger described? Who expresses no remorse?

I hope that with Harvey Weinstein, Woody Allen, Cosby, Batali, etc., this pattern is shifting. These men ruin lives and get to go on and have amazing careers because it’s more important to you to *under* react and stay calm, cool and collected like your on screen idols.

Callous here - I am a 50 year old woman and the mother of two daughters.

Sorry, but a lot of this sort of thing went on in fraternities and those you are accusing are probably the dad's of your kids' friends, your lawyer, your doctor, your dentist, etc. I certainly hope the culture and fraternity culture has changed or is changing, but if you think Hamm is some kind of psychopath for a fraternity hazing incident where the details about it were presented by a lawyer for a plaintiff in a civil case then you are hopelessly naive.

I’m 48. This stuff may have been done in our era but it wasn’t okay then either. I hear this kind of defense when someone’s husband, brother, good friend did this stuff which they have to reconcile in their minds.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Hysterical” poster here. I shouldn’t be surprised that grown men (I presume) try to bury the obvious sadism and trauma of this case in legalese because they think Don Draper is just so cool and “the courts took care of it”. All successful male predators have their cultural and institutional enablers (male and female)…and they always use the same tactics of contextualizing away the harsh reality and calling their critics crazy.

Sure, context matters. But only so much. War crimes are still crimes even if everybody else is doing it. Rapist priests are still guilty if they were victims themselves. All deserve due process and to have their own side heard. But to actual defend and look up to someone you know committed a series of violent acts with the level of personal anger described? Who expresses no remorse?

I hope that with Harvey Weinstein, Woody Allen, Cosby, Batali, etc., this pattern is shifting. These men ruin lives and get to go on and have amazing careers because it’s more important to you to *under* react and stay calm, cool and collected like your on screen idols.

Callous here - I am a 50 year old woman and the mother of two daughters.

Sorry, but a lot of this sort of thing went on in fraternities and those you are accusing are probably the dad's of your kids' friends, your lawyer, your doctor, your dentist, etc. I certainly hope the culture and fraternity culture has changed or is changing, but if you think Hamm is some kind of psychopath for a fraternity hazing incident where the details about it were presented by a lawyer for a plaintiff in a civil case then you are hopelessly naive.

Anonymous wrote:The Reverend Wayne Gary Wayne aspires to be the father of many, I’m sure

Anonymous wrote:“Hysterical” poster here. I shouldn’t be surprised that grown men (I presume) try to bury the obvious sadism and trauma of this case in legalese because they think Don Draper is just so cool and “the courts took care of it”. All successful male predators have their cultural and institutional enablers (male and female)…and they always use the same tactics of contextualizing away the harsh reality and calling their critics crazy.

Sure, context matters. But only so much. War crimes are still crimes even if everybody else is doing it. Rapist priests are still guilty if they were victims themselves. All deserve due process and to have their own side heard. But to actual defend and look up to someone you know committed a series of violent acts with the level of personal anger described? Who expresses no remorse?

I hope that with Harvey Weinstein, Woody Allen, Cosby, Batali, etc., this pattern is shifting. These men ruin lives and get to go on and have amazing careers because it’s more important to you to *under* react and stay calm, cool and collected like your on screen idols.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lawyer here.

You are pulling all these "facts" from the lawsuit itself, filed by the plaintiff, which never went to court. Assault charges were filed but then dropped so any allegations of assault are unsubstantiated. He was convicted of hazing meaning he participated in in hazing, which sucks. But the whole point of fraternity hazing (which is awful) is that it is institutionalized abuse. You take insecure college kids who are looking for somewhere to belong, you abuse them, and then you tell them they now get to abuse other people who want admission to their club. Hazing is terrible but it is on the organization.

Keep in mind if Hamm joined that fraternity, he must have gone through the same hazing rituals. Meaning the stuff he participated in with the plaintiff in that suit likely happened to him, too. And then recall this was a guy who'd lost both his parents, had been neglected growing up... it's not an excuse for committing acts of violence against something but basically he joined a cult and bad things were done to him and he did bad things to others. And after that happened there's not a single report of Hamm being violent or hurtful. He spend nearly 20 years in a relationship with a woman who still speaks of him affectionately. He is well liked by friends and castmates, including the children he worked with on Mad Men.

There's nothing to indicate that he for sure did the things he is accused of having done, only in participating in hazing rituals in this messed up fraternity he joined. It's really good the hazing came to light and the fraternity was shut down. I feel awful for what happened to the plaintiff in that case. But you and I don't actually know exactly what transpired or what Hamm's role was, and all indications are that he never did anything even resembling those allegations ever again. Also, he was held accountable for the hazing! And he didn't fight the assault charges, they were dropped.

I am really big on accountability but to me it sounds like Hamm was accountable for his actions, and that the real culprit there was the fraternity that was rightfully closed. It's weird to keep holding this against Hamm simply because he's the one person involved in that incident who you know later became rich and famous.

I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt and you’ve written a reasonable post. But one thing that you’re leaving out is the incredible power that people get when they become famous, and the power to control their image and what is said about them. I wouldn’t have a lot of faith in the fact that he seems to have an untarnished public reputation now. I mean, so did Harvey Weinstein. peoples tendency to stay quiet when it comes to people in power is incredible. So, it might be unfair, but my gut instinct is to think that someone who, as a young adult, nearly kills someone in sadistic behavior is not a really great person at the core. It may be unfair, but I think that is more likely than not. Also, to what degree has the sob story about his childhood been exaggerated or created by his publicity machine. People have no idea how much effort and money famous people can put to create a certain image. Worth being skeptical about all of this.

Anonymous wrote:Lawyer here.

You are pulling all these "facts" from the lawsuit itself, filed by the plaintiff, which never went to court. Assault charges were filed but then dropped so any allegations of assault are unsubstantiated. He was convicted of hazing meaning he participated in in hazing, which sucks. But the whole point of fraternity hazing (which is awful) is that it is institutionalized abuse. You take insecure college kids who are looking for somewhere to belong, you abuse them, and then you tell them they now get to abuse other people who want admission to their club. Hazing is terrible but it is on the organization.

Keep in mind if Hamm joined that fraternity, he must have gone through the same hazing rituals. Meaning the stuff he participated in with the plaintiff in that suit likely happened to him, too. And then recall this was a guy who'd lost both his parents, had been neglected growing up... it's not an excuse for committing acts of violence against something but basically he joined a cult and bad things were done to him and he did bad things to others. And after that happened there's not a single report of Hamm being violent or hurtful. He spend nearly 20 years in a relationship with a woman who still speaks of him affectionately. He is well liked by friends and castmates, including the children he worked with on Mad Men.

There's nothing to indicate that he for sure did the things he is accused of having done, only in participating in hazing rituals in this messed up fraternity he joined. It's really good the hazing came to light and the fraternity was shut down. I feel awful for what happened to the plaintiff in that case. But you and I don't actually know exactly what transpired or what Hamm's role was, and all indications are that he never did anything even resembling those allegations ever again. Also, he was held accountable for the hazing! And he didn't fight the assault charges, they were dropped.

I am really big on accountability but to me it sounds like Hamm was accountable for his actions, and that the real culprit there was the fraternity that was rightfully closed. It's weird to keep holding this against Hamm simply because he's the one person involved in that incident who you know later became rich and famous.