Jennifer Garner: ‘We can’t assume every man is guilty, due process is important’

Above is a photo of Jennifer Garner at premiere of her film The Tribes of Palos Verdes over the weekend. She’s wearing a cranberry velvet Johanna Ortiz gown with several edits, as you can see from this Instagram by The Fashion Court. The original dress had an entire right sleeve instead of just one wide strap and it was also even at the hem instead of asymmetric. Plus it had a giant bow at the waist instead of a belt. All of these changes made the dress so much more staid and it’s a lovely look apart from the green velvet platform shoes. Garner could have chosen worse shoes and she often does, but the green and red are a little too Christmasy for my tastes. Still this is a gorgeous showing from her.


Garner did an interview with that a tipster sent us. It’s hard to tell the context as there are no questions listed in the text and I wonder if some of these quotes are embellished. It just seems too candid for her. (People magazine has picked it up as well.) She allegedly goes into depth about the issue of sexual assault and harassment in Hollywood. Part of what she says is point on, but then I found myself shaking my head “no” at some of it. Read what she told them and see if you have a similar response.

“I would not have chosen this life for myself or for my kids. I would not choose to be single or be in this position. It’s something that we are working through. I haven’t been on a date and I am not interested in dating,” she tells, shaking her head. “People want to set me up and I am just like, ‘No thank you!’”

The estranged couple are co-parenting their three children: Violet, 11, Seraphina, 8, and Sam, 5. With two daughters to raise, she must consider the conversations she will have about men.
“We can’t lump all men into [the same category]. We can’t just assume that every man has done something awful or that every man is guilty; due process is important and has to take place.”

On the subject of whether we are at a sexual abuse and harassment tipping-point, Garner says earnestly, “Things have to come out in the open in order to be dealt with, and this is definitely one of those times. It’s messy, it’s not pretty, but a wound when it’s healing is a horrible thing to look at and to be around,” she says. “That is where we are. There are a lot of really smart people asking tough questions, and I feel excited to see what the outcome will be.

She leans forward, asking, “Did you read about the agricultural women workers? They said, ‘We stand in solidarity with our sisters in Hollywood.’ That really touched me because it felt, ‘Okay, it’s not just a bunch of solipsistic navel-gazing actresses.’ It’s really important conversation to be had.

“We need to be talking about how to educate and protect our young women and how women can do a better job of standing together. Women need to be there for each other so that we’re a more of a force. When you are siphoned off or siphoned off by yourself, you’re not that scary. Except for me.” She smiles. “I am pretty scary…”

I tell her that Affleck continues to gush about her maternal skills, describing her as the best mother in the world. She says simply, ‘That’s nice.’” But on the subject of being a ‘super mum,’ she adds, “I don’t know about that. You’d have to ask my kids. If you had the Affleck kids here, they would say, ‘Well, first of all, she was with you today instead of picking us up from school!’” She laughs. “Kids are tough on you.”

Despite how she feels about her estranged husband, her family comes first. “We will all be together for Thanksgiving. I love Ben, I wouldn’t want him to….” she trails off.

“We will be together with our kids and give them a special Christmas. We get along really well and it’s not an issue. We are friends; we can manage it.”


Notice when the topic of her family and kids comes up (presumably) that she goes into the “not all men” spiel and talks about men needing due process. There’s video of her estranged husband, Ben Affleck, behaving wildly inappropriately with two different talk show hosts, the evidence of which he now refuses to acknowledge. (He did apologize for one incident but has since mischaracterized it as grabbing a woman’s breast while hugging her. I’m just saying.) Also, I read that letter of solidarity with Hollywood victims that the women farmworkers wrote too and I found it touching. It would never occur to me to denigrate the actresses while describing how women of less privilege are supporting them. Garner says that the farmworkers are “not just a bunch of solipsistic navel-gazing actresses.” These actresses are not only her peers, they’re telling harrowing accounts of assault, harassment and rape. This is not the time to call them out for being egotistic. She knows how to couch all the rest in the right language and sentiment so it sounds like she’s saying the right thing. She’s somewhat like her ex in that way. They made a great team and still do. Again, if this is a legitimate interview, she’s still pulling for him and his image.

Garner also discussed her holiday plans in an interview with Extra and how she walks her chickens. Of course she walks her chickens on harnesses and loves to cook and bake. She’s just like us, right?

#bringonchristmas #ideckmyhallsNov1 #hohoho

A post shared by Jennifer Garner (@jennifer.garner) on


photos credit: and Instagram/Jennifer Garner

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

186 Responses to “Jennifer Garner: ‘We can’t assume every man is guilty, due process is important’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Nicole says:

    *sigh* she’s STILL protecting him. STOP PROTECTING HIM.

    • ArchieGoodwin says:

      Just full stop, Jen.

      Stop with the “due process” shit.

      • MousyB says:

        Right?? Ummm if due process/the system worked for victims in this country then we wouldn’t need journalism exposing this shit -_- Is she really that dense or does she not care, I’m thinking the latter…

      • ElleC says:

        That comment came across differently to me because she was talking in context of what she would teach her daughters about men… instead of it being an apology for Ben and other sleazy dudes like him, I read it as an effort to say, yeah “Daddy have been this way, but you don’t have to project that or expect that from dudes.”

        Maybe it’s my own experience speaking, but I think when you’ve been through serious family betrayal or addiction issues, one of the biggest challenges is not becoming embittered or resigned to expect abuse in every relationship. I have to consciously practice separating the past from the present and dealing with the person and facts in front of me, as they unfold. That’s hard stuff when you’ve been burned before.

        Not to mention, her comments were different when they asked directly about the floodgates opening on abuse allegations: “Things have to come out in the open in order to be dealt with, and this is definitely one of those times.”

      • me says:


        I agree. I think she wants her daughters to know that not ALL men are like that. She is also raising a son and wants her son to know that there are good men out there and he needs to be raised as one. What she said really isn’t wrong and I don’t understand the uproar on this thread. There are men that are falsely accused of rape and sexual harassment. Not all men are pigs and not all women are victims.

      • FuefinaWG says:

        me: I totally agree with your comment.

      • SoulSPA says:

        I also agree with @me’s comment.

      • ElleC says:

        Thanks @me – although I also agree that “not all men” arguments can derail and deflect from the more important point that ENOUGH men are sexual harassers and abusers that the vast majority of women have a #metoo story, not to mention, the number of unpunished assaults probably vastly outweigh wrongful accusations because it’s such an ordeal to be taken seriously. I’m disappointed Garner wasn’t sensitive to that, but I’m not sure she was thinking beyond her own situation.

      • Rdmum says:

        I totally agree with @me comment. I think at this point it’s more about her kids than him.

      • Moe says:

        Did anyone hear the interview with Greta Gerwig on NPR talking about her new movie ladybird ? she was asked directly about Woody Allen and she paused for a long time before she said basically that she was scared of saying anything and that there was a big fear of women – or men – saying anything because she was afraid of it being picked up wrong or way or saying the wrong thing or it being misconstrued. I think there’s a big truth in this. I think we need to be careful to leave room for all kinds of discussion dialogue and opinions. Not that we all have to agree on everything. It just seems to me reading some of these postings from people that if I were in the public eye I would be very scared to say anything besides the dual ‘ I’m glad the victims are finally getting a chance to speak out and that this is awful behaviour’. But some of it is a lot more nuanced than that. And I would be afraid that if we get too vitriolic to people trying to respond in their own way to what’s happening in processing everything that happens that will end up shutting down the conversation. Especially when it involves somebody really close to them. Not saying that that person didn’t do the thing that they’re accused of. But it would somebody close to you your heart again and go over the freaking a****** blah blah blah it’s going to be much tougher for you to process it .And then it will be witch hunt witch hunt witch hunt and the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater and then we stop listening to anybody. I hope that makes sense. maybe ill get slammed now

    • Vovicia says:

      I think her interest is more in her children than him. They kind of go hand in hand unfortunately.

      • Nicole says:

        True but at some point she needs to start protecting her kids FROM him. If he’s drunk around his kids? Displaying behavior that is crossing lines? She has to put her foot down.
        She just sounds stupid. Her kids are going to see their dad groping a 21 yr old on camera. Its out there.

      • Luca76 says:

        No her interest is him. If she was protecting her kids she wouldn’t repeatedly enable him.

