Chloe Dykstra published her Medium essay mid-June. The essay was carefully worded to avoid naming Chris Hardwick, her ex-boyfriend and the man who (she says) emotionally abused her for years. Everyone knew it was Hardwick though, especially when he released a gaslighting response to her essay, then took her old text messages to TMZ in an effort to “prove” that she was a liar or something. Hardwick’s career took a temporary hit, but less than two months after Dykstra published her Medium piece, Hardwick was back at AMC and AMC’s “internal investigation” into his behavior went nowhere. Dykstra released a statement saying she didn’t cooperate with the internal investigation and all she wants now is peace and quiet. As a reminder, Dykstra also posted this tweet on Friday:
Hey dudes. Just a reminder: I 100% stand by every single word of my essay. I made sure it was unembellished, factual, and that I had evidence to back it up in order to protect myself in case of ACTUAL litigation (not a network investigation, where I’m not protected). That is all.
— Chloe Dykstra (@skydart) August 10, 2018
You know what I hate? That Dykstra could have done literally anything and Hardwick’s MRA fan-boys would have gone ballistic and said that whatever she said and did was “proof” that she was lying. She clearly was not seeking to hurt his career. She clearly was just trying to tell her story and be believed and for people to understand what she’s gone through. That’s it. And for that, she’s faced down some truly awful sh-t.
Speaking of whether or not Dykstra’s essay will affect Hardwick’s career long-term… no, it won’t. But there are some people who don’t want to work with him ever again:
Chris Hardwick isn’t getting a warm welcome back to work. Staffers at his show “Talking Dead” are quitting in protest over Hardwick’s Sunday return — two months after an ex-girlfriend accused him of mistreating her. A female executive producer and a “handful” of the show’s staff of approximately 25 have fled since AMC announced Hardwick would resume his role as host of the “Walking Dead” after show, according to a new report.
The “Talking Dead” fallout comes days after Hardwick’s first TV appearance — on NBC’s “America’s Got Talent” — since actress Chloe Dykstra penned an essay in June accusing him of sexual and emotional abuse.
Hardwick is reportedly working to regain the support of the remaining “Talking” staffers. In a “very emotional” staff meeting called by Hardwick on Wednesday, according to sources cited by The Wrap, the comedian apologized for the ordeal. He also offered one-on-one meetings for any crew members with concerns.
If I was a woman working on that show, I would quit too, regardless of the salary or benefits. Life’s too short. I guess we don’t expect the same of men though – the men working on the show are probably shrugging and asking “what’s the big deal?” Will this affect AMC’s decision to put Hardwick back on air? No. It won’t.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
Sadly when she refused to parpitate in the investigation the Mra boys will use that to fit there own narrative
So what.
And if she had, the MRA boys will have use that to accuse her of being out to get him and ruin his career. There is no way to win with some people, so you just have to do what you need to take care of yourself, first and foremost.
Yup. I think she’s being smart here. I have her back, for whatever that’s worth, and I won’t be consuming any more Chris Hardwick products.
Remember there are people who do not believe the Holocaust happened even with all the proof we have. No matter what she says, does, and shows there is going to be a very vocal group who is going to question her.
I don’t blame her at all for not moving forward. I believe her. Abusive relationships are a mindfuck.
I had also read the independent investigation was also led by a company that has close connections to the Hearst family. Which also explains a lot. But no one is mentioning that.
Thanks @Catherine and @natalia truth.
Sorry duplicate.
She mighty shut up and Mr important men will have job.
I believe her. Some on Twitter are hinting that AMC wanted to cut their losses with Chris but there would have been a huge legal costly mess. I hope more comes out. I’m so disappointed that Chris is back.
It would have been awesome to have Yvette Nicole Brown replace him permanently on Talking Dead. Who loses in that scenario other than Hardwick? Everyone could have kept their job, viewers would have a fresh new voice, and the show would go on. Also, Brown is passionate about the Walking Dead and funny, while Hardwick is a cloying lump of mashed potatoes.
I had so hoped that she would be the new host. I LOVE Yvette Nicole Brown! Her energy and excitement about TWD is contagious and the show needs that. They don’t need a simpering butt kisser dragging a load of controversy behind him. I figure the only way to make a point is to not watch it. Don’t watch, don’t participate. I’m still going to watch TWD, of course, but I genuinely don’t think I’d even enjoy Talking Dead anymore because of him.
