Gabrielle Union wrote an op-ed about Nate Parker, rape, consent & education

wenn24538731

Over the course of a month, the Nate Parker story blew up. Literally nothing he said could make the situation more palatable. Parker was charged and put on trial for rape in 1999. The details of the case were always public record, but following the Sundance premiere of Parker’s film, The Birth of a Nation, the studio hoped to put Parker front and center of an Oscar campaign. And that meant putting Parker front and center for press availability ahead of official release of the film. Every interview Parker has given in the past month has made the situation worse. In fact, I would argue that with each interview, Parker has gotten progressively worse. The last interview was the one he did with Ebony more than a week ago. It was profoundly disturbing.

Throughout the past month, some wondered if the cast of The Birth of a Nation would say anything about Parker publicly. Some even name-checked Gabrielle Union, who plays a small but significant role in the film – her character’s rape is used as a the catalyst for Nat Turner’s Rebellion, even though many historians take issue with that idea entirely. Union has spoken publicly before about how she was raped when she was a teenager, and it made me uncomfortable to think that people were like “Gabby needs to speak about this.” She might not have even known, and even if she did, let’s keep our eye on the ball: Parker is the bad guy here, not the actors in the cast. We shouldn’t re-victimize a rape survivor just because of her proximity to an accused rapist.

In any case, Union has finally spoken out. She wrote an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times, which you can read in its entirety here. She writes about her own rape, how “rape is a wound that throbs long after it heals.” How she has been “in a state of stomach-churning confusion” since she learned more about Parker’s past. How black women in particular are voiceless in discussions about sexual assault, consent and more. Then she counters with what is basically an argument for what she is doing personally, and how she will approach the conversations around this film:

As important and ground-breaking as this film is, I cannot take these allegations lightly. On that night, 17-odd years ago, did Nate have his date’s consent? It’s very possible he thought he did. Yet by his own admission he did not have verbal affirmation; and even if she never said “no,” silence certainly does not equal “yes.” Although it’s often difficult to read and understand body language, the fact that some individuals interpret the absence of a “no” as a “yes” is problematic at least, criminal at worst. That’s why education on this issue is so vital.

As a black woman raising brilliant, handsome, talented young black men, I am cognizant of my responsibility to them and their future. My husband and I stress the importance of their having to walk an even straighter line than their white counterparts. A lesson that is heartbreaking and infuriating, but mandatory in the world we live in. We have spent countless hours focused on manners, education, the perils of drugs. We teach them about stranger-danger and making good choices. But recently I’ve become aware that we must speak to our children about boundaries between the sexes. And what it means to not be a danger to someone else. To that end, we are making an effort to teach our sons about affirmative consent. We explain that the onus is on them to explicitly ask if their partner consents. And we tell them that a shrug or a smile or a sigh won’t suffice. They have to hear “yes.”

Regardless of what I think may have happened that night 17 years ago, after reading all 700 pages of the trial transcript, I still don’t actually know. Nor does anyone who was not in that room. But I believe that the film is an opportunity to inform and educate so that these situations cease to occur on college campuses, in dorm rooms, in fraternities, in apartments or anywhere else young people get together to socialize.

I took this part in this film to talk about sexual violence. To talk about this stain that lives on in our psyches. I know these conversations are uncomfortable and difficult and painful. But they are necessary. Addressing misogyny, toxic masculinity, and rape culture is necessary. Addressing what should and should not be deemed consent is necessary. Think of all the victims who, like my character, are silent. The girls sitting in their dorm rooms, scared to speak up. The wife who is abused by her husband. The woman attacked in an alley. The child molested. Countless souls broken from trans-violence attacks. It is for you that I am speaking. This is real. We are real. Sexual violence happens more often than anyone can imagine. And if the stories around this film do not prove and emphasize this, then I don’t know what does.

It is my hope that we can use this as an opportunity to look within. To open up the conversation. To reach out to organizations which are working hard to prevent these kinds of crimes. And to support its victims. To donate time or money. To play an active role in creating a ripple that will change the ingrained misogyny that permeates our culture. And to eventually wipe the stain clean.

[From LAT]

I think Union is walking a fine line here, mostly because she’s proud of her work in the film and she genuinely wants to be part of a larger dialogue about sexual violence and rape. She’s very clearly giving Parker the benefit of the doubt, regardless of his own admissions and problematic statements. Would it be satisfying to see Union break professional ties with Parker publicly? Sure. But were people really expecting her to? She’s not acting as an apologist for him or for rapists in general, she’s just using this moment to draw attention to the larger conversation. The problem is that it won’t work. Because as soon as Parker opens his mouth again, that will be the story.