      • lucy2 says:

        I agree, I think she’s attempting to protect her kids. We may not all agree with her, but that’s how she’s choosing to do it. I hope it’s working for them.

      • ORIGINAL T.C. says:

        There is a way to be supportive of an ex without condoning their bad behavior. Unfortunately I think she is normalizing Ben’s behavior to their 2 girls and a boy. There is a high chance those girls will grow up wanting to marry men just like their Dad and putting up with cheating. And her son, he is going to be sent to the rest of society thinking acting like his father is what good men do.

        People are too busy slapping her on the back to see how harmful and unfair her 1950’s view of “Dad is perfect”. Again, she chose to have 2 more children with Ben knowing he is a cheater, gambler, and addict. I wish some women consider their potential children when deciding to procreate.

    • Hh says:

      Honestly, she’s an older version of Jenny Slate pining after Chris Evans. Like girl, where is your pride? This man don’t love you like that.

    • Kate says:

      She will never stop protecting him. She will always use her kids as an excuse. Because growing up in a lie is better than reality I guess. It’s pathetic frankly.

      • ScotiaGirl says:

        Her kids are too young for reality right now. Do you think at 5 years old if Sam is told his Dad is an alcoholic, womanizer, gambler and sexual hassasser, that its gonna matter to him or he is going to want him banished from his life?. Or Sera at this point, come on, she is doing what any of us as Mom’s would to protecting her kids.

        Eventually all three are going to able to read volumes of information on him via the internet, but until they are old enough to process it and make decisions of their own based on that information, it is her job to protect them. It would be cruel to do otherwise right now. They are small kids, there is plenty of time for reality when they are older. Let them have a happy childhood even if it is a shielded one. They are not living with him, so she can control their safety around him and the narrative at this point. So what if they are in the dark about him and going on blissfully with their childhoods, isn’t that what you want for them to have as stable and as happy a childhood as possible and then welcome to reality when they are old enough?

      • Domino says:

        @Scotiagirl, her oldest is 11 and definitely old enough to know there are certain parts of her body no one should be grabbing. I guarantee you kids at 11 have access to YouTube, in some cases are posting videos of other kids online, or have a Facebook mom and dad oversee, and thus are exposed to FB news like “Ben Affleck grabs woman’s breast in old video”

        If you don’t explain how that behavior is never ok or acceptable from someone – even someone we love – your kids are going to be very confused. You could actually setting them up for further abuse.

        That is what the above posters are saying, and some of us know from experience what kind of crap happens when mom pretends like dad’s behavior is ok.

      • Milla says:

        IMO, she’s still over the heels for him. Kids will grow up and learn all about him, they can also sense things. But she’s delusional.

      • Nat says:

        How’s that pathetic? Everyone grows up in the illusion of future freedom, happiness, better jobs, better marriage, justice, peace, blah blah blah… It’s an incentive to live another day. You choose the lies you want to believe in and I choose mine. Everyone’s delusional to an extent. there’s no absolute reality and there’s no need to impose one’s perception of it on others, especially onto children.

    • Eliza says:

      Due process should also be afforded to the victims.

      How many cases dont go to trial? The majority. Sit down.

    • BKittyB says:

      I agree with ElleC. This is a reach, and not in context. Also, Jen is right with the comments. She isn’t protecting anyone. She’s talking about parenting.

  2. Ugh, Jen. Just ugh.

    • detritus says:

      Its like she’s so hell bent on him being a good dad that she can’t admit he’s a POS. And somehow shes seems to be projecting that to all other accusations. because Ben’s been accused and he’s ‘innocent’.
      There’s a line between supporting your children’s father, and throwing women under the bus.

    • There will be no “due process” on most of these cases because of the statute of limitations. And I’m sorry, but when there’s video evidence of someone being sexually inappropriate, that’s there. That’s out there. That’s truth. Ask Hillarie Burton. She was there, too. I cut Jen slack on a lot of stuff because we have a mutual friend who says she’s a very nice woman and I think she’s trying to be the best mother she can be, but I can’t look the other way on this topic. No way, no how.

      • Renee says:

        @ paranormalgirl, you said it best. I feel the same about Jen. I usually cut her slack too, but she needs to quit the due process nonsense.

      • K says:

        I think she has to live in denial in order to cope. The reality of who she married, and who fathered her children, might not be a truth she can afford to face right now. It’s really sad – she’s wasted her fertile years on a man who deserves no woman’s tears, but has caused plenty.

      • Otaku Fairy says:

        Agreed. If she’s going to bother to bring up due process, an honest conversation would involve acknowledging the fact that sometimes it’s not even going to get to that point, and that just because that doesn’t happen doesn’t mean that another person’s allegation is false. I believe that part of this is about her wanting her kids to understand that not all men are like that, but a part of it is also a thinly veiled attempt to defend Ben and hold out hope that he’s innocent.

    • detritus says:

      That’s how I feel too, not the friend part, just in general I think she seems good hearted and like she’s trying to protect her family. This is too far for me though.

  3. Esmom says:

    She looks amazing. As for her comment about due process, it is a very tricky topic that women I know have raised apprehensively. After all, it’s a foundational principle of our justice system. I think she does acknowledge that the women coming forward do need to be heard and believed and that things will be messy before progress can be made.

    • Raina says:

      I believe the reason she insulted actors is because she is one and it’s kind of a self deprecating sentence clearly. As for her stance on sexual harassment, you have to remember Ben is the father of her kids so she’s trying to be sort of diplomatic and not throwing him under the bus. But, inwardly, I can tell she’s probably furious with him.

      • lucy2 says:

        That struck me as self deprecating too, rather than insulting, but I can see the point that maybe this isn’t a situation to be self deprecating towards actresses in.

        As for her due process comments…sure, when talking about prosecution, which needs to be done in many of these situations (Weinstein, Westwick, Tolback, Ratner, Spacey). But companies don’t need due process to suspend someone, or cancel their contract, or for the industry and general public to shun them. That Schwann guy is a good example – he probably can’t be arrested for anything he did, but all those women spoke out, and we should believe them and give him the boot.

      • tara says:

        Furious with him? She’s waiting for him to come back to her. She’ll overlook it all if he agrees to call off the divorce.

    • ArchieGoodwin says:

      The problem with “due process” is the laws themselves are slanted towards not believing the victims. Like Sixer posted the other day, we believe all crimes happen and work to help the victim, EXCEPT sexual assault/rape.

      The laws, the guidelines to conduct investigations, the statute of limitations, are all slanted to protect the perpetrators, not the victims.

      Not targeting you, just commenting on why I think the concept of due process is misguided, here. It’s used as a cop out, not reality.

      • ell says:

        thank you. this is exactly why the whole due process thing is bogus, and will always be until they make a change in the way the handle it.

    • boredblond says:

      Due process and beyond a reasonable doubt are standards in a court of law..not public opinion. I’m tired of people saying they’re waiting for more evidence to come out in these means the women coming forth are not to be believed on their own. These are not cases being tried–the women’s statements are IT..Perry Mason isn’t going to show up with photos. You believe the women or you don’t.

      • Esmom says:

        I can’t say I know exactly what she meant because of course I don’t. I know my friends are looking at this through the lens of not wanting to create a false equivalence. It’s not at all about not believing the women or waiting for more evidence. It’s more about making the distinction between what Roy Moore did and what Al Franken did, for example. And their very different responses to the accusations.

      • Tourmaline says:

        AMEN five million times. I am a lawyer and sorry the court of public opinion and a court of law are two frigging different things.

    • QueenB says:

      “After all, it’s a foundational principle of our justice system. ” That was put in place by? Oh yes, by men. What a huge conincidence. It has no place in a society that wants to protect women.
      Everytime someone mentions due process you know they have something to hide.

      • littlemissnaughty says:

        I hate people bringing up due process. Due process is NOT the point here. es, you can look at it from your point of view and say dismantle the entire system but that’s not happening any time soon. My problem is that the real issue begins way way before the system ever comes into play. It’s an attitude problem, a societal problem. The general dismissal of women’s voices is so rooted in society that even the best system wouldn’t help them. Because if your friends think you’re lying or they doubt you, your family thinks you’re being dramatic, the police roll their eyes and ask what you were wearing, the doctor treats you like a piece of meat …. women (and men) will continue to not even report this sh*t. To not stand up for themselves and not stick together.

        Attitudes need to change first, the system will follow.