I know that it’s not required of her but I wish she could somehow get her proof out to the world that she says she has and just shut the stupid fan boys up already. Hopefully people leave her alone after this, she deserves some peace.
I don’t think people would left her alone. They would demand more and more. I mean, Amber Heard had pictures of her bruised face and people hve not exactly been kind to her.
Amber Heard had audio/video and STILL it wasn’t enough.
I was going to say the same as Sarah. Amber Heard did that, and look where it got her. Nothing will ever shut the fanboys up.
consider Rihanna.
there was a pic of her EXTREMELY bruised and swollen face.
there was further evidence that Chris Brown is an unstable rage monster.
and there are STILL women who are like “he can hit me ANYTIME…hawt” and crap like that.
no matter the evidence, and no matter how much, there are always going to be people who don’t believe the victim, cape for abusers, and people who don’t care if the person is an abuser or not, they’ll still be a fan.
Yup. I’ve read the Rihanna police report and the details are vom-inducing. Chris Brown still has a career, though. And I tend to believe Rihanna’s career didn’t take a big hit because she was so willing to move on publicly.
America’s culture makes certain that victims can’t win. As shitty as it is, she’d do better to scrub her online accounts for now and go live her best life away from the toxic cesspool of Internet misogyny.
Sadly, we live in a society that is designed to fail victims of assault/abuse. There rarely is justice, even when there is proof.
AMC is pathetic. Hardwick is a b-list loser.
That “investigation” was conducted by a firm that represents the Hearst family.
THIS! Blows my mind it’s not more wildly reported.
I believe her.
But I can’t really fault a business for making a business oriented decision here. Everything Chloe said in her essay had nothing to do with his actual job(s). She wasn’t an employee at AMC and so there was no clear cut way to fire him for sexual harassment on the job. She chose not to participate in the investigation – which is entirely her right and as Kaiser stated clearly only wanted to be heard.
She was heard by the people willing to listen. I am sure she did not publish her essay thinking any MRA assholes would suddenly see the light. I’m also sure that her decision to not participate in the AMC investigation shows that she is not naive enough to think that her essay would actually have an impact on his career – again not her goal.
She wanted us to hear her and believe her and we did. I am now choosing to not consume anything AMC produces in a way that makes them money ever again. We should all vote with our wallets and eyeballs on their content and send our message that way.
I’m sorry but I just don’t see why, as a woman, I’m supposed to leave behind a decent job with benefits; and re-enter the job search rat race because one of the guys I work with is a douchebag in his private relationships. Like I don’t doubt that at least some of the things she spoke about are true; but also this is a grown woman who decided to stay with him and be mistreated for years.
Am I happy at my job? Does he mistreat me at said job? No? Then I’m not leaving out some women’s solidarity. These other women gonna help me pay rent and car notes? Or will I never hear from those women again….
There are reports about him being abusive with coworkers. They are protesting for themselves, not on her solidarity. And about a grown woman staying with a man that mistreated her for years: do a quick search about the topic and the psychological reasons for people that stay in abusive relationships. It will bring some light on the topic to you.
Nobody is asking these people to leave their job, though. This is their choice because they’d rather leave that work with this guy. I think that speaks volumes…
I suspect these women quit because there was likely shitty behavior going on *in* the workplace, which has been stated by several of his former colleagues (male and female), and this validated it for them that they weren’t being ridiculous and didn’t want to tolerate it any longer. Solidarity is fine if it includes men, but I agree it shouldn’t be women paying for it.
Frankly, my experience is that abusers can only hide their true selves for so long. Your coworker who is beating his/her spouse at home will eventually show their face – they’ll just be sneakier about it. Look at the way people treat inferiors or people from oppressed backgrounds; that will tell you more about their character than anything else. We had a guy who was good friends with the female pharmacists who worked in the IV room…but was always nasty to the female *technicians.* Eventually it blew up in his face when he lost his temper with a woman who would not be intimidated and took it up several management levels. Surprise, surprise, one of the women who dated him later revealed he was extremely emotionally abusive. I have no doubt Hardwick treats his staff with a similar lack of respect. His wife doesn’t see because she’s wealthier and has the financial power in the relationship. Most of the men may not see it because he’s probably more cautious in his approach. (Although, male colleagues have come out and said he’s a dick after this was revealed.)