Photos courtesy of Getty, WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

88 Responses to “Gabrielle Union wrote an op-ed about Nate Parker, rape, consent & education”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. lilacflowers says:

    Gabrielle Union is an incredible woman. That she has to deal with this after her own history, that she has to deal with this while her own family is dealing with a horrific tragedy and Donald Trump stupidly inserting himself into that tragedy, is just, well, it makes me want to throw things at Parker while cheering Gabby. She doesn’t have to work with him again and she doesn’t have to make an announcement that she is never going to work with him again. She can do things her way.

    • Otaku Fairy says:

      Agreed. It must have been hard for her on more than one level to learn something like this about people she’s working so closely with, especially on something that has to do with rape. But she’s dealing with it a lot better than other people in Hollywood who have worked with abusers- she’s not trashing the victim, she’s not going on about what wonderful people they are or saying the past doesn’t matter because of their talent, and she’s not saying we shouldn’t talk about it or dismissing it as ‘tabloid fodder,’ she had an actual conversation about rape culture and consent. It’s a shame that a celebrity not making any of those other kinds of statements has to be seen as progress though.

    • Samtha says:

      I agree. I also don’t think she was “giving him the benefit of the doubt” at all in her statement.

      It’s a difficult situation, and she handled it professionally and sensitively.

  2. Mia4S says:

    I feel badly for her. She’s a survivor so I don’t judge or try to add to what she has to say, I only listen.

    Unfortunately, the conversation she wants to have is not going to come through this movie. Two accused rapists who stalked and harassed their victim using rape as a plot device? Gross and deeply disturbing. That will overshadow all else. Plus if they try to position the movie as an opportunity for talk about sexual violence? Ridiculous and opportunistic. That is not what they wanted to do with the movie. The shift is PR as the studio is just looking to make money on their investment. My sympathies to the other performers but I cannot in any way support this movie.

    • als says:

      +1000
      Exactly, they are trying to confiscate an important conversation on consent that sure as hell does not belong to their self-interested, desperate asses.

    • Timbuktu says:

      Ugh, I haven’t thought about it this way:

      “Two accused rapists who stalked and harassed their victim using rape as a plot device? ”

      GROSS! Seriously, how dare they? What entitled pricks, pardon my French.

    • Nicole says:

      Exactly. While I appreciate the Op-Ed and certainly the things she writes about teaching consent and sexual violence I’m going to pass on the rest. The movie is not an appropriate avenue to talk about sexual violence any longer. Esp when you have two men who raped and harrassed a woman to the point of suicide. I’m sorry but it makes me ill just to even think about them HAVING a conversation about consent and rape. They don’t respect consent themselves and I don’t want to here their thoughts on it. At all.

      And I esp do not want them propping up Union as their “see this rape survivor is okay with the movie”. Lord help me if that’s the new PR strategy. Just no.

      • Priscilla says:

        Great post Nicole. Just want to say that. Agree with every word of it.

      • Natalie S says:

        Perfectly expressed. I completely agree.

      • k says:

        I agree with what you are saying, but I thought her piece was powerful and she wanted to not excuse or give them leeway but to say why she did the film, why her characters story meant something to her.

        I agree these men aren’t the people that have any right to have this conversation but Gabby is, and I know she has done a lot of work for this cause. I have a feeling she wrote this more about protecting that work vs protecting the film although I am sure she is very proud of her work in it.

      • Mel says:

        You summed it up perfectly. I wrote a rant on my FB page about this when I read it over the weekend. I sympathize with Gabrielle Union and absolutely won’t dismiss her pain (or her dilemma in this situation) but my impression was of a gross PR move with “see our movie” as the message. And while it’s highly probable that she is 100% behind the message of the film, I get the uneasy feeling that she is waved like a flag to do damage control and even worse, maybe a bunch of gross guys with dollar signs instead of eyes decided that she would be the solution. With absolutely no regard to her feelings or pain…

      • JenniferJustice says:

        I agree with all you say, but I’m still having a hard time not seeing Union’s participation as merely another actress supporting a creep for the money, fame and potential award nominations everybody thought this movie would incur…before we knew. She can do things her own way, but how is it any different than the actresses who continue to work with Woody Allen? Would we give Blake Lively a pass if her character on Allen’s latest was a victim of child-molestation herself? I don’t think so. What if the Allen movie were about child molestation? Would we accept the spin that she did it to spread a message? I don’t think so. I would think, being a victim herself, would be all the more reason to opt out.