        This is why I hate that argument, especially coming from Garner. Because what her husband did happened on tape. And he’s still refusing to acknowledge it properly. Due process is not the point then. And this is where I absolutely agree with you, QueenB. Because grabbing women’s breasts and asses SHOULD be punishable. Most people I know agree that a woman absolutely has the right not to be grabbed. But that means nothing if that right is not protected.

      • Esmom says:

        I don’t know, littlemissnaughty. I agree 100% that attitudes need to change. We need major societal and cultural change. But as for throwing away the system, the Constitutional guarantee, we already have in place, that seems a bit too far. I know the system has failed many, but it has also protected many. I also think we’re (me included) nitpicking one thing she said, maybe unnecessarily.

      • littlemissnaughty says:

        Esmom, that’s not my point of view, actually. But I know that QueenB has said she is in favor of it which is why I mentioned it.

        A system usually reflects societal structures and hierarchies. So while one might argue that it’s outdated, I think we’re seeing that it actually reflects the culture quite accurately. I do thing attitudes need to change first, the rest will follow.

      • QueenB says:

        “I know the system has failed many, but it has also protected many.”
        And if you look at the identity of those people you will figure it out. It protects men and fails women. Its by design.
        I know its hard for a lot of people to question the things we grew up with and were indoctrinated by but its imperative to do that. Its soo deeply ingrained into people to defend the status quo.

        A womans word should always be enough evidence.

      • littlemissnaughty says:

        QueenB, should a man’s word be enough evidence? We’ve moved on from that and thank god we did. There has to be a better way.

      • Annetommy says:

        Do I believe women who say they’ve been raped? Yes. Do I believe that that allegation by itself is enough to throw someone in jail for 15 years? No.

      • Josephine says:

        There are many improvements that can be made to the way we handle sexual assault cases, but getting rid of due process is not the way. We could invest more time and effort in recognizing and processing sexual assault cases, we can educate and retrain law enforcement (something that does actually work when done right and done intensely), we can actually process rape kits. But even those efforts are not going to dispel the longstanding view of many that women are less trustworthy, are more apt to exaggerate, are too emotional, lead men on, etc, etc. Those societal changes will make the biggest difference. There are a million failures that occur well before a case makes it to trial and due process kicks in. Due process is fundamental to justice. There is no justice without it.

        Women need justice, there is no doubt of that, but we need to work at the more fundamental level of fixing the humans who in so many ways control access to the justice system in the first place.

    • K says:

      I read it more as her saying that the Hollywood complainants *aren’t* just a bunch of & etc (despite plenty of commentary saying that’s all they are and that they should shut up) and that the agricultural workers coming out and saying they stand alongside them is recognition that this isn’t mere LA self indulgence.

      Successful actors know they don’t get a whole lot of public sympathy due to the overwhelming financial privilege, so seeing women who lack that privilege recognising that it can’t shield actors from abuse, either, is validation.

      Of course, that may be my misreading it.

  4. minx says:

    Ugh, no.

  5. Bobbymilly says:

    She is cancelled

  6. Jussie says:

    Enabler and minimiser extraordinaire, Jennifer Garner!

    She’ll be protecting Affleck til the day she dies.

  7. InVain says:

    Jen always thought she landed the biggest prize in Ben. I think she’s still hanging on to that daydream, albeit by threads. I think it’s harder for her to admit to herself that he’s a total loser/harasser/abuser/manipulator than it is for anyone else. She’s in love with the idea of him. Hard to admit you fathered three children, whom you love dearly, with someone like him – the real him.

    And that dark red on her is lovely. Shoes are awful.

    • Lolo86lf says:

      In hindsight I believe Jennifer Lopez dodged the bullet when her wedding to Ben Affleck was canceled.

      • InVain says:


      • Jayna says:

        But by dodging that bullet, then took another bullet by at breakneck speed marrying the controlling Mark Anthony, and was too embarrassed to separate sooner. So she stuck it out. it lasted seven years. Mark has now divorced again since Jennifer. He’s had children with three sets of women.

      • InVain says:

        We’re not saying her picker isn’t broken… she just dodged the Batfleck bullet.

      • tara says:

        Marc Anthony is not perfect but he isn’t knee-deep in his own shit every time we all turn around. He doesn’t need J-Lo to protect him in the press or try to cover up his messes. J-Lo is the superior and smarter Jennifer.

      • magnoliarose says:

        No one is superior. I don’t compare women’s unfortunate decisions with sh.tty partners. All of it hurts and puts all the pain and job of single parenting on her shoulders. There is no winner here.

    • lucy2 says:

      “She’s in love with the idea of him.”
      Obviously we don’t know them, but I have a feeling this is pretty close to the truth – I could see her being in love with what he COULD be, not what he really is. And I think she pushed him in the right direction for a while, but at heart, he’s just not that good a person.

      • InVain says:

        Yes, obviously this is all speculation, right? But I’ve felt like that’s what her biggest problem with him has been for a very long time. You’re right about what she thought he COULD be… or what she wanted him to be.

      • Erinn says:

        I think this is a good summary. I tend to think it’s not just that he’s not that good of a person – I think the real kicker is that he’s exceptionally self destructive. He has some good qualities – clearly there were good times in their relationship. And I think at times her pushing him in the right direction DID help. I think he had moments where he did get positive momentum. But somewhere on the upward swing he delves back into self-destructive behavior and comes crashing back down. It’s sad, really. I tend to think he’s almost afraid that he can’t maintain the good habits and avoid the bad ones, so when things go well for a while, he’ll do something stupid and almost gets a feeling of relief from it. Pressure gone.

  8. Radley says:

    “Due process” is similar to the Republican talking point of “until proven”. It’s a cop out. There will be no due process in many cases because of statutes of limitations or corporate arbitration that’s weighted to protect the company, which protects the predator.

    I also don’t think putting a women lie type narrative out there is being supportive of women. Sure, a few will. But honestly that is the exception. So let’s not make lying a bigger deal than it is.

  9. Mia4s says:

    I can never decide if she’s fabulously manipulative or really quite pathetic. I tend to think it’s a combination of both. 🤔

  10. Tila says:

    Irritating beyond belief.

  11. HK9 says:

    I’m not assuming anything. Someone told the truth about someone’s behaviour and I believe them. And what is “due process”? Listening to people like you make excuses so they can confirm that they’ll never take responsibility for their actions and they can hurt people over and over again?? No Satan, not today.

  12. Mel says:

    I’m torn on this…
    I really like her (Sydney Bristow forever!)
    There are two things that come to mind:
    -the comments about actresses, I truly believe, are not a reflection of her thought process, but rather how outsiders are most likely to dismiss them as being “navel-gazing”. Raise your hand if you’ve heard that amidst all the incredibly tone-deaf and just plain rude comments since the Weinstein scandal broke out.
    -the second thing, about Affleck…once again, my opinion, you share it or not…By this point all these statements are here to stay and I honestly think they are solely for her children’s benefit. I think the ship has sailed in terms of defending him for him. I just don’t think she wants her kids to have access to all this documentation about their parents’ divorce one day and read what she truly thinks about their father…I could be wrong, of course.

    • Boxy Lady says:

      Mel, I absolutely agree with you on both points. You said it much better than I could have.

      There’s an article on the Daily Mail today about Natalie Portman. She says she considers herself lucky that she has never been sexually assaulted but she has a lot of stories about how she has been sexually harassed or discriminated against. The comments against her are *vicious*. I saw a lot of “Shut up Natalie!” and “She knew what she was getting into when she got into the business.” (Never mind that the article clearly states that she starred in her 1st film at age 12.) And there a lot of complaints about hearing about more and more accusations but those complaints are against the accusers and not the abusers, it seems.

      As for defending Ben, Jennifer has repeatedly said that her children come first for her. I think putting the father of those children in the best possible light is important for her because of how it affects the children. I honestly don’t think that marriage would have lasted as long as it did if she and Ben never had kids.

      • SilverUnicorn says:

        Daily Mail comments section is the antechamber to hell, you’ll never read anything more bigoted, racist, xenophobic, fascistic, etc. than what you can read on the Daily Mail or under any of its articles.
        Daily Heil more like….

      • Boxy Lady says:

        @SilverUnicorn I feel compelled to read some of those comments because I want to remind myself what’s out there and what I need to continue to fight against. I am eternally grateful, though, for the Celebitchy blog for its humor, intelligence, and sanity.