This being said, the implication in your post that Chloe chose to tolerate this abuse is uncomfortable to me. You need to do some reading about the psychological impact of long-term domestic abuse. It’s true that victims are ultimately the only ones who can make the choice to get away from their abusers, but there’s a lot of damage that goes on well before the behavior becomes emotionally or physically violent. If abusers wore their behavior on their sleeves, nobody would choose to be with them. They learn to be charming and charismatic in the early stages for that exact before they begin the psychological abuse.
As adults we make choices. Regardless of if they are good or bad for us. Some choose to stay, and some choose to leave. Psychological reasons or not, they are choices.
I understand abuse, and you don’t know what I’ve been through in my life; but I’ve made choices both professionally and in my private life.
…okay? I’m not saying it isn’t a choice. I’m saying it’s more complicated than simply the choice. This isn’t opening a cupboard and deciding to have cereal for breakfast. It’s a documented series of behaviors that impact people psychologically and impact their decision making. Ignoring that is reductive.
How your personal experiences inform the situation is not relevant to my statement. You can be a victim of violence and abuse and still have internalized biases.
I never said choices were easy. I merely said that as adults we make choices. I don’t have an internalized bias. Even if this was my best friend, I can only advise and try to be there for her. I cannot make her leave and I may come to point where I need to distance myself from her for my own mental health. That too would be a difficult choice.
Ignoring that we have to sometimes stand by the choices we make in life is also reductive.
Everyone has internalized biases, myself included. I’m not disagreeing that choice isn’t part of being adult, and Chloe herself acknowledges that in the original essay before she ultimately decides to leave him. My point was more that long-term abuse has a documented impact on cognitive decision making. I don’t even disagree with you on the point about female solidarity being a one way street that we rarely benefit from.
What made me uncomfortable was your assumption is that his behavior only affects Chloe and not the general workplace, when there actually is a documented history of it spilling over into office abuse by former employees who worked with him. Abuse is one section of a person’s life is usually indicative of abuse elsewhere. I wouldn’t be comfortable working in that environment, either, particularly if it made me more aware of certain things that had flown under the radar before. The whole point of her essay is how easily it is to let smaller things build up into a largely toxic environment. The fact that a handful of employees walked out, including an executive, speaks volumes to me – especially since there’s nothing in the article that suggests all of them were women beyond the gender identification of the executive. You’re right that economics is a very real consideration that people have to make. So what, exactly, was going on there that these people were willing to take that risk?
I didn’t make any assumptions about the workplace. I’m not sure where you’re getting that from. I said, in response to “If I was a woman working on that show, I would quit too, regardless of the salary or benefits. Life’s too short.” that not everyone has that luxury. I was not the person to bring up abuse at all.
Maybe these people could simply afford to go. Maybe they felt that if they stayed their reputation (job) would be affected, regardless of how they really feel about the situation. During a scandal, there are numerous reasons for people to jump ship… not all of the reasons mean they agree or disagree.
Again, my comment was based on the commentary in the above post. I did not bring up abuse and would actually like for that to be taken out of the conversation with me… it won’t be, but whatever
Abuse is part of the conversation because the discussion is about an abuser. There’s no getting around that. That’s the ethical dilemma at the heart about whether or not these people can or should leave their jobs in solidarity. Economics are absolutely an issue that needs to be taken into consideration, but the reality is, if somebody abuses their partner at home, it becomes public, and suffers no social or workplace consequences? That is tacit support for an abuser. That provides excuse and justification for their behaviors. Chloe suffered all of the ill consequences of this relationship. In addition to the abuse, she also suffered serious financial and workplace fallout for it because he had the power.
Her entire essay is making a point on how abusers get away with this behavior because of a whole series of socioeconomic factors in their favor – the culture of victim blaming, the power dynamics linked to money and connections, the gendered stereotype surrounding relationships, and yes, even the ways in which economics locks us into situations that may violate our moral and ethical codes. That isn’t fair, and it isn’t even necessarily right, but it is part of what contributes to the problem as a whole.