        And, since when has anybody on this board thought Parker’s involvement 17 years ago was anything other than guilt? I feel like Union is being treated with kinder kid gloves and not being called out for refusing to admit the obvious because that would mean what? She took a part in a movie with a man she knows raped a young woman, encouraged others to rape the young woman, harassed and stalked the young woman who summarily left that college and eventually killed herself? This movie is not the opportunity to explore rape culture simply by virtue of who’s movie it is and that any success will be HIS success. We’re all assuming Union knew nothing of his rape scandal until we did and I don’t buy that. I’m going to take a seat and calm myself down.

    • Priscilla says:

      Gabrielle Union’s statement was clearly written by Fox Searchlight’s PR team who are desperate to salvage their movie. Now they are encouraging us to see the movie to open up a dialogue about rape? What???? Wasn’t the screenwriter of the movie the other gang rapist who actually served quite a bit of time for the crime? Goodness me. We can see through the PR spin. I’m surprised Gabrielle agreed to do this. She is being used.

    • MC2 says:

      Yes! I thought about these two rapists sitting around and writing the screenplay for this and creating a rape scene for dramatic effect when they could just talk about their own raping past together. They didn’t have to wonder what the impact on the character could be- they could just draw from how suicidal their victim became. That part alone makes me shudder and want nothing to do with any of it ever. I feel for Gabby so very much. She is a rape survivor and to find out that the director who coaxed her during her rape scene was an actual rapist himself….I would feel re-victimized if I were her and I hope she doesn’t. Not enough wine in the world to wash that from my mind.

      • K2 says:

        I completely agree. She was willing to do the role because she thought the conversations it would elicit were important. Then she learned this.

        Their victims do not end.

      • K.T. says:

        It’s hard, on one hand I really applaud much of what Union writes about the devastating effect of silence and the need for discussion on consent, yet she undermines that criticality by seeming to disregard all that damning testimony and civil suit transcripts – basically saying, oh, but ‘we’ll never know/we were not there.’
        There’s a Huffpost rejoinder which I agree with written by Sil Lai Abrams which is called ‘I can’t take Gabrielle Union’s OpEd…lightly’.

        PLUS, it’s so scary that the ONLY writing credits are Nate Parker and Celestin, and THEY’RE convicted/accused gang rapists?

        Imagine it…they must have spent months and months holed away together, even years, writing together, piecing together a fictionalised story about the famous Nat Turner. Then they decide to use different TWO rape scenes (one about Nat Turner’s wife, the other an implied assault on an unnamed slave played Union) to propel the hero’s motivation and actions.

        I mean, you’re accused and one even convicted of rape and then you think you can make a movie about any the righteous justice of rape victims for the general public?!

        How incredible it is to see these two men, who appear to have gotten away with gangrape plus the intimidation of a victim, (she’s dead now and can’t argue anyway!) and then that’s what they decide to dedicate a big part of black womanhood to…rape? I. just. cannot. It’s seems so sociopathic.

      • K.T. says:

        Also, the Ebony writer tweeted that Nate Parker had a “preacher” vibe. I can just imagine…he was a star protected wrestler at college and him and his bro *used* an unresisting, highly intoxicated victim. She was a nobody freshman a few weeks on camps and not ‘relationship’ material. That’s what Nate implies from his transcript too. Maybe it was class motivated, i.e. the-trashy-girl-who-deserves-a-gang-train?

        Now, he’s thinks he’s the evolved preacher, but it’s still with same horrendously judgemental view. His ‘good’ women and daughters need to be protected and taught consent because he is a ‘flawed but still righteous’ man-preacher. Except the morality is so shallow because there’s so little self reflection.

      • MC2 says:

        K.T.- So true about the preacher vibe and I also feel that hasn’t changed. I also haven’t seen the movie and never f-ing will but wasn’t the rape boiled down to how it effected Parker’s character?! Not how it effected the actual rape victim herself…..women/girls were objects to him then and they still seem to be now.

        The bs that he spins, and now Gabby (feel for her but some of her talk is totally crap) that he didn’t know consent?! It’s all conjecture and thought when we are talking about it now and in the court of law but he knows, and I know, that at the moment that he was raping her, inviting his friends to rape her and then tossing her aside afterwards- he knew consent and that he didn’t f-ng have it. He can wonder about all the ideas now and toxic masculinity and all the horrible things that brought him & her there but in that moment (and I don’t care if it was 1550 or 1950 or 1999) he knew he was raping her.