  13. detritus says:

    I want to talk about the dress, because it is beautiful.
    I would not have changed the hem or the bow, and I might have kept a cap sleeve, but agreed on removing the entire. Thats just too much for me.

  14. Louise says:

    She would take him back even now and hopes that one day he will “wake up” and think what the hell am I doing? and go back. Thus why she is not ever saying anything disparaging about him. I dont buy the “its for the kids”.

    Everyone has dissed Ben on this site for so long. He is who he is. No surprises there. If he wants to ruin his life, let him crack on. If he wants to drink himself to oblivion, knock yourself out. who cares? its his life. BUT Jen has so much sympathy and I never bought it. She never wanted this life for her and her kids but the nanny forced her hand because she went public. Then he would not leave Lindsay who has seemed to be around for a long time. I totally believe that he left her and she never kicked him out. Maybe for show once or twice but not for real.

    Lindsay dresses a bit trashy but I see how he would be into her. She is probably obsequious and its East coast – probably have the same politics etc. Who would put Ben n Jen together now? They seem ill suited.

    • Jayna says:

      Jen and Ben have the same political views. She campaigned for Hillary Clinton. She goes to a church that is welcoming of the gay community..

  15. Eiré says:

    I’m not going to say anything about Garner’s comments because it’s late and I’m tired, and I’ve just finished reading Farrow’s latest for the New Yorker and frankly, I’m sick about it–but, what I do want to say is that is literally like Australia’s own budget Daily Mail. It’s trash.

  16. Alexis says:

    In my opinion, she is pulling for him to protect her children. I know that feeling. The children will of course find out eventually that their father is not the hero they think he is, but finding that out at a very young age can be damaging to their psyche.

    • Jussie says:

      It can. But so can growing up being told someone who you see behaving terribly is a good person. So can adoring someone and finding out the fact they were total trash was hidden from you.

      Their father is an alcoholic addict who assaults women, cheated on their mother, slept with their nanny and who has repeatedly publicly said he’s more interested in working than in being a parent. That is going to affect them however it’s handled, and the state of Afflecks public reputation isn’t exactly the biggest potential trigger point.

      • Alexis says:

        It is going to affect them no matter what, but they should be old enough to understand their emotions when that time comes.

  17. Kate says:

    She is … uuugh. So many ridiculous parts I don’t even know where to begin.
    Of course, she talks about educating our girls and telling them to stand for themselves but nothing about educating our boys on consent, boundaries, abuse. And she should worry about teaching this kind of thing to her son because Ben Affleck is not going to and is not a great role model.
    Of course, not all men are pig, especially not the one she married and chose to have three kids with, after he has shown repeatedly, sometimes on camera, that he is in fact a PIG (not disrepect to pigs).
    The navel-grazing actresses comments. Mmm… It reminds me of when she very dismissively called Emily Ratajkowski the Blurred Lines girl. At the time, it looked like she wanted to defend her against sexist remarks on her breasts but given the rumors about Ben and her, it came accross as very catty let’s say.

    • Plantpal says:

      @Kate, that was the part that struck me, too. She has 2 daughters, yes. She also HAS A SON!! Who will grow up to be an adult male (only time will tell if he grows up to be a man). The father of her children is an adult male. If she supports this adult male in his poor behaviour, what’s a boy to think????? That when he grows up he wants to be just like Dad????

      I think she needs to be very clear: Some of the things my children’s father have done are very wrong, and there is never an excuse for wrong behaviour.

      Everyone else here is making wonderful comments in relation to the law and the victims and whether or not she is shaming actors who have come forward, so thank you for those!

    • mary says:

      Again as someone mentioned in a previous thread, Garner is yet another person lecturing WOMEN on how to not be victimized, not lecturing MEN to stop victimizing.

      “I would never have chosen this life”. Why don’t you just come out and say Ben left you for Shookus. She dances around this and bends over backwards to still appear as a soft place for Affleck to land. Its like she is STILL holding a candle for this men just in CASE he ever gives her the time of day again. FACE PALM!

      She is pathetic still about Ben, period. She needs heavy duty therapy and should really force herself to go on a date at least go through the motions of moving on. She will never move on from him it seems.

    • JoJo says:

      I remember the Emily R. thing – totally transparent. What Jen said about her was really catty, bordering on downright insulting/rude – seemed so obviously to come from a place of envy/jealousy given all the rumors about Ben/Emily and Gone Girl, etc.

    • magnoliarose says:

      If you knew your husband had slept with someone and you were asked about her what would you say? She did a better job than I would have.

      • Sophia's Side eye says:

        +1 thank you, was she supposed to be her biggest fan? Lol

      • FF says:

        Not commenting at all is a thing. People do it all the time. And as the mother of his kids or not Jen can just as easily do her thing and keep a diplomatic silence on the subject of her husband.

        Jennifer Lopez has managed to stay classy about Ben by just not talking about him or declining to go petty about anyone connected to him, all despite oversharing on every other topic. It’s possible, and agents vet those questions all the time.

        Jen G is not the first woman with three kids to separate from a social liability.

        This veil of motherhood over her desire to cape is what I find creepy. As if wpmen don’t find themselves in this position every day and her she has no option but to inadvertently buff and shine his public image “because the children”. It’s highly unconvincing on that argument, she should just be honest: he’s one of her priorities along with the kids.

  18. Jayna says:

    I think the shoes are amazing and love it with the dress.

    She is waiting for Ben and Lindsay to implode and Ben to come crawling back to her. I swear there’s a chance I’m right. Two-and-a-half years broken up and no interest in dating. I would say fine if it wasn’t so obvious she is still in love with Ben, which is not healthy.

    • Jussie says:

      I agree. I don’t think she wants him back right now, as he is, but if he comes crawling back and pulls himself together enough to play happy families again, yeah, she’ll totally start the cycle all over again.

    • JoJo says:

      Yeah, I think this is a plausible theory. This is exactly why I always suspected they wouldn’t actually go through with the divorce way back in 2015. Not because Ben actually wanted to reconcile but because he is generally cowardly in exiting relationships and doesn’t like bad press, and then there’s Jen who doesn’t easily let go and always leaves the door just a little bit cracked for him to walk right back in under the right conditions. I do think they’ll go ahead with the divorce, although that won’t necessarily change anything for her – nothing to prevent her from holding out hope even then.

      • Jenfan says:

        I really do wish she would move on and find someone else and be happy.

        I almost feel like her type A personality dies not let give up on the possibility of the “perfect family”. She tried so hard to keep that going – and she obviously could not do it by herself.

  19. LearningtheSystem says:

    I see the comment about due process in the context it is written as her telling her girls just cause your dad did all these awful things doesn’t mean all men are bad. It wasn’t spoken in context of the sexual allegations part of the article. I’ve told my girls don’t judge all men by the actions of your dad. So it’s a thing.

    • roberta says:

      No. The context is the sexual harassment allegations.

      • Kate says:

        The more I think about this sentence on “due process”, the more it appears sinister. Say what you want about Garner but she’s good at PR, at projecting a certain image. Surely, she understood the optics of talking about due process when her own husband, the man she has stood by again and again, is accused of sexual misconduct. It’s either a big, unexpected blunder in an otherwise great PR strategy OR a very, very calculated statement.

      • LearningtheSystem says:

        respectfully disagree…the quote is phrased DIRECTLY in what appears to be a response to how she will talk to her daughters about men:
        “…With two daughters to raise, she must consider the conversations she will have about men.
        “We can’t lump all men into [the same category]. We can’t just assume that every man has done something awful or that every man is guilty; due process is important and has to take place.”
        I think it’s a mother’s concern for teaching her daughters that men are not ALL good or ALL bad – that you have to get to know them individually and let them prove who they are. In light of the harassment that is coming to light in ALL areas, not just HW, it’s true universally for women. I have brothers who are good men. I have an ex who is not. One paintbrush doesn’t cover them all and that is what you have to teach your kids when their dad is one of the NOT good ones. Otherwise, they will end up with someone JUST LIKE THEIR DAD.

  20. Lizzie says:

    due process is for court cases not common decency. all of these men going down have multiple, reported cases of harassment either in pictures, video or writing that should have at least gotten them fired from their jobs long ago. the court of public opinion doesn’t have a statue of limitations and we will all remember her ex-husband is a pig.

