Jump to content
This Site Uses Cookies. If You Want to Disable Cookies, Please See Your Browser Documentation. ×

Peter Martins Sexual Harassment Allegations


Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, dirac said:

She also doesn't say anything about any sexual harassment or other abuse she observed or heard about, which is interesting since she was with the company recently,  is no longer an "insider," and presumably has nothing to lose. She merely points to the NYT article, which was as some noted previously, rather weak tea, and the older claims against Martins.

Her point was that even if the dancers didn't believe a word that other dancers have said about Martins being abusive, the charges of beating his wife and, presumably, the DWI's, would have endangered his job in the real world.  I 

7 minutes ago, abatt said:

If a widely read publication is going to give someone a platform for an "open letter" to make an accusation against someon, it really needs to take account of journalistic standards. 

That she believes her colleagues and predecessors who have come forward, to the press and/or the investigators?  That he beat his wife, one of her co-workers, even if she didn't press charges?

Link to comment
1 minute ago, abatt said:

She most definitely claims that Martins is guilty of abuse.  Her exact words are that if you side with Martins, "you are siding with an abuser".  Yet she doesn't offer any facts to support that assertion. Nor does she clarify whether he is guilty of sexual abuse, physical abuse, verbal abuse, or all of the above.  Just more vague claims which are being presented as  facts and truths.

He beat his wife. He was charged with that. Just because she didn't ultimately prosecute him doesn't mean that this event didn't happen as far as most reasonable people are concerned.

 

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, Quiggin said:

Sidenote: The Times' reports, towards the end of the article, that Deneuve also made a strong statement last March defending Roman Polanski. “It’s a case that has been dealt with, it’s a case that has been judged. There have been agreements between Roman Polanski and this woman.” 

It’s kind of OT, but I can understand why Deneuve would say something like that. As a Frenchwoman she might not understand some of the niceties of the case – for example, that you can’t just let somebody flee the jurisdiction and then come back without at least going before a judge, and also that defendants with Polanski’s resources usually take care of this kind of thing quickly and quietly. There was a time when L.A. practically promised him that if he just showed up a deal could be done. Instead, Polanski let it go. Also, she made one of her best movies with Polanski, so they go back.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, dirac said:

It’s kind of OT, but I can understand why Deneuve would say something like that. As a Frenchwoman she might not understand some of the niceties of the case – for example, that you can’t just let somebody flee the jurisdiction and then come back without at least going before a judge, and also that defendants with Polanski’s resources usually take care of this kind of thing quickly and quietly. There was a time when L.A. practically promised him that if he just showed up a deal could be done. Instead, Polanski let it go. Also, she made one of her best movies with Polanski, so they go back.

He drugged and raped a 13 year old and fled sentencing. Why Deneuve defended someone guilty of such acts is not really worth spending a lot of time musing over, in my opinion. The niceties are a bit beside the point.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, kfw said:

As I said, I don’t think anyone meant to imply violence, but there is a reason that definition is Webster’s third. The first connotes violence, and does so even when no literal violence is implied. That’s how connotations work. For clarifying and resolving issues, the clearer and more accurate words are, the more efficacious they are. Less accurate words are often propaganda.  

Well, it's definition #1 in the Oxford English Dictionary

A strong negative reaction by a large number of people, especially to a social or political development.

‘a public backlash against racism’

I strongly suspect that the percentage of people who think of the technical definition first  ("Recoil arising between parts of a mechanism") or for whom the term evokes physical violence is pretty small. 

I think "backlash" is an accurate term to apply to the (imo well-founded*) anticipation that there will ultimately be a strong negative reaction to the #metoo movement and the women who have spoken openly about their abuse. 

* I'm old. I remember Anita Hill.

Link to comment
48 minutes ago, aurora said:

I don't see that it is her place or responsibility to tell other peoples' stories. Besides that explicitly wasn't the point of this piece. She is addressing the dancers, not writing to provide you with new proof of Martins' guilt. She is clearly starting from the belief (based on her many years at he company) that he is guilty.