    • QQ says:

      Exactly Mia, I also assume this underappreciated actress also has to pragmatically see her possibilities from this exposure/a chance at an Oscar!/income on the back ends in front of her and still needs to hustle for a labor of Love but F*CK the entirety of Parker and Celestin including rape as a plot device , working with a former victim in this capacity, just absolutely abjectly, unequivocally F*CK EM

  3. The Gift says:

    In the header, you can see she’s started messing with her face…. after denying it countless times on Instagram. Stop, Gabrielle

    • Luca76 says:

      Really? This is what you choose to talk about right at this moment?

      • Lucky jane says:

        Oh come on! It’s a celebrity gossip website!

      • Colette says:

        So why not talk about plastic surgery on a post about rape.
        I guess if there was a post about cancer it would be fine to talk about fashion because it’s a celebrity gossip site.SMH

      • Lucky jane says:

        Collette… Really? Was it that big of a deal? I apologize for the poster that isn’t taking things seriously enough.

      • Snowflake says:

        I think you guys are overreacting.

      • Luca76 says:

        I can’t answer for anyone else for me it’s because she’s opening up about a very traumatic experience where her consent was taken away and the idea of a dig at her appearance seems really gross. I get that this is Celebitchy but taking this kind of a jab at her at this very moment seems really low to me.

    • Snowflake says:

      What do think she’s done?

  4. Luca76 says:

    I really feel bad for her, there was a ton of Oscar buzz surrounding her and to have the type of brave performance she’s done tainted by of all things the very same horrific experience she’s faced. It also seems she wasn’t aware of the past accusations until they became public. However compelling her story is it doesn’t change the fact that Parker is just the worst so all I can do is hope she gets another chance to do something amazing in the future.

    • roses says:

      From what she’s wrote in her op-ed it definitely seems like she had to idea about the past accusations concerning Parker. She’s also an Executive producer on this film so this is just horrible that she has to deal with all of this.

    • Bridget says:

      I do too. She was so incredibly proud of this movie coming out of Sundance, and it’s just been ripped from her. A lot of people aside from Parker poured their heart and soul into that movie and thought they were telling an important story that was going to break barriers. Nate Parker has destroyed that for them too.

    • littlemissnaughty says:

      Yes, I feel absolutely terrible for her. I have no idea what it must feel like to work for decades in the industry, knowing she should have a bigger career that is probably hindered by the fact that she’s a black woman, and FINALLY getting a part that would most likely get awards buzz going and boost her career only to have her achievement tainted by yet another rapist in her life. Of all things. Good gawd. It’s a good statement. I’m not going to criticize her for trying to make the best of it. Not her.

  5. LA says:

    This whole situation is just the worst. That’s all I can say about it.

  6. Jenna says:

    I’ve always really admired her, but I was disappointed that her stance is effectively “no one outside of that room knows what really happened.” Isn’t that basically the language of apologists? And if we go down that road, then effectively nothing can ever be ruled as rape or assault or murder, unless it’s literally captured on tape or something. It’s hard to hear that coming from her. Something which discounts the campus harassment, the legal treatment of rape victims, the gross legal loopholes that get off accused rapists, the suicide, the fact that both accused men have long remained friends and colleagues, wrote the movie itself, and that neither seems to care at all about the woman in question. And they’re happy to write rape scenes into their movies regardless of their pasts. I just feel like it’s such a horrible situation that not coming down on one side or the other just seems a little strange.

    Then again, it’s surely also a problem if we prescribe a kind of “you should know better!” thing to women who have experienced rape. She’s entitled to her feelings. I just hate that what should have been a great, important movie has just been soured and spoiled so horrifyingly by two repulsive individuals.

    • Timbuktu says:

      You’ve summarized it beautifully. It seems like it could have been a powerful movie, but now even if I see it (which I don’t intend to), all I’d be able to see is a bunch of entitled manipulative men using portrayal of injustice for their financial gain, and I wouldn’t be able to get into the movie at all.

    • Bridget says:

      As Side Eye posted below, someone Gabrielle liked, trusted, and worked alongside for months was accused of perpetrating a heinous crime. Nate Parker isn’t a series of transcripts and documents to her, he’s a person she knows. I’m not going to blame her or tell her she’s not saying the right things for hoping to salvage something.

    • Crumpet says:

      “no one outside of that room knows what really happened.” Isn’t that basically the language of apologists?

      Yep. Her reply would have been perfect if she had left that out. However, she is not the one on public trial here, so I’m not going to spend even one ounce of outrage toward her, especially since she herself is a victim of rape, and this kind of thinking is not uncommon for someone who has been through that.