  21. kat says:

    She is next-level pathetic. Still protecting him, still pining for him. It is crystal clear now that HE left HER, she didn’t leave him due to cheating or drinking or anything else. She also says in this interview that she has no interest in dating, hasn’t been on a single date since she split with Ben. She is still clinging to that defunct marriage and needs to wake up. It is OVER. Women like this make me sad. P.S. I think she looks like a tranny in that gown. People say that Shookus is masculine, but look at Jen. All muscles, no waist, huge hands.

    • mary says:

      agreed. time to smell the coffee honey and stop pretending you and ben are in a relationship. to continue to defend a man who has cheated, lied, and basically walked all over her like a piece of garbage is quite frankly…completely nuts! She is kinda “bat -you-know-what crazy” to still be pining for him like this after 2 1/2 years.

      Jennifer Garner has a very unhealthy obsession with Ben Affleck

    • Plantpal says:

      @kat I need you to know I CHOOSE not to date after my son’s dad left us. I figured my kid had one parent and he had the right to my time. My neighbour’s marriage imploded around the same time mine did and she started dating shortly thereafter. Her boys had to deal with a bunch of “uncles” and struggled with their mom openly displaying herself, etc. My heart broke for those boys. So let’s not be blaming Jen for not dating is my point. It CAN be a conscious choice. Lastly, I thought we were over policing women’s bodies. She cannot change the size of her hands. Her body has always been straight, without waist curves. I found your whole post a bit mean, in truth. I hope your point of view is a temporary misalignment of the stars, rather than representative of your true self.

    • ScotiaGirl says:

      I disagree, I think she was the one that did pull the plug and kicked him to the curb BUT she did still love him when she kicked him to the curb! I think she almost kicked him to the curb many times over the course of the years, but always took him back because she loved him and kept hoping that THIS time is the lucky charm and its gonna work, but eventually she reached her breaking point (the Nanny and also the fact that she found out about Lindsay and that it had been ongoing for years off and on so not just a random fling) and finally had to make the decision that even though he was the love of her life, she simply had to accept that he was not going to change so she had to do it and learn to get over him. The learn to get over him is still a work in progress, but I don’t think she will turn back now at this point. Maybe down the road if he cleans up his act and proves he can sustain it. Definitely think it was her that made, what would have been gut wrenching for her, the final cut IMO.

      I think it sickens her what is going on surrounding him and that he is always “in the frying pan” but IMO I agree with some of the others, anything she is doing/saying right now is for the kids’ benefit not his. Sera and especially Sam are too young to understand all that is going on with their Dad at this point. Some basics maybe but not all this hard core stuff. I don’t know about you guys but I would be protecting my kids this young the same way she is. They will find out eventually but when they are more mature and can understand and process it. They are too yound right now. Let them be kids, their time to come to terms with this will be down the road not right now.

  22. ell says:

    wow, just wow. i disliked her already because i find her manipulative, but this is a new low. ‘due process’ my arse jen, educate yourself and stop protecting fatfleck.

  23. Kate says:

    Sometimes I wonder if she’s not just waiting for the inevitable explosion of Linds and Ben so that he can come crawling back to her. He’s in a difficult phase PR wise and his default position in this case is always to rely on her. And the sad part is that I think she would take him back.
    Also, the more she talks, the more it becomes obvious they would still be together papstrolling at the Farmer’s market if the nanny had not gone public, Ben’s years long affair with Lindsay, drinking and gambling be damned.

    • roberta says:

      Of course she is. She must avoid the internet or turn a blind eye to all of the pics of Ben and Lindsay. She is living in the past and in total denial.

  24. Flipper says:


    • Blossom Betch says:

      I think we should cancel ‘canceled’. It sounds like petulant high-school speak (however well meant) and when used in some serious discussions on Celebitchy it comes off as inappropriately flip.

  25. Shak says:

    I love Jen

  26. Jenfan says:

    Maybe being married to Ben, and all his drama, being the only one committed to the marriage – while raising 3 babies, keeping up a pr image and career have just left her scarred and burned. I think they say it takes 50% of the time you were with someone to get over them. So she has another 3 plus years to go.

    Also – I really question the sourcing on this story. Why on earth would she give this story to some 2nd tier Australian publication? And now there seems to be full pick up on every entertainment site as well as Fox News etc.

    • magnoliarose says:

      It is supposed to be tabloid but I don’t know anything about it. If it is then I would want to know if this is a pieced together interview or a real interview.

  27. TheOtherMaria says:

    I can’t be mad at her for NOT throwing Ben under the bus, her children are just that, children — if they choose to kick dad out of their lives (and hopefully their triflin ass uncle too), that decision will need to be THEIRS without her influence, period.

    I did note her “how nice” remark pertaining to his gushing, she’s not trying to hear that 🤣

    I will always believe the victim, period, but my opinion is just that: MINE.

    We absolutely need proof (judiciously speaking), anything less is a slippery slope that IS/HAS been used liberally (here’s looking at you ‘circumstantial’ evidence- especially in cases where the perpetrator is a minority). Yes, most laws were created by men, however this doesn’t negate the burden of proof needing to be met before a conviction is given.

    In the court of public opinion, these bastards absolutely deserve to suffer from the fallout.

    /damn you Charlie Rose 😔

  28. Kate says:

    The more I read this interview, the more it makes me angry. She is clever, especially when it comes to PR so she must have known that her words would be interpreted in relation to Affleck’s gross behavior. Talking about due process when there are several different women accusing him, when he is on TAPE gropinh Hilarie Burton. She really is something else. They’re not even together anymore, I truly wonder what kind of interview she would be giving had the accusations came out when they were still playing happy family.

  29. amanda says:

    WOW. Just, wow. This is enabling behavior from Jen Garner. I don’t want to hear anything about how Shookus allegedly enables his drinking, blah blah. Jen Garner is THE ultimate Ben Affleck enabler, always has been and has just proven that she always will be. What do her stans say now? They always come into her posts and claim how over him she is, how she barely tolerates his presence “for the kids” and how she’s in such a better place. Um, not really? She is still clinging to him and their failed marriage. What a total joke.

    • Kate says:

      And people keep bringing up their kids but I don’t see how this level of denial can be good for them. What kind of message is being sent to those children? That it’s OK for dad to grope women at parties, to fondle women during work-related events, to sleep with nannies who are working for you? That no matter how abhorent your behavior, your wife will always be there to pick up the pieces and fix your reputation?

  30. Mcali says:

    People. No matter how she feels, for the sake of her kids she can’t come out and say her ex-husband sucks publically. Give her a break. He’s the perpetrator not her. She needs to protect her kids and do what she feels is best. No judgement here.

    • Luca76 says:

      NO ONE is asking her to stand there and trash Ben. They are asking her not to defend him in anyway shape or form. All she had to say was the part about the letter and leave it at that. No due process BS none. Because that of course is implying though there is video evidence there is some way that Ben is in fact innocent. She just needs to stop.

  31. Wren says:

    I’m tired of hearing about women this, women that, women should, women women women. NO! What about the men?? What about the men who DO THESE THINGS TO WOMEN?! We need to stop talking about rape, assault, and harassment in the passive voice. These are not just “acts of God” that happen to women, like getting caught in the rain or getting a flat tire. Like rape just fell out of the sky and landed on some unfortunate woman. These are CRIMES perpetrated BY MEN. (Yes, women too but I’m thinking of current events.) We don’t need to be teaching women anything, we need to be teaching boys and men NOT TO BE RAPISTS. We don’t need to protect women, we need to find out how to stop men from hurting them. The focus here is wrong and has been wrong and continues to be wrong.

    We don’t talk about any other crime this way. If someone robs you, you say you got robbed, but then you talk about the robber. You got robbed BY SOMEBODY. You don’t just leave it at what happened to you without bringing in the perpetrator. That’s key. Robbery didn’t just fall out of the sky and land on you, A PERSON COMMITTED THE CRIME AGAINST YOU and absolutely nobody is going to be thinking about said crime without thinking about the criminal. They’re also not going to be asking what you were wearing or how maybe perhaps you’re exaggerating or somehow brought it on yourself or were totally going to hand over valuables to some strange dude but then changed your mind and that’s not really fair to him now is it?

