Jump to content
mille-feuille

Catazaro Declines NYCB Reinstatement; Ramasar to Rejoin

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Leah said:

And there was no need for the attack on Waterbury implying she’s just after money. I’m sure she did not come up with the idea for the statement herself.

I respect her view on how Ramasar's behavior affects her.  I don't respect anything she says on behalf of anyone else or her insinuations against Waterbury.

 

13 minutes ago, Kathleen O'Connell said:

Let's hope that some of the fallout from this whole sorry mess is some better men.

Plus fewer worse men.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Leah said:

I’ll take her at her word but it makes me kind of squeamish. And there was no need for the attack on Waterbury implying she’s just after money. I’m sure she did not come up with the idea for the statement herself. But on the other hand I feel like when a woman says unequivocally that she is not a victim we should respect that. I just hope this whole mess goes away soon.
 

I think it's possible to believe that 25 year old women are subject to manipulation by older men and to believe that this particular 25 year old woman is doing what she, in her own judgment, has determined is the right thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Helene said:

I respect her view on how Ramasar's behavior affects her.  I don't respect anything she says on behalf of anyone else or her insinuations against Waterbury.

Absolutely. The insinuations against Waterbury weren't necessary nor well-considered. They might be relevant in a court of law, but look ugly trotted out in the court of public opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Kathleen O'Connell said:

I think it's possible to believe that 25 year old women are subject to manipulation by older men and to believe that this particular 25 year old woman is doing what she, in her own judgment, has determined is the right thing to do.

Agreed. I’m a little cynical of the situation but hopefully she’s come to this all by herself. Even if she has been completely manipulated we should still respect her word for the time being.

The attack on Waterbury and the insinuation that what happened was not abuse and no big deal carry wider connotations for other people that might find themselves in similar situations, either in workplace contexts or not, and Maxwell has no business speaking for anyone but herself. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Kathleen O'Connell said:

Absolutely. The insinuations against Waterbury weren't necessary nor well-considered. They might be relevant in a court of law, but look ugly trotted out in the court of public opinion.

In law this is a classic defense posture that carries little legal weight but is excellent at intimidating people from coming forward about harms done to them and pressuring them into unfair settlements. Someone’s family might be dead because they were poisoned from a company’s negligence and they’ll still be terrified at the prospect of looking “greedy” if they try to hold those responsible accountable.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Leah said:

The attack on Waterbury and the insinuation that what happened was not abuse and no big deal carry wider connotations for other people that might find themselves in similar situations, either in workplace contexts or not, and Maxwell has no business speaking for anyone but herself. 

Yes, this.

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, Kathleen O'Connell said:

I don’t think this has been made public before:


”She [Waterbury] also said her initial settlement offer to the School of American Ballet and New York City Ballet was to just pay her legal fees and publicly apologize.“
 

Of course it’s only her word, but I’ve read many comments suggesting (critically) that Waterbury is in it for the money.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm amazed that people choose to believe Waterbury but not Maxwell. Waterbury's statements are fact but Maxwell's are accusations. Ramasar was never accused of "rape" far as I know.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Rock said:

I'm amazed that people choose to believe Waterbury but not Maxwell. Waterbury's statements are fact but Maxwell's are accusations. Ramasar was never accused of "rape" far as I know.

I think we all know how social media can be. I’m sure many of those faceless people out there in the Twitterscape have thrown those words around without regard to truth. 

Share this post


Link to post

According to the article,  Alexa Maxwell did not insinuate anything about Alexandra Waterbury.  She stated what Ms. Waterbury said to her,  and Waterbury concurs that she discussed the possible monetary gain from successfully suing NYCB.  Surely Waterbury was aware that without an actual member of NYCB suing the company,  there would be no basis for a lawsuit,  even a suit that would likely fail because it is well-established in law that an employer can not be held liable for the non-work related activities of its employees.  

Bottom line,  Amar Ramasar did not do anything to Waterbury,  and neither did NYCB,  SAB,  Zachary Catazaro or Jared Longhitano.  I find it particularly disturbing that Ramasar has become the villain in this debacle while the uber-Waspy Chase Finlay,  who is the true perpetrator,  is barely mentioned.   Even the UK publication The Guardian has run an article with exaggerations and falsehoods from Waterbury,  including  that she and several other dancers were "assaulted".  It seems like blatant racism to me.

(I believe that Ramasar shared a topless photo of Maxwell.  "Topless" is not "sexually explicit",  especially given the countless artistic depictions of women with exposed breasts,  even by well-regarded dance companies.  If someone  knows otherwise please inform me.)

Edited by On Pointe
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Syzygy said:

After a week of protests outside of West Side Story in response to the casting of Amar Ramasar, Alexa Maxwell released a statement. 

The protest instagram indicates that last night was the second night of protest; the first night was last Friday.

There was not a week of protests.

I've seen the count for the number of people participating in the protest range from 12 to 40. From last night's photos there looked to be 25ish.

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

Bottom line,  Amar Ramasar did not do anything to Waterbury,  and neither did NYCB,  SAB,  Zachary Catazaro or Jared Longhitano.  I find it particularly disturbing that Ramasar has become the villain in this debacle while the uber-Waspy Chase Finlay,  who is the true perpetrator,  is barely mentioned.   Even the UK publication The Guardian has run an article with exaggerations and falsehoods from Waterbury,  including  that she and several other dancers were "assaulted".  It seems like blatant racism to me.