      I’ll save it all for Nate and all the other rapist and the rape culture.

      • Mrs. Odie says:

        Also, the victim was in the room and SHE didn’t know what happened. She was too intoxicated. Which is one of the reasons she was unable to be a consenting participant.

  7. jeanpierre says:

    I’m grossed out at him touching Gabrielle. Misérable pos. I can’t Read these threads anymore. This Is too disturbing.

  8. als says:

    I am sorry but the simple fact that she wrote this letter was a terrible mistake IMO.

    Most people know that when you see an unconscious woman you don’t rape her, where is the conversation about Consent here, what Consent are we talking about? The victim was passed out like Brock Turner’s victim. You don’t need to make a movie and to get studio backing to open a conversation that in this case does not exist. This is a clear situation – the victim could not give Consent. Everyone is just dancing around the obvious here. No word of the harassment that followed ‘what happened in that room’. Also, the ‘conversation’ they want to open seems to want to include every victim excepting the one that was Nate Parker’s victim because ‘no one knows what happened in that room’.

    And I don’t know how Gabrielle ended up writing this but, in case she didn’t notice, SHE wrote it, not a male member of the cast, SHE did it – a woman and a victim of rape no less. #fatheroffivedaughters #brotherofsisters #manthatworkswithwomen

    It is a delicate situation but Gabrielle missed a golden opportunity to just keep quiet. If she did read the 700 – pages transcript, then these words of her are just horribly oblivious.

    • k says:

      Sadly many people don’t know about whether there is consent- one of the reason so many people get away with it is because we have lived in a no means no world and so people excuse the passed out thing with the well they were fooling around and then she passed out so he thought it was ok.

      The reality is we do need to have a larger conversation on consent, we do need to teach our young boys that the onus on consent is on them and stop putting it on girls and we haven’t had that. All you have to do is read the letters in the Brock Tunner cases from the victim, to his parents, to the lawyers and the judge to know that this is a serious issue.

      While it is painfully obvious to anyone with a brain that if a person is unconscious they can’t give consent the law and a lot of people excuse this behavior and it is upsetting so we should have the conversation.

      Also to discount the work Gabrielle has done on this issue and think she wasn’t calculated and she didn’t put thought into it.

    • Aren says:

      Exactly. A girl was raped and she wants to talk about consent?!

    • JenniferJustice says:

      The friend that was invited and encouraged to rape the young woman Parker was raping, certainly knew it was wrong. But Parker, his roommate, and even Gabrielle Union are unsure?

      Sorry, but if this were a white actress, she would NOT be supported for her obvious support of a rapist. And yet, I see post after post talking about the lack opportunities for black women in the industry and how this underappreciated actress should have more and be further in her career than where she is. The excuses made for her are sickening. The fact that she was a victim herself should make her all the more sensitive to Parker’s rape victim but she only seems sensitive to Parker – her paycheck. Talking about the lack of opportunities for women of color is basically calling her out as an opportunist. Her op-ed is offensive to rape victims.

  9. aims says:

    I can’t help but feel that the victim is being revictimized. My heart breaks for this woman , and I know she took her own life, but my god, even in death she can’t have peace . The victim is this young woman who had been raped, then had to go through the pain of a trial, where I’m sure she was painted in a very bad light and dragged through the mud. She’s the victim . Someone took something from her that clearly wasn’t for the taking.

    My thoughts go out to her family. This is clearly a very painful situation . The rape of their daughter, then her suicide and now this. It’s unimaginable .

  10. DiamondGirl says:

    I continue to be disturbed by the fact that those two rapists wrote a rape scene into a historical story when there was no such thing in the actual events.

  11. Jean Grey says:

    Gaby is towing a fine line because she knows that in several circles, it has also become about race, and as I have read on some sites, some are saying this is a conspiracy to hold back a Black man from telling an important story in Black history. Those that are saying this are bringing up Roman Polanski and Woody Allen and how they still seem to be untouchable in Hollywood regardless of their disgusting predatory behaviors. So I see it as her trying to speak carefully as a victim, as an actor associated with the movie, as well as a Black woman who is trying to understand each variable of her part in this.

  12. This whole situation is if suck met up with terrible and had a baby called disaster.

    Nate Parker is a jackass and a monster and he raped a woman and got away with it because we have a terrible and unbalanced legal system. I can’t define what’s happened in his head in the decades since but he decided to and was lucky enough to be given a platform to write a movie about an important piece of black American history. Gabrielle Union an open rape survivor and activist was given a role close to her heart and likely after months of working alongside him likely felt she was working alongside a respectful talented man who shared the same visions and hopes for black storytelling as her.