People don’t exist in natural duality. An abuser is still an abuser regardless of how they behave in the workplace. They’re just very good at wearing a charismatic mask in situations where the power dynamics are not in their favor. My point of disagreement is in the idea that these personas can be segregated – because my feeling is, *not they can’t.* And we have confirmation from former employees and coworkers of Hardwick that he doesn’t. In the right circumstances, with the right amount of power, he treats everybody like shit. So people leaving the workplace over this? Not even sure it’s really a matter of female solidarity. It may be people seeing the writing on the wall, the company’s complicity in his past and potential future behavior, and not wanting to get stuck in the middle of it later. Being able to do that is a luxury that the vast majority of us don’t have, which is why I don’t think “solidarity” is the full answer there. Kaiser suggests it’s important, but I suspect even her intent was integrating other issues that could arise from working with him.
@veronica
My comment had nothing to do with abuse. Which is why I asked why it was added to the conversation and attributed to my beliefs and opinions.
You face people wearing masks in every aspect of your daily life. If they are able to separate their private masks from the ones they show you, then why can’t you see the segregation. You are not privy to everything everyone you know and associate with does.
This post does not talk about any documentation or even hearsay that he was awful to work with. My comment is in response to this post, no other article.
As previously stated, if he is truly awful then by all means find a way to leave. That being said, even if your boss is a true a-hole, not everyone can just get up and go (like I said from the beginning).
The statement was: “If I was a woman working on that show, I would quit too, regardless of the salary or benefits. Life’s too short.” So yes it is about female solidarity as it pertains to this comment. The comment that I was responding to.
Which I will repeat here: Not everyone is able to just up and leave a job. Point blank period.
Feel free to disagree; but take the whole abuse thing out of it because my comment had nothing to do with abuse.
I am aware that giving up a career is not always an option – I have, in fact, spent the better part of my life working class or poorer. I know exactly the cost of being stuck in a shitty, toxic work environment because I spent the better part of a decade in one. But I don’t believe solidarity is the entire point or even the main thrust of the argument here. There are A LOT of reasons beyond solidarity that I can see people leaving that job knowing now what they know.
Well, there’s the essential point of disagreement, then. I don’t believe those behaviors can be segregated. Now that he’s been outed, and former employees have come up behind Chloe backing her observations, how are the people around him supposed to feel? How does that effect the work environment? What, ultimately, is the social toll of people like Hardwick suffering no serious consequences? That is more what I’m getting at, and it’s where we are going to have to end the conversation on a point of disagreement.
If he is a jerk to everyone, then that’s fine. Feel free to find a new job. The post does not mention him not being a decent co-worker and that (in part) is what I am responding to.
As for abusive relationships… sure there are emotional and psychological reasons why people stay; but it is not my duty to fight the fight for the person who decides to stay. It is up to the individual to decide when/ what is enough.
My comment was mostly based on this statement in the post: “If I was a woman working on that show, I would quit too, regardless of the salary or benefits. Life’s too short.”
I stand by what I said
How big of you.
ok……
Did you bother to read what I said; or are just interested in vilifying my opinion on the idea of solidarity?
I said I don’t doubt that he was a jerk in their relationship. I clarified that my comment was in response the comment in the post.
But perhaps I should go more in depth…
This brand of women’s solidarity is a one way road. Some of the women shouting about women should all stand together, are the same ones who would call the cops on me for waiting for an uber in the rain; or taking a nap in the common area of my dorm after studying for hours.
Not everyone has the ability to just up and leave a job just because your boss was a jerk to his girlfriend; or even if your boss is a jerk to you. Bills don’t care about solidarity. That was my point.
Hi Lboogi,
Maybe I can clarify a bit why others are getting upset. You’re right! Not everyone has to up and leave a job, and I don’t think anyone is saying they have to (although I do think several of Hardwick’s employees have called out his behavior). I have a question though (and this is genuinely just out of curiosity, because I’m not sure either) – do you think it would be right to stay at a job where someone like Harvey Weinstein works because his abuse is workplace rather than personal related? Even though the damage inflicted in long term relations with people whose perception of your value you are invested in is often more severe and damaging?
Whether or not you realize it, a lot of your word choices worked to discredit or look down on Chloe while diminishing Chris’ actions. You say you don’t doubt “some” is true, and you call him a “jerk” and say that she’s a grown woman and made a choice.
First off, calling him a jerk diminishes his actions. He’s not just an asshole or a jerk, he’s an abuser. Call it what it is.