    • ell says:

      +1 a million times.

      some keep referring to sexual assault/harassment as something that just happens, as opposed to something YOU do. it’s an old idea that women have to be the ones being careful and not instigate men, because their sexuality is all over the place etc. it’s something i could expect from my mum who’s 60 (and even she managed to turn her ideas around by listening to my sisters and i), JG really needs to get a grip. i want to assume hers is just ignorance and not a malicious attempt to cover BA’s doings, but it’s becoming very hard.

    • Kitten says:


      Jen is feeding into the idea that women must always be accommodating, must always be open-minded, and must always give men the benefit of the doubt.


  32. Luca76 says:

    Sorry but no. She isn’t doing this for the kids. She’s doing it to justify why she has kids and probably still is enamored with the man. She is still in full denial. The problem is if she keeps these blinders on there will come a point(if it hasn’t already) where she is actually doing emotional harm to her children allowing Ben and his self destructive behavior in their life. Ben is a role model to their son and daughters of what men are and what marriage is supposed to be. Protecting him isn’t helping anyone.

  33. emma says:

    What kind of role model is she to her kids with this ignorant and enabling behavior? Her daughters are going to end up in toxic relationships with men who treat them like doormats, and her son is going to end up becoming a man just like Ben Affleck. Great job. God, she’s pitiful. I’m embarrassed for her.

  34. Annie says:

    I’ve had the misfortune of watching too many women protect horrible men and I will never understand why. I’ve seen all kinds of women protect their terrible husbands and boyfriends and never hold them accountable, then one day when it’s too late they feel stupid for all the times they protected them of consequences. Nobody is a bigger enabler than a woman, be it a mother or a wife or a girlfriend, when you don’t set boundaries and stand up to the men around you, you become an accomplice and an enabler. This is why so many of these men are emotionally stunted. They’re like children. Men like Ben have had every opportunity to make things better yet they choose not to because women baby them. Jen has stood beside him no matter what he does, so where’s the motivation to change? She’s never going to leave or stop loving him. That’s the mentality these men have. And so many women think is noble to be this stupidly loyal.

    I know many people see Jennifer as a saint, but she’s a doormat and she’s embarrassing. Ben’s karma will be his daughters who will see him for who he is when they’re old enough. And they will be so frustrated with their mother.

  35. OTHER RENEE says:

    My Mom never badmouthed my Dad after their divorce even though he was mostly an absentee father living in another state. She said she thought it would be destructive and that I could make my own decisions about him when I was an adult. I really applaud this decision. When you tear down the other parent, you cause grief to the child. Anything Jen says about Ben is out there for the public to read. That includes her children. I don’t blame her for keeping her mouth shut about him for her kids’ sake if nothing else.

    • minx says:

      But she’s not keeping her mouth shut, that’s the problem. She doesn’t need to weigh in on this. IMO she’s trying to have it both ways, to somehow stay relevant, but it just comes across as enabling.

      • Kate says:

        Minx, I’m not even sure what this iterview is about. Is she promoting a movie? Why are we hearing about Thanksgiving plans and due process suddenly? Me thinks Jen understands that she has the upper hand on Lindsay right now as the mother of Ben’ kids and his better half PR wise and she is using some if her capital on her no godd husband.

      • tara says:

        How does she have the upper hand over Lindsay? She may be the mother of his kids but he spends all of his free time with Shookus. He was out in NYC cuddling and holding hands with her. She is a priority in his life. Jen gets to spend a strained Thanksgiving Day with him before he jets off to NYC again to be with LS. If that’s the upper hand, that’s not much and it’s pathetic that she’d use her precious kids as leverage over her ex who has moved on.

      • Kate says:

        @Tara, I do not think she has the upper hand, I’m just trying trying to understand Jen’s reasoning. I may be wrong. I agree that it’s pathetic in more ways than one.

    • Domino says:

      I don’t think of it as badmouthing Ben – but that it is just teaching consent to children- a years long conversation.
      For example:
      Kids, you know, you can tell me anything. And it is wrong to grab and grope people. it is not ok if someone does that to you. You are allowed to have control over your own body and who touches it and who doesn’t.

      It starts from telling young kids they do not have to give a hug to ANYONE (including creepy aunt or uncle soandso), to what is appropriate when you first meet someone, to whom you can tell if something happens that you feel weird about.

      Should she also feel safe with her kids around creepy uncle Casey?

  36. JoJo says:

    I’m not surprised by this. She’s gushing about Thanksgiving with Ben and his mom (and Christmas together too!), just as much as Ben has been over the last week. She also gave the whole, “I’m not ready to date. No way, no how!” comments. Which … I get. Totally understandable that she’s not ready, but she’s no fool either. All of this isn’t in the name of “aw shucks, honesty” with the media. She’s still talking about Ben in ways that can’t possibly be just “for the kids” while continuing to hold the martyr position as the wronged women – “didn’t choose this for myself … don’t want to be single …. don’t want to date …” Why say any of that to the media – no reason for it.

  37. belinda says:

    I always knew that she didn’t leave him, not for his addictions or endless cheating. She is a stage 5 clinger. Her comments about Thanksgiving make it sound like Ben still lives at home, doesn’t have a gf and everything is hunky dory. If she truly wanted privacy, she wouldn’t keep giving interviews about her/their private life. And to think, some people actually still believe that Ben uses her. Listen, this dingbat wants him to use her. She needs intensive therapy, stat. He is not checking for you, Jen. Hasn’t for years, never will again, doesn’t matter how skeletal you make yourself or how many followers you get on instagram. It is OVER. She clearly doesn’t have any honest friends in her life, or a halfway decent agent, or they would have talked her out of these statements that make her sound desperate and pathetic. How pitiful…

  38. Odette says:

    On an observatory note, I love how, in the Lin-Manuel picture, there is a list of Board of Directors in the back and “Howard Tenenbaum” is the president.

    As for Jen? Not at all surprised.

  39. Chaine says:

    Sounds like she knows more sexual misconduct accusations against Batfleck are coming down the pike.

  40. tracy says:

    They were quietly separated around this time back in 2014. It has been three years. Does she think that making a public statement about never having been on a date (and not being interested at all) makes her look good or something? We all know that you are still clinging to the hope that Ben will return to you, Jen. It’s just so pathetic at this point. She isn’t strong, she’s weak. She was his enabler when they were married and she’ll continue to enable him forever. She really needs help. This is NOT a good look.

    WHEN is she going to stop talking about him and their failed marriage? No one asks Ben about it anymore because he clearly has moved on. But Jen is still talking about it because it is literally all she has. She will never be known for her acting career — just as the ex Mrs. Affleck. Sad!

  41. Carmike says:

    I have a feeling that Ben & Jen’s divorce is about to become final very soon or within the next couple of months. Hence Jen saying she never wanted this( to be a single parent) I think there is some type of agreement in their divorce that she will continue to promote his family man image. Jen is very good at throwing shade at Ben without him even realizing it but it is very interesting how supportive she has been since Ben went public with Lindsay. Yes she wants her kids to have a healthy father but she seems like she she is sounding off the last warning shot before the divorce is final.

    • tara says:

      I fail to see how anything in this interview was a warning shot. Just saying. She made herself sound like she is still obsessed with him. And I’ll believe that their divorce will be finalized when the judge signs the papers and TMZ has them. Because I think Jen will cling to him forever and finalizing the divorce ain’t part of that.

  42. MI6 says:

    Due process is one of the basic tenets of democracy. Principals above personalities, guilt mist be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
    All men are not harrassers and rapists, and cannot and should not be judged by the heinous actions of predators. Having a penis does not necessarily denote guilt. Misandry is as real as misogyny.
    @ at me knowing I am female and a survivor.

    • Kate says:

      Misandry is as real as misogyny. Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.

      • MI6 says:

        Your counter-argument? Or would you prefer to remain a victim of societal mores?

      • Kate says:

        Misandry is about as real as reverse racism. Men, especially white men, have all the power in this society. Sure, women can hate men, they can even hurt them occasionnally but they do not have centuries of history, institutions and entire societies to enable, protect and shield them from any kind of consequences.

      • MI6 says:

        So Kate, according to your argument, it’s ok when all white people are labelled racist because of the color of their skin?

      • Kitten says:

        Oh no white fragility alert.

        All white people ARE racist in the sense that implicit racial bias reinforces and supports our culture’s relationship with race, even if in-your-face displays of racism aren’t as common as they were pre Civil Rights Era.