    I can only imagine it’s a gut punch, especially as a rape survivor, to realize once again you’ve seen the ugly truth of rape where the good well mannered intelligent man can do and be a part of something so horrific.

    I know many people are conflicted not because we want to defend Nate, screw him, but because we can count on one hand the number of times blacks are given a platform to tell their own stories and to see that all crash and burn while freaking Brock goes home yesterday. Sigh…

    I don’t think we can blame Gabrielle or attack her or want something from her. I can’t imagine how confused she is now. What I do know is that the legal system needs to work correctly THE FIRST TIME. Because if it doesn’t work correctly the first time then there is no room or hope for redemption and Nate, much like Brock, will forever have their crimes as a scarlet letter upon their chest.

    I don’t know if this man changed in that he never raped again. If being selfish and self-centered is the same as raping or what kind of man he truly is now. What I do know is he owes a LOT of people an apology, starting with the young woman in question rounding all the way to the cast and crew he screwed out of this beautiful opportunity and especially to Gabrielle Union.

    • k says:

      totally agree

    • Pepper says:

      I’ve seen that comparison to Brock before, and I’m not sure I understand it. Nate got away with his crimes completely, and would of forever if he’d been smart enough to keep a lower profile. If he wasn’t acting in this film, just directing and writing, it’s highly unlikely anyone would have paid enough attention to notice his sketchy past. But he wanted to be a star, and was apparently too stupid or too driven by ego to realise that wasn’t going to work out well.

      Brock’s sentence was appalling, but at least he was convicted, did spend time in jail and will be a registered sex offender. His life will be affected. Had Nate gone down a different career path he never, ever would have been affected in any way. Even he’s admitted he never had to think about it before now.

    • I Choose Me says:

      Completely agree with everything you said. Gabby is in a no-win, untenable situation and my heart hurts for her. I can only imagine how confused and conflicted she must be.

      As to Brock Turner getting out three months early, I seriously said f-ck the world when I heard the news.

  13. Melly M says:

    For me, it`s a risible idea that we need to educate men that “silence certainly does not equal yes” if we are talking about an unconscious woman. You hardly have to be Einstein to figure out the reason she is not screaming no may be something else than her desire to have sex. Of course these men know that. They just assume our society tolerates it and doesn`t care enough about that victim to call it rape.

    P.S. I found it disturbing that I googled “accuse” and “rape” some time ago and the large majority of the results were about “women making false rape accusations” and about how men can protect themselves against it,

    • Betsy says:

      Thank the MRAs for that. They actually think that’s a larger threat than women being raped.

    • I Choose Me says:

      The idea that false accusations of rape are a frequent thing makes me rage when it’s a FACT that rapes are under reported.

  14. Colette says:

    I am happy she wrote the essay .I have found that most people in my life didn’t know she was a survivor of sexual assault and hearing her POV gives a different perspective.I haven’t read the transcripts so I am not addressing this case but I think there needs to be more discussion about consent.This weekend I have spoken to men and women of various ages who still think not saying yes does not mean no.Many guys have told me they have never clearly asked a woman if she wants to have sex they just go with the flow.If she doesn’t say no or stop or don’t or push him off than she is consenting.Basically if she doesn’t said no,it means yes.

    • Jane.fr says:

      We had the same experience at work with young people (13-17). A lot thought, still, that not saying yes does not always mean no. And unfortunately, many were girls. They thought that a honest yes, would make them look slutty, or that it was less romantic if the question was asked and answered. That somehow the boy would look in their eyes and just know.

      The discussion about consent is needed. With boys and girls.

      Gabrielle is right then she says that a boy should not accept” a shrug or a smile or a sigh”. I’ll add that girls should know that they have a right to their sexuality and should not be ashamed or embarrassed to consent in a clear an unequivocal way.
      There are mentally deranged people, who express their rage through sexually assaulting women (and men), in a back-alley. There are animals who think it’s ok to sexually use someone unconscious. I ‘m not sure what can be done in those cases. But too much rapes are committed by stupid a*holes who actually believe that since the girl did not say no, she was ok with it. That discussion should prevent those.

  15. Wren says:

    I really don’t understand why people are so confused about consent. We handle it just fine in every other aspect of our lives, but for some reason when sex is involved (or possibly involved) all that goes right out the window.