Is it Sophie Flack's place or responsibility to tell other people how to think and feel?  If she herself has a story to tell,  then she should tell it.  But she has no right to lecture current company members who support Martins or seek to invalidate their opinions.  She may genuinely feel that the fact she was fired from the company - as part of a "mass layoff" in her words - doesn't color her view of the situation.  (Apparently it does,  since she also states that she had to undergo therapy to get over it.)  But her statement reeks of sour grapes. 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

Is it Sophie Flack's place or responsibility to tell other people how to think and feel?  If she herself has a story to tell,  then she should tell it.  But she has no right to lecture current company members who support Martins or seek to invalidate their opinions.  She may genuinely feel that the fact she was fired from the company - as part of a "mass layoff" in her words - doesn't color her view of the situation.  (Apparently it does,  since she also states that she had to undergo therapy to get over it.)  But her statement reeks of sour grapes. 

Exactly.  If she has no personal knowledge of any specific facts pertaining to the issue of Peter Martins' abuse, why is she writing an "open letter" in Dance Magazine?  To lecture current NYCB dancers as to how they should feel about the situation?  I have to wonder whether any attorneys for Dance Magazine vetted this "open letter" before Dance Magazine published it.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

Is it Sophie Flack's place or responsibility to tell other people how to think and feel?  If she herself has a story to tell,  then she should tell it.  But she has no right to lecture current company members who support Martins or seek to invalidate their opinions.  She may genuinely feel that the fact she was fired from the company - as part of a "mass layoff" in her words - doesn't color her view of the situation.  (Apparently it does,  since she also states that she had to undergo therapy to get over it.)  But her statement reeks of sour grapes. 

She has just as much right to as anyone else has to state their opinion.

Why are you entitled to a view and she is not?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, BalanchineFan said:

If we’re looking at the fine lines, Balanchine removing Mejia from performances is widely viewed as retaliation for Suzanne Farrell rebuffing Balanchine by marrying Mejia. That fits with the sexual harassment argument. 

I'm sorry Balanchine sunk that low, and I'm sorry both for Farrell and Mejia, but I don't think a spurned would-be husband's taking his emotions out on the actual husband professionally falls into the same category as sexual harassment, which involves demanding sex.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, abatt said:

Exactly.  If she has no personal knowledge of any specific facts pertaining to the issue of Peter Martins' abuse, why is she writing an "open letter" in Dance Magazine?  To lecture current NYCB dancers as to how they should feel about the situation?  I have to wonder whether any attorneys for Dance Magazine vetted this "open letter" before Dance Magazine published it.

On what grounds do you think they could object to it. 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, aurora said:

On what grounds do you think they could object to it. 

IN the good old days, before everyone was automatically presumed  guilty based on internet postings of someone with a grudge, we had laws protecting against libel and slander. 

Link to comment
Just now, abatt said:

IN the good old days, before everyone was automatically presumed  guilty based on internet postings of someone with a grudge, we had laws protecting against libel and slander. 

The good old days.

And people here are objecting to the use of the word backlash?

Here is an example of what happened in the "good old days" and slander would be the appropriate term here:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/09/new-york-city-police-solve-1994-case-that-newspaper-called-a-hoax?CMP=share_btn_fb

Link to comment
On 1/9/2018 at 1:31 PM, dirac said:

Be that as it may, we know to date of no specifics that any sexual harassment occurred at NYCB and the preliminary results of the SAB investigation have revealed no wrongdoing, according to statements. What we do know is that Martins resigned while denying the accusations and the investigation is ongoing. And of course we may never know the results of the investigation since those are not commonly made public.

BalanchineFan writes

I’m not sure why you would assume that a visiting choreographer would do that.  I should think it more likely that a visiting choreographer would probably try to avoid the issue as none of his or her business, and select the dancers best suited to make his/her ballet look good.

My reasoning is that NYCB dancers and staff, having been through the Martins case, will have a better understanding of abuses of AD power and the consequences.  This understanding might be lacking in someone unconnected to the company. With this experience fresh in memory, the interim directors would be unlikely (in my opinion) to commit similar misconduct. 

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, Kathleen O'Connell said:

Well, it's definition #1 in the Oxford English Dictionary

A strong negative reaction by a large number of people, especially to a social or political development.

‘a public backlash against racism’

I strongly suspect that the percentage of people who think of the technical definition first  ("Recoil arising between parts of a mechanism") or for whom the term evokes physical violence is pretty small. 