      • Veronica says:

        …yes? Because it’s impossible to grow up in a supremacist society without becoming subconsciously indoctrinated with at least some of those ideas. The psychological and sociological studies abound on this matter. We all inure ourselves to problematic shit when the world is filled with stereotypes. Men are suspect to women for the same reason white people are suspect to POC – because if you aren’t actively fighting against systems of oppression, you are benefiting and tacitly upholding them. The people who stand to gain most from social injustice are the ones most responsible for recognizing their privileges.

        “Not all men” doesn’t help female victims of male abusers. It helps the men. Yeah, yeah, yeah, not all men hurt women, but a remarkable amount of them sure as shit stand by and do nothing when this stuff goes down. And since rapists and abusers don’t walk around wearing red flags, having a healthy fear of what a man is capable of until you know him better is something a lot of women require to survive. If your response to the frustration of female victims to systemic, predominantly male abuse is to turn it around and make it all about the rights of men, maybe you should think really hard about what you’re telling those women implicitly about the value of their lives and rights to you.

      • MI6 says:

        Wow, Kitten and Veronica. Just wow. You assume I’m white, huh? You know what happens when you assume.
        I AM one of those women who has survived, several times.
        Your brand of blanket blaming and prejudice is what keeps women victimized and prevents us all from healing and moving forward as a a society.

      • Veronica says:

        I didn’t assume anything about you. I responded to the privilege informing your statements, which are backed by a white patriarchal culture. You don’t need to be white or male to have opinions informed by cultural prejudices. Acknowledging hierarchy in a system is not the same as suggesting women entirely lack agency and opportunity.

        If you don’t want to have an honest discussion about the matter, be upfront about that, but don’t deflect the arguments being made and cast me as the villain. I didn’t insult or deride you. I am speaking from the perspective of a woman who has a substantial background in hospital/social work who minored in women studies and is finishing up her second bachelors degree. My position isn’t born of naïveté and misinformation – it’s a perspective gained from both experience and education. I am willing to listen to alternative viewpoints. I am not willing to be framed antagonistically because you refuse to do the same.

      • MI6 says:

        Education, as extensive as it may be, cannot teach compassion.

      • Kitten says:

        Classic. Just gloss over the counterarguments and jump straight to righteous indignation.

        Lots of us are survivors here-myself included-but I’m confused as to why you think that gives you moral high ground on the topic.

      • Veronica says:

        No, but it can certainly reveal insight into the problems of culture and society that inspire the animosity and fear the oppressed feel toward their oppressors. I have immense compassion for what these women went through. That’s why I have such outrage that it is tacitly allowed by the culture. Compassion is not about everybody playing nice all the time. Compassion sometimes means being willing to understand why people may hate or resent you for your privilege.

        Unless the problem is that I’m not being “compassionate” enough toward you. At which point I’d point out that I have very patiently outlined the points of my disagreement without resorting to ad hominem attacks. The veracity of your experiences is not in doubt, but neither do they grant you respite from external criticism nor do they protect you from possibly internalizing problematic attitudes. The fundamental point of my argument is about the unkindness of blaming victims for their legitimate anger and frustration toward the systems that make them suffer while not holding the actual system to the same standard.

      • magnoliarose says:

        There is no such as misandry. MRAs try to equate it with feminism, and it is beyond a joke. We should work to discard that word from our vocabulary.

        Some women hate men, but they usually don’t have all that much power to do anything about it. It “happened” to my brother who was reluctantly hired years ago by a woman who is a radical feminist lesbian but because of his high-level education and resume, she thought maybe a guy might be ok. VERY reluctantly. He was the only man in the office, and he said there was a chill at first but over time the women came to know him and like him to the point he was almost a mascot. They were radical feminist mostly lesbian or bisexual, but they included him in gay weddings and a baby shower, etc. He is still a hippie weed smoking dude in many ways and has done some fascinating things in his life, and they responded to him. Over time he proved he wasn’t some misogynist a-hole and wasn’t a bigot. He had a lot to learn, and he did, but these women had valid reasons to want to protect their success and atmosphere from men.

        This would never in a million years happen to a woman without sexual harassment. It would devolve into an abusive situation very quickly. The toxic aggression and mental and emotional violence would be unspeakable. He and some of the women broke off and started their own company and all these years later made it successful. This WOULD NEVER HAPPEN to a woman. NEVER.

        Man pain is real and all, but it is because of other men and their toxic masculinity, not women. You can be compassionate and empathetic. There are interesting movements within gender studies about men and how to improve our relationships with each other and how they can be part of feminism, but it is never about being victims of women.

    • ariel says:

      The difference between misandry and misogyny in our society is men wield most of the power. And we are conditioned to protect and excuse men. We are conditioned to believe men are telling the truth, and we are conditioned to believe women are lying.

      This is where your totally logical and reasonable principle is flawed.

      This harassment has happened to MOST WOMEN. That is a lot of women. It is not “every man” as predator, but it is many. Many more than we think. Men we know, and would never guess.

      And in all of these stories, common threads, there is no “evidence” to speak of because these crimes happen when the predator knows there is no one watching; and his victim (male or female) has less power, and the consequences of “making waves” are real. After watching woman after woman be vilified, harassed and having their careers be negatively effected- just for daring to not just take abuse from the predator- the calls for “evidence” seem, at best disingenuous.

      Of course, we want evidence. But it would be nice if we started on any kind of even footing. But as it is, we believe the man. We don’t believe the victim (male or female). That seems incredibly unfair, and part of a rigged system to keep predators getting away with crimes, because most men don’t get harassed/assaulted, so most men downplay it, engage in it, or don’t fucking care. ‘Ah, its a little grab ass, what’s the big deal?’
      It is a big deal.

      So yes, in a court of law, especially criminal law, where freedom is at stake, due process is important, maybe the most important thing.

      But recognizing a flawed, slanted system, and trying to stop, or even slow this epidemic of sexual abuse- is important. And it is important that at some point we recognize that women are equal, and deserve to be believed.

      As an aside, Jennifer Garner is kind of awful.

      • MI6 says:

        What is happening now is highly significant and terribly, incredibly important. It’s about time.
        It also does not mean that we indict and entire gender based on the actions of some.
        And yes, she is.

  43. tara says:

    This drives me crazy. You know how she can protect her kids? Stop talking to the press about their private lives. No one needs to know about your dating status, or how you’re spending the holidays. Move to another home that doesn’t have X17 photogs camped out on the road. Let them have a peaceful and private existence. She puts her kids and her private life out there unnecessarily, don’t for one second tell me that she doesn’t. But doing everything that I just said might render her even more irrelevant than she already is, and she loves and needs the attention. Those kids were raised in a fishbowl and she hasn’t done boo about it. The attention that she got/gets from being attached to Ben Affleck kept her around for longer than a sane woman would have stayed. Look at her instagram and how thirsty it all is. Everything she puts out there is for personal gain and attention, not the well-being of her family.

  44. Valiantly Varnished says:

    Jennifer is the definition of an enabler and is clearly co-dependent. She needs to get some counseling herself. And maybe sit down and be quiet and not say dumb crap like this to the press because she wants to believe her alcoholic gropy ex is not a bad person.

  45. nancy says:

    This story is everywhere and she knew that it would be. She constantly strokes the media fire around herself, Ben and their kids. She is always talking about Ben (directly or indirectly) and their marriage/divorce and it’s all so GROSS and unnecessary. Does she have anything else to offer the world or is that it? This doesn’t even paint her in a positive light, so what the eff was the point? Does she want people to pity her for STILL being hung up on her ex who has moved on? Is that her new narrative, that she’s this pathetic? Bless her heart. I feel sorry for her daughters because they have zero chance of being in healthy relationships themselves, not with what they’ve already witnessed at home.

  46. Amaria says:

    Pathetic. Hey, Jen, he doesn’t give a flying f*ck anymore and hasn’t for a while, he’s dating his drinking buddy! Mrs Get-Papped-While-Being-Saintly-Frumpy-Mom should get an Affleck-less life and move on, maybe then she could see things clearly.

  47. ashley says:

    There is just something so pitiful about how Garner continues to enable and protect him. And for what? He’s over in NYC whenever he can, Jen is not on his mind, I can promise you that.

    There is literally no way that she can prevent her kids from googling their father and reading all about his shenanigans. You want to protect them? Stop talking about them. Move out of a pap zone. But they are part of her “brand” so she uses them like pawns in some game.