    Instead of sex, let’s replace it with cookies. You want a cookie from someone, so you ask. If they say no, or ignore you, or sort of smile but say nothing, do you grab the cookie anyway? No. You’re bummed but you deal because it’s their cookie. And if you do take it anyway, you know it’s wrong and everyone else knows it’s wrong. Do you stand there and demand cookies? If you do nobody is going to defend you. Do you get aggressive about the cookies, pushing and grabbing for them? You’re probably going to jail and nobody is going to think twice. Of course you should be punished, you don’t get to go around taking stuff from others and assaulting them if they don’t want to give you anything. Even if they gave you a cookie yesterday, they don’t owe you cookies forever. Each cookie is a separate thing and if you want another one you have to ask again. If they only want to give you half the cookie, you accept that because it’s their damn cookie to divide up and give out as they please. You can try to make them laugh, perform tricks, or tell them a story in hopes of getting them to want to give you the cookie, but none of that means they owe you the cookie, and you know it.

    People who go against the rules when it’s a cookie are rightly punished and scorned. Yet if it’s sex, suddenly everyone’s all confused.

    Why is this so freaking hard?

  16. Lucky jane says:

    My heart goes out to anyone that has been sexually assaulted. I was sexually molested as a child and that took a lot of time to get over. I feel like rape would have been even worse and harder to deal with… So I cannot imagine what someone goes through.
    I have done my best with my son to explain to him that there are boundaries and lines that you do not cross. This is also one of the many reasons that I have tried to explain to him that he should not have sex with anyone outside of a relationship with real feelings involved. I do not ever want my son to look at a woman as something to be used and thrown away. Most men are stronger than the women that they go out with and hang around. They have a responsibility to stay in control of themselves no matter how a woman may make them feel. And I think that men that go out just looking for random women to have sex with are playing with fire.

    • Otaku Fairy says:

      Most of what you said is spot on, except for the comments about casual sex. I’m not even sure you actually meant anything awful by it, but it’s important to not blame rape on something like people having sex without committed relationships because that’s a part of the victim-blaming narrative. The implication that rapes happen because people are out having sex without establishing a committed relationship first or that all sex that doesn’t come with an already-established boyfriend/girlfriend/boyfriend-boyfriend/girlfriend-girlfriend/marriage mate/potential marriage mate dynamic is treating people like waste (or otherwise mistreating them) is very much a part of the rape culture that’s being criticized here. People, of all sexual orientations and genders, can and do have sex with people without being in love with the person, while still making sure everything is mutually consensual and treating that person with the same basic respect shown for any other human being. And marriage, dating, and commitment being present don’t prevent people from abusing others.

  17. Lucy2 says:

    I feel for Gabrielle, she’s in an impossible position with this film, and given her own history as a survivor, none of this could be easy for her. Well I will be happy to never see Nate Parker again, I do hope Gabby and the other actors in the film are able to move past this.
    I don’t agree with everything she said, but I do applaud her for standing up and speaking out, and being brave enough to share her own story in the hope of helping others.

  18. Alldamnday says:

    If she hadn’t referenced reading thebtranscripts and still “not knowing” what went on in that room, I would take this statement as a well-positioned bandaid to cover a too-large wound. As written, that part smacks of apologist rhetoric.

  19. Natalie S says:

    No, I’m sorry but no.

    We know what happened because there was a witness there who testified. It is not he said/she said. And we know that Parker and his writing/rape partner harassed that woman all over campus. How far back do we need to bend to pretend we don’t know what happened?

    Gabrielle Union did not have to write this. And it’s disappointing that she did. This is just Nate Parker hiding behind another woman in his life. How many women and their experiences is he going to use so he can promote his movie?

    This has to stop.

    • lisa says:

      people seem to conveniently forget the witness and the aftermath of stalking and harassment.

      if you know that and omit it, you are a jerk who is re victimizing the victim

      if you dont know it, then you need to learn more about the events before you comment

      they need to stop trying to make fetch happen because each thing i read just makes it worse because they look more self serving each time

    • Aren says:

      I guess Gabrielle Union missed that part?

  20. Priscilla says:

    I can’t even stand the sight of Nates face. My thoughts are always with his victim who had to abandon her education after Nate hired a private detective who revealed her identity all over campus. Then she committed suicide. It would sicken me if Nates movie got even one nomination. Google and read the transcripts of the case. She was only 18 when it happened. So upsetting. The fact that this has come out is karma. Finally the woman he gangraped is getting some measure of justice.

  21. jferber says:

    Too bad Gabrielle, whom I like, is involved in any way with the sociopath rapist Nate Turner and his co-rapist/former college roommate. She deserves better, and so did the victim, many times over. She needs to ditch the pair in the future.