As someone else said, saying it is a “choice” for her to stay, simplifies the situation and puts the onus on her and shames her, when the real attention should be on the fact that she should never have to encounter that type of situation or behavior in the first place. It should have never happened to her. In addition, it isn’t that simple. Yes, obviously there are parts of this that are choices, but to emphasize that completely takes away from the more complicated psychological aspects of abuse. I can’t remember the studies off the top of my head, but a lot of animal research in this area has shown that these situations create addictions, and confusion and conditioning that ALL the people/animals exposed to it are not equipped to deal with (something about rats and dogs, I’ll have to look it up).
I can’t claim to know your situation, but a lot of time that language comes about when someone has been abused and either still 1) has feelings of self-directed anger and shame, or 2) is in the comparisons game and thinks that someone else’s abuse is less than theirs and therefore not valid and therefore shouldnt be getting the attention. This makes me sad because there are so many misconceptions about abuse which lead to so many types considered “not enough.” There are several studies that have shown that psychological abuse is actually as much of, or a better predictor of PTSD than straight physical and sexual abuse. In addition, rape by a partner can often cause longer lasting psychological affects on things such as self esteem and depression than by a stranger. I’m not saying these types of abuse are worse. I’m saying they aren’t lesser, even though they are often dismissed as such.
I’m not saying any of this as an attack, just hopefully as an explanation of why your comment was troublesome to people.
Sigh…
Once again I said that if he was a jerk at work then by all means find your way out. I also said, that I’m going by what is in the above post, which does not mention him being a bad co-worker.
Again I did not diminish her truth, but it is still a choice to stay, just as it is a choice to leave ANY relationship, good or bad, in most situations.
My comment is only troubling to those who read further into my original comment than needed and therefore missing my point completely.
I am not ignorant to abuse. I am not ignorant to the psychological affects. I did not simplify his actions. I think people are too quick to be angry, instead of listening to what is actually being said, and the rest want to continue an unrelated argument.
I did not bring abuse into this conversation. I only talked about leaving a position out of any solidarity and how that might be difficult.
All this continued talk about how I might not understand abuse when I did not bring it up, is exactly my point about solidarity and how it’s a one way street.
“Not everyone has the ability to just up and leave a job just because your boss was a jerk to his girlfriend.”
I’m sorry but how do you know that’s the only reason why they left?
Look, I read all your posts and you made a LOT of assumptions. These women didn’t *have* to leave their jobs and I doubt many would have criticized them if they stayed. That’s a personal choice. But not everyone wants to support some famous dbag’s cult of personality knowing that he treats women like shit behind closed doors.
Chloe made it clear that she supports and cares for the people that work at his company and that she doesn’t want their livelihoods to be affected by this. She did not pressure them to clean out their desks. They made the choice on their own and none of us know the details of how their departure played out or the specific events leading up to it. For all we know, he’s been a creep forever and this was merely the catalyst they needed to finally leave a miserable job.
@kitten read above where I said people leave during a scandal for a multitude of reasons.
I love how everyone would rather be angry at the words I didn’t type, didn’t bring up; and ignore what I actually said. I also never said I support Chris Hardwick in any way shape or form. I made no assumptions about anything.
Again, my original comment was about this statement: “If I was a woman working on that show, I would quit too, regardless of the salary or benefits. Life’s too short.”
I never said the people who left were in the wrong for leaving. Once again putting words in my mouth that have nothing to do with what I actually said.
@Lboogi
Just so you know i understand exactly what you are trying to say but IMO when it comes to certain topics here its …well
I personalty believe Chloe and think Hardwick is an abusive jerk whose art I never really supported( he was always a bit off to me) however if the article had documented his abusing his power at work on his peers, contractors , subordinates then that would be a different discussion (it does not and you are only speaking to the article )
I like other women here have been in relationships where once I got out I go “WTF was i thinking and why didn’t i get out sooner”, so i am aware of battered woman’s syndrome , manipulation the works , the bottom line is Hardwicks disgusting behavior is ON HIM , Chloe an adult (not in his employ) staying as long as she did is ON HER ( no matter how much I empathize with her situation )
Unless there is other info we are not privy to, basically this ” solidarity ” is really an expectation that women in the workplace must make more immediate decisive decisions and sacrifices in regards to an abuser in his personal relationship than the woman who was and stayed in the relationship for years ? and that does not make sense for everyone
@notthisagain
Thank you for understanding what I was trying to say!
I expected plenty of kickback for commenting. What I didn’t/ don’t understand is how/why abuse even really entered into the conversation for my comment.
People pretend that they’ve read what I said, but then add in assumptions, thoughts, and beliefs I never put out there.