  48. DiligentDiva says:

    So will people on here stop defending her, cause she is pathetic. I’m sorry it’s true.
    Her man had a side chick, a nanny and probably a number of others, on top of that he was a drunken gambler, she was separated for like over 2 years playing media games making it seem like they were getting back together, finally going through the divorce process and Ben steps out with his side chick, and now he’s been accused of sexual assault and still she defends him.
    I’m sorry she’s so pathetic in my eyes. Is this the example she wants to set for her daughters, that they should stick by their man no matter how much they hurt themselves, others, her….

  49. Veronica says:

    Nah. I think at this point, with everything coming out and what it says about the culture of Hollywood, we can safely assume that the burden of proof lies with the abusers, not the victims.

  50. truth hurts says:

    Jennifer is a clever devil. She is playing the PR game. The bible toting, forgiving, loving mom. That is what she wants you to believe. That is who she wants you to see and hear. This is why I live for the Jolie. She gives no f##ks to what people believe or think. If Ben had done half of this mess to an average woman he wouldn’t be over sitting at their dinner table for Thanksgiving nor Xmas, he would have his appointed time. This is beyond pathetic but somehow she thinks this makes her look good. I don’t for one minute thinks she wants him back but would except him for HW sake. She reminds me of that slack J Aniston talks. Always pretending. I bet they fight like cats and dogs for real. GMAFB. The way he has embarrassed her multiple times? She needs to stfd. Both she and BA are pitiful and those kids are the ones I feel sorry for.

  51. ScotiaGirl says:

    Read Lainey’s article on this today.

  52. The Original G says:

    Gee, all the victims of Hollywood harassers were “a bunch of solipsistic navel-gazing actresses?”

    She needs to stop parading those kids on pap walks. As for the idea she’s been protecting them, those kids have had a front row seat to the disintegration of their parents relationship all along. They know what’s what.

  53. Electric Tuba says:

    Looks like you’ve stepped in something , Jen. A big ole pile of mess.

  54. melissa says:

    Do you think she’s still pretending like Ben is single and pining for her also, or does she obsessively google photos of him and Lindsay, throw things and then sob herself to sleep? This is all pretty pitiful and yet hilarious. She’ll never move on or recover from this divorce. She’s too far gone. Something tells me that she isn’t honest at all with their kids. Do they even know about the divorce and understand what is going on, or are they kept in the same fantasyland where Jen herself lives?
    I dislike the dress. Shows that she has no waist whatsoever and she looks like a man in a dress with a bad wig.

    • Curious says:

      Lindsay Shookus is apparently a problem for Garner because she knows how to play the game and defend herself. 😉
      The dress would have looked better with that full one sleeve.

    • Annetommy says:

      Hilarious isn’t the word I’d use for her alleged emotional trauma. Particularly where kids are involved. It’s possible to have empathy even if you think someone’s behaving in a stupid way. I find. People get called out on this site for body shaming. I think the comments saying Jen looks like a man are frankly tasteless.

  55. zara says:

    I think she looks hard and kinda butch these days. Frankly, she looks like a drag queen here. She’s one of those people who looks better in the face and just in general when she has more weight on her. She’s trying to keep up with Shookus in all ways but especially on the fitness front, I guess.

  56. T says:

    Gee, wonder who this is?
    Blind Item #6

    Don’t believe the hype. This A-/B+ list mostly movie actress has everyone thinking she sits at home alone every night with her kids playing the woe is me card. She convinced the world she is not going to date but she continues to see the same guy she has been seeing for the past year or more. One of the reasons she hates her actor ex’s public girlfriend is that girlfriend has been known to leak stuff to tabloids about anyone she knows or works with.

  57. Curious says:

    Although she is right when she says that there should be proper legal procedures …
    I get the feeling that she is supporting the establishment who are the same as the gropers.

  58. Annetommy says:

    I don’t expect her to call out the father of her children as a sexual predator. Maybe I just don’t have the requisite high moral standards.

  59. Claire says:

    I don’t know the lingo of the times, but what does it mean when someone is “canceled”? I saw it mentioned in the comments from a Gabby Douglas post too. Forgive my ignorance.

  60. lila says:

    I don’t think she’s leaving an opening for Ben to come back in by not dating, nor do I think she’s still in love with him. I think he did a real number on her and she’s refraining from dating guys until she figures out and understands why she allowed herself to get played like that for so long. It was clearly a codependent, toxic relationship but it took her 12.5 years to officially call it quits. She’s obviously got her own massive issues and probably has serious trust issues, too. I think she’s a huge mess.
    Ben is a different story because he checked out of the relationship emotionally years ago and was basically using it and Jen and the kids for press. He did whatever he wanted for years, maybe spent a night or two on the couch, but was always allowed to come back, with all forgiven and forgotten. He held all the cards, really. He said jump, Jen jumped. He said, you don’t know enough, she took college courses. She was his slave who did everything for him and was Perfect Suzy Homemaker and he still left her. A caring friend should have given Jen the book “He’s Just Not That Into You” years ago. But people see what they want to see, I guess.

    All this said, I could be wrong. It’s entirely possible that Jen is delusional and still clinging to the hopes that they can resurrect their facade of a marriage. I doubt it, though.

    • Jenfan says:

      I agree with you. I think she is just super scarred from this experience. I really believe she wanted ever after with him. He couldn’t/ did not want to. It’s gonna take a long time to get over. Hopefully one day she finds someone who will really suit her.

    • nora says:

      Yeah, you’re right. When you think about it, it would be a bad idea for her to try to get involved with someone else. Imagine that you are completely obsessed with a guy. You basically give up a decent career to be the primary caregiver to the kids that he mostly ignores, so that he can have exactly the career that he wants. All of his wants and needs come before your own. You try to do everything for him to make him happy and he barely participates in the home life. You get breast implants but he has secret girlfriends. You cook elaborate meals that he likes and try to create the perfect home life. He still cheats on you and no matter what you do, he still leaves. He has issues with addiction and probably against your better judgement, you help him. He still falls off the wagon and then you feel used and stupid, and btw he’s been seeing someone seriously the entire time.

      It’s too easy to blame all of it on Ben. Look, if he’s not interested, then he’s not and you can’t force someone to be in love with you. But when you gave so much of yourself and sacrificed so much dignity in the face of humiliation, when it’s all over you have to ask yourself why you LET it all happen and go that far and for that long. It’s insecurity and low self-esteem and codependency. I would think that the last thing she’d want is to end up in another bad relationship. This one with Ben was a huge disaster. We know some of what has gone on, the stuff that has made it to the press. Imagine what we don’t know. Yes, he treated her like shit for years. The fact is though, that she ALLOWED him to do so. You are right and she needs to figure that part out first before she tries to have a boyfriend. She’ll just end up with another guy who uses her and takes advantage.

      And you know, as for Ben, he never seemed in love with Garner in the first place. He liked the idea of a wife and kids and what it would do for his image but reality was a rude awakening. Maybe it’s true love forever with Lindsay considering the hits that he took and continues to take to be with her but I doubt it. I think he found someone that he likes and who likes him but he’ll eventually get bored and move on. Guys like him shouldn’t get married or have kids.

  61. Talia says:

    Of course there should be a due process, and it is established and protected by the presumption of innocence, a constitutional right. For some cases it’s been done with publishers like New York Times and New Yorker do check their sources carefully, but media isn’t the body to produce the final judgement.
    Cases like Weinstein – with shitload of proof, and cases of “2 women accused the X for groping them” without witnesses – doesn’t make these equal crimes.
    Hysteria and automatic “I believe her/him” just like automatic “I don’t believe him/her” doesn’t do a shred of good to any of us.

    • Sky says:

      In the case of X there was video evidence on both cases . There was no witnesses on the 3 case, but other women said he fingered them at the party as well.

  62. FF says:

    Seems obvious to me: Ben is so dysfunctional that Jen can remain in his life via the children and the fact that they both know she can use her public cache to clean his public image whenever he needs it. And he will always behave in a way that needs it because that’s what he expects women to do.

    So he will always need her in that way, and it’s enough for her to be needed by him in any way. So that is their co-dependent relationship.

    I only see two things stopping it: him suddenly cleaning up his act permanently; or, him having another family with another woman.

  63. Sarah says:

    Does this mean we can say that the only reason you and Ben were married was because you got pregnant with Violet? The other two were band-aid babies?