  22. Bridget says:

    I’m sorry, I just cannot get behind all the people telling Gabrielle she shouldn’t say something. It may not be what you want to hear, but in a discussion about women and victims of rape being without voices (which Gabrielle does quite literally in the movie) are we seriously telling her to shut up?

  23. ElleBee says:

    On the topic of disgusting rapists…has anyone been following the Derrick Rose rape case? I urge you all to read it but not if you’ve just eaten, also not if you were hoping to eat a nice meal later.

    D. Rose and Nate Parker both deserve the deepest, hottest part of hell.

  24. kri says:

    See this is part of what rape does. It affects the victim-their life-forever. No what may be Union’s best work may be overshadowed by the actions of that pig. She’s getting hurt all over again. So sickening. And all victims of rape and abuse go through this. It NEVER ends with the rape itself. I have nothing but respect for her strength of character and her work. Parker and Celestin can go ROT.

  25. Jen says:

    I’m sorry, but her op-ed was “safe.” She may have read the court transcripts, but if she had read the phone call transcript, it would be crystal clear to her that he is a RAPIST. Before she made a statement, she should have done her due diligence and researched thoroughly. Since she already unknowingly made a RAPIST $ by starring in a movie in which part of the story is that a woman is raped. This is beyond sick. I admire her courage as a survivor but she must have the courage to advocate for other survivors and name Nate Parker for what he is: a damn RAPIST who should be in prison so that this film was never made and so that his victim would still be alive.

    • Colette says:

      She wasn’t on the jury who despite being in the courtroom listening to everything in the transcripts found him not guilty.The jury didn’t name him a damn rapist yet she is supposed to?

      • Jen says:

        You’re damn straight. Because had the phone call transcript been allowed as evidence, which is what REALLY happened, he would have been found guilty.
        New flash: Our criminal justice system is flawed, no, f*cked up.

  26. Snarkweek says:

    Parker being free to live his life and fulfill his dreams while his victim is gone from this world forever. Umion having to come to the realization that something she has poured her heart and soul into is tainted by this monster. Parker and his partner using rape as a vehicle within a powerful narrative as if it were a prop. Oscar buzz for a black actress when she yet again portrays a character who is degraded and dehumanized by men and society. This is all so absolutely soul searing.

  27. marley says:

    Bottomline:

    She wants you to see the movie. Which is why she is writing this. There literally is no other reason. This movie was never about a ‘larger discussion’ – it was about Oscars. The Oscar nods are threatened now…and they are pulling out ALL stops.

    • kibbles says:

      I agree. I sympathize with Union for being a rape victim. I’m sure she does take violence against women seriously in her home and teaches her stepsons to respect women. That being said, business is business. My feeling is that she felt pressured to say something rather than remain silent, and the studio helped her publish a PR friendly op-ed to implore people to see the film. Union wants her Oscar nom and this op-ed to me seems that that goal is more important than the life of Nate Parker’s rape victim. Parker’s rape victim was shamed and ostracized on campus. She received a meager $17k to go away, and because the crime was committed at her place of learning, she had almost no choice to drop out. Unlike Union, who was lucky enough to move on from her rape by a stranger and go onto become a famous actress, Parker’s rape victim’s education, career, life, future were ruined by Parker and Jean Celestin. No one can convince me that seeing this movie is worthwhile. I wonder if Union is personally disgusted by Parker and Celestin’s actions or if she is more concerned that she and this movie probably won’t win any Oscars.

  28. Jwoolman says:

    There are really two issues here and she seems to only address one.

    I can understand her feeling she should give benefit of the doubt in the original incident, particularly if he was drunk. Alcohol greatly affects judgment in different ways for different people. You would think once he sobered up he would realize the total wrongness of his actions – but it was a different time, and he was undoubtedly surrounded by people telling him it was no big deal. It’s amazing to me, considering the times, that the other guy even got convicted. Things were that bad. And that’s why it is so important to keep teaching people about consent and when consent doesn’t reliably exist and that consent can be withdrawn any time and yes, even what should be obvious — that you don’t have sex with an unconscious or drugged/drunk woman because she can’t give consent. Men have to police themselves on this also, rather than staying silent or saying “no big deal” when it happens.

    But they were both cold sober when they began and continued the harassment campaign that probably caused the most damage and ultimately resulted in her suicide years later. She may have been able to recover from the rape itself, but that harassment must have really put her over the edge. There is no uncertainty there. The school is complicit in that crime. They must have known what was going on. Even back then, there is no way anybody could excuse it.