I think "backlash" is an accurate term to apply to the (imo well-founded*) anticipation that there will ultimately be a strong negative reaction to the #metoo movement and the women who have spoken openly about their abuse. 

* I'm old. I remember Anita Hill.

I remember Hill, but I have to go back 27 years to do it. :dry: Anyhow, Oxford may feel the old first definition has been superseded, but the roots and connotation of "lash" remain. It's a very visual word. Will the dancers who have spoken out suffer for their courage? In light of the fact that except for Martin's diehards and beneficiaries everyone praisers his accusers and is glad they've spoken out, I think the burden is on people who take the negative view to explain why, and to name names. Generalities are not convincing, IMO.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, aurora said:

The good old days.

And people here are objecting to the use of the word backlash?

Here is an example of what happened in the "good old days" and slander would be the appropriate term here:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/09/new-york-city-police-solve-1994-case-that-newspaper-called-a-hoax?CMP=share_btn_fb

Comparing Sophie Flack's blathering in print to a  rape case is absurd.  If Flack has no personal knowledge or facts based on her own experiences at NYCB to add, she should never have been given a platform by Dance Magazine to prattle on about Martins and how NYCB dancers should feel.

Edited by abatt
Link to comment
1 minute ago, abatt said:

Comparing Sophie Flack's blathering in print to a  rape case is absurd.  If Flack has no personal knowledge or facts based on her own experiences at NYCB to add, she should never have been given a platform by Dance Magazine to prattle on about Martins and how NYCB dancers should feel.

I'm talking about the shocking use of "good old days." I made no comparison between an op-ed, which she has every right to write, and the rape case.

You just gave your opinion, she is free to give hers and dance magazine is free to give her a platform. Opinions are, after all, what one finds in an op-ed.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, aurora said:

She has just as much right to as anyone else has to state their opinion.

Why are you entitled to a view and she is not?

Flack,  and those of us who post here,  are all entitled to our opinions.  But she's the one who has been given the platform of an open letter in Dance Magazine.  She's the one publicly telling other dancers that their feelings don't matter.  Would you feel the same if she had come out against Martins' accusers?

Link to comment
Just now, On Pointe said:

Flack,  and those of us who post here,  are all entitled to our opinions.  But she's the one who has been given the platform of an open letter in Dance Magazine.  She's the one publicly telling other dancers that their feelings don't matter.  Would you feel the same if she had come out against Martins' accusers?

This is not the point. I was addressing the repeated claims in this thread that what she said is libelous (it isn't) and that she should not have been allowed the platform. But I'm glad you think she is entitled to her opinion.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, abatt said:

No, Flack is stating as a fact that Martins is an "abuser".  She presents it as fact, not opinion.  

Yes, because he was charged with beating his wife. That is a fact and I didn't think anyone seriously doubted that was true.  Op-eds do not have to be devoid of facts. It is hard to have opinions without them (although clearly not impossible!). The letter is clearly indicated as an opinion piece by the publisher.

Edited by aurora
Link to comment
27 minutes ago, aurora said:

Yes, because he was charged with beating his wife. That is a fact and I didn't think anyone seriously doubted that was true.

He was never convicted of any crime relating to the Darci incident, and Flack had no personal knowledge of the Darci incident other than what was published at the time.  She was not even a member of the company when the incident occurred.  Dance Magazine should not allow a disgruntled former employee of NYCB  to state her opinion as if it is a fact. At least the other accusers in the Times stated their specific facts to support their allegations of abuse.  What does Flack add to this conversation, other than satisfying her own ego to get back at Martins for terminating her, and why is Dance Magazine enabling this?

Time for Flack to go back to therapy. 

ADDED:  Flack is purporting to speak based on her knowledge of NYCB as a former employee of NYCB.  If she had some specific facts to tell us about her experience as a former employee  regarding  Martins's alleged abusive conduct during the course of his employment as AD, that would be welcomed. No such facts are presented to us regarding her own personal experiences during her 8 year tenure.  Instead, she brings up matters that happened outside of Martins' employment (the Darci incident, DUI)s as her "proof" that Martins is an abuser.   Where's the beef, and why is Dance Magazine publishing this ?

Edited by abatt
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...