It’s fine if you disagree, but try to stay on topic.
“Unless there is other info we are not privy to, basically this ‘solidarity ‘ is really an expectation that women in the workplace must make more immediate decisive decisions and sacrifices in regards to an abuser in his personal relationship than the woman who was and stayed in the relationship for years.”
Why are you assuming this though? Who is “making” them quit? It’s confusing to me because first you claim that Chloe has the agency to choose who she wants to be in a relationship with and in the next breath you’re saying the women that worked with her ex are somehow without the agency to decide their career path. We can chose who we date and we can chose our place of employment. I don’t understand the perception that the act of these women quitting their jobs is somehow symptomatic of oppression or societal expectations.
Look, we now know that this guy was a pain in the ass to work with from the links that were posted in the comments section on the last thread. We know that Chloe’s not the only one that found herself on the receiving end of his anger. But it’s less relevant to me that these women know of multiple people who were affected by this man’s temper than it is that they made a PERSONAL CHOICE. If they aren’t saying that they resigned because they felt pressure, then you shouldn’t assume that they did.
Also, I don’t need anyone telling me to read what they wrote or accusing me of being more interested in being angry than actually listening. That’s really patronizing. I read all of it and I disagree with the sentiment that these women quit their jobs because of pressure, when they chose to publicly frame their decision as taking a stand for what they believe in. Your argument is problematic for me because it’s based on an unknown; an assumption.
I understood her just fine, thanks. The article doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and this subject has been covered for several months here. There’s a lot of background that’s been adequately covered here informing why people are responding this way.
Kaiser never said women should/have to respond by quitting in solidarity. She said that if *she* were a woman in that position, she would quit, and she acknowledged the double standard of men staying there while women suffer the consequences. The article doesn’t actually specify that everyone who left was female, either, only that of the executive. Considering that there are many former coworkers, both male and female, who have come out online to state their observations of his behavior matches her descriptions, it’s evident that his abuse *doesn’t* stay at home. That’s what informs the idea that it’s unlikely this is a single issue matter and why she would leave, NOT just the idea that it’s solidarity in suffering.
Lord ya’ll just refuse to listen to my actual comment and insist on pushing the narrative that I think the girl is lying, that he’s the best guy on earth, and that I said everyone is being forced to leave or whatever.
It’s cool be mad, misrepresent my argument.
I did not ever say anyone left because of pressure.
I did not ever say Chloe was lying.
I did not start the conversation about abuse.
I did not deny any abuse. (because again, I did not start the conversation about abuse)
The article does not talk about the work environment being toxic.
People are free to leave as they please, for the reasons they please.
The fact that you continue with the narrative that I believe the above is why I say you are not listening. It’s not being patronizing, it’s fact
P.S. you don’t have to be a woman to do something in solidarity with women. *this statement is also unrelated to abuse*
@Kitten
I am not assuming anything the author intimated that on the basis of what has been reported about his behavior in his personal life she would quit in solidarity as well (suggesting also that is why these women quit ) and whilst other posters have stated there are rumors of Hardwick being a pain at work as well, as far as I know no one has come forward and accused him of abusing his authority in the workplace and if so certainly not in this article (again that would be different)
@Lboogis response was if their actions were solely on his behavior in his personal relationship SHE would not quit as a form of solidarity That is all , My response that you quoted is saying IF that is all I can understand why expecting less tolerance and swifter action from the women in his workplace than the victim herself for his PERSONAL relationship may not be for EVERYBODY
The same agency you speak of that made Chloe stay, made some women quit is the same agency that @Lboogi uses in determining to HER that is not necessarily solidarity (She even went on to acknowledge that in these scenarios people can quit for a variety of reasons )
Neither of us have condoned Hardwicks sh1ttyness but that hasnt stopped people from lecturing about abuse and assuming all sorts of things that were never said
I lurk here more than I post but do notice that when it comes to certain topics, people must fall in line lock in step or be accused of all sorts of things . Even if one agrees with every point from 1-9 but has a slightly different take on 10 , not even that is to be tolerated
It’s not really a decision I automatically expect women to make either at this point (when people do make this decision though, it’s a great thing). But how quickly a victim left their abuser shouldn’t be a factor in the decision.
Nobody is suggesting she can’t have an opinion, but she made it on a public forum, and people are disagreeing with her statement. Challenging somebody’s language is not the same as oppressing it. Nobody is resorting to ad hominem or telling her to get off the site. Nobody actually stated that we think Lboogi believes that Chloe’s lying or that abuse is acceptable or that she thinks Hardwick is a great guy – that’s you misrepresenting our points. The “worst” of what I stated is that she may need to read up more on abuse mechanisms, and that is not an attack – *I* certainly made assumptions about that choice when I was younger and less informed about the matter.
I have been pretty clear about why her statement made me feel uncomfortable. If you’re going to frame tolerating abuse as an individual’s choice that doesn’t have consequences external to that relationship, fine, but that inevitably is going to make social ramifications of abuse and a lack of consequences for it part of the conversation because that’s what this entire event has been about. It’s impossible to separate the incident that sparked this whole dialogue and the environment in which it came out. I don’t actually disagree with her that female solidarity is untenable if women are the only ones eating the cost. Being able to leave work and find others is a privilege, nobody is arguing that point.
But that now asks us to discuss the implications of domestic abusers in the workplace who have been outed and what that means in terms of the work environment itself. I’m disagreeing with the implied statement that abusive behavior can be segregated from other aspects of that person’s life, especially since we do actually have former employees and acquaintenances saying it wasn’t unexpected: https://www.celebitchy.com/582098/the_wrap_chris_hardwicks_colleagues_were_not_surprised_by_the_abuse_allegations/
Either way, I’m done with the conversation personally past this point because it frankly not going to reach an agreement at any point. We’re just going to have to agree to disagree on the matter and be done with.
Lboogie you did bring up abuse and suggested she did lie about some things.
Your own words:
. Like I don’t doubt that at least some of the things she spoke about are true; but also this is a grown woman who decided to stay with him and be mistreated for years.
4 women just quit their jobs cos their male supervisor is non supportive douche.
And within 24 hrs he’s interviewing 5-6 candidates without skipping a beat. Everyone is replaceable. I can’t help but wonder if I made a me too claim would people believe me without proof too?
I believe Chloe.
I’m not surprised he was rehired, I think there would have been a big lawsuit if they’d totally fired him, and the network caved.
I am surprised that several people quit upon his return. That’s really telling of the environment and culture on that set. I hate that they had to walk away from their jobs, but admire them for doing so.
Well now I understand why she didn’t participate more in the investigation after is was revealed the Hearst family was behind it. I wouldn’t have either if I were her. I would have been so scared.
She’s so pretty. I hope she is in a happier place now and her life is going great.
A good time for her to leave was when he asked her to cut out her guy friends. Or when he said he didn’t want her drinking. Or during any of the other red flags that came up. Whether he was an abuser or not he laid out who he was and she chose to accept it and stay. Just because they had a bad relationship wouldn’t make me quit my job if I worked with him.
I’m glad she learned some lessons from her shitty relationship but I don’t feel like I need to stand in solidarity because she accepted his behaviour.
In fact I actually don’t like women who act like this. Deal with your stuff private and if you had issues deal with them as they happen. Not in an editorial years later.
If you want to be equal act like it.
Over the victim mentality.
Now you will all eat this comment alive. Don’t care. Was in abusive relationships. Didn’t whine about it. Didn’t publicly ruin him.
What I did do was get over it. Move on. Build my self esteem and carried on with life.
It got weird in here, y’all. I came for the gossip and stayed for the food-for-thought buffet. And now I’m gonna regurgitate what I noshed on, because …. why not.
Ok. I believe that Hardwick is a shit person. I think he did all that stuff to Dykstra. I think that it’s ok that Dykstra decided to write about how shit went down between them, too. She can write about her life if she wants to, for any reason or for no reason. As for Hardwick… if he doesn’t want people talking about him being an abusive fuck, then he needs to not be an abusive fuck. Unflattering truth is still true.
About the whole solidarity thing… honestly I think that’s a great idea. It doesn’t translate to real world action, though. Most people work because they have to, so when fuckery in the workplace is perpetrated they feel like they have to stay at least until they have something else lined up. It would be great if I could quit my job because the boss is a piece of shit and have that count in my favor when I try to get another job, but it doesn’t work like that. So I think it’s cool that some people bailed from the network seemingly in protest, but I dont blame the people who stayed, and the fact that they stayed doesn’t make me think it’s because Hardwick isn’t such a bad guy. It makes me think they need their jobs.