I mostly agree. And I like to believe that if Finlay had not tried to disappear while Ramasar continued to star in Broadway shows we'd be as critical of the former-- although who are we kidding? I see what you're saying.

31 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

(I believe that Ramasar shared a topless photo of Maxwell.  "Topless" is not "sexually explicit",  especially given the countless artistic depictions of women with exposed breasts,  even by well-regarded dance companies.  If someone  knows otherwise please inform me.)

There's a huge difference between an artist consenting to a topless performance and a man trying to impress his bros by sharing sexually explicit photos of a woman who trusts him. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Syzygy said:

There's a huge difference between an artist consenting to a topless performance and a man trying to impress his bros by sharing sexually explicit photos of a woman who trusts him. 

That doesn't change the fact that mere toplessness (if there is such a word) is not sexually explicit,  especially since being topless in NYC,  even in public,   is legally permissible.  There are topless women on the beaches and walking around Times Square (at least in the summertime!).   

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, On Pointe said:

That doesn't change the fact that mere toplessness (if there is such a word) is not sexually explicit,  especially since being topless in NYC,  even in public,   is legally permissible.  There are topless women on the beaches and walking around Times Square (at least in the summertime!).   

Again you ignore the matter of CHOICE inherent in this.

There may be women walking around topless in Times Square, but they chose to be topless in public.

She did not consent to be seen topless by the people who saw her photo.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, aurora said:

Again you ignore the matter of CHOICE inherent in this.

There may be women walking around topless in Times Square, but they chose to be topless in public.

She did not consent to be seen topless by the people who saw her photo.

I agree with this....however, after reading Maxwell’s statement she unequivocally has forgiven him and they are moving on together.  Whether that is right or wrong, it is not our choice but hers alone.  Another woman may have dropped him and that would have been fine too - if not more in the line of public opinion.  We are not in their relationship and can only speculate.
 

Side note:  I remember seeing images of Waterbury and Finlay prior to the scandal on IG, and thinking “my god what a fast life they are living”.  It showed through - I was not at all surprised that a scandal broke out.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, On Pointe said:

 

(I believe that Ramasar shared a topless photo of Maxwell.  "Topless" is not "sexually explicit",  especially given the countless artistic depictions of women with exposed breasts,  even by well-regarded dance companies.  If someone  knows otherwise please inform me.)

According to the complaint, Ramasar sent three pictures of Maxwell to Finlay without her knowledge: one topless, one naked, and one of her vagina. 

Share this post


Link to post

Prior to Maxwell releasing her statement, Waterbury named Maxwell on social media, I believe, for the first time. She also accused her and Ashley Hod of illegally recording their phone conversation. Unfortunately, the tweet she was responding to is now deleted, so we don't really have much context for this. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Villette said:

According to the complaint, Ramasar sent three pictures of Maxwell to Finlay without her knowledge: one topless, one naked, and one of her vagina. 

And if that's not sexually explicit, I don't know what is.  Even if it were only a pic of the breasts, it is still explicit if it was not by her choice.  

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

 mere toplessness (if there is such a word) is not sexually explicit

Agree to disagree. We don't know each other, but I can tell you I'm a woman with breasts who enjoys being topless. But I'm very, very aware that it's a choice to show any part of your own body (or not).

Either way, as Villette points out:

8 minutes ago, Villette said:

According to the complaint, Ramasar sent three pictures of Maxwell to Finlay without her knowledge: one topless, one naked, and one of her vagina. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, macnellie said:

This energy should be spent on our Senate. 
 

It's ok to care about ballet, too. I can multitask. 😉

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, macnellie said:

This energy should be spent on our Senate. 
 

Absolutely!  Sure, fine with me also to discuss the minute details of Ramasar et al.,  but it's good to acknowledge that there's another massive problem that affects us all.

 

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, yukionna4869 said:

Prior to Maxwell releasing her statement, Waterbury named Maxwell on social media, I believe, for the first time. She also accused her and Ashley Hod of illegally recording their phone conversation. Unfortunately, the tweet she was responding to is now deleted, so we don't really have much context for this. 

 

 

Unfortunately for Waterbury New York is a one party consent state, and Maxwell consented to having the conversation recorded. I get the feeling that Waterbury needs to find new legal advice.

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, Villette said:

According to the complaint, Ramasar sent three pictures of Maxwell to Finlay without her knowledge: one topless, one naked, and one of her vagina. 

I concede that that info ups the ante,  if true.  That detail from the complaint comes from Waterbury.  But according to Maxwell,  there was only one photo,  which she knew Ramasar was taking.  Maxwell is twenty-five,  not fifteen,  mature enough to realize that in this digital age,  it's likely that more than one person might see the photo,  given the fact that it's estimated that 70%+ of cell phone owners share images of an intimate nature.  It would be different if Ramasar took the photos surreptitiously.  At any rate Maxwell is the only party who might have been violated,  but she's not making a complaint.

That fact seems to bother Waterbury the most.  She expects women who, unlike herself,  actually did make it into NYCBallet,  to  blow up their own spot  and end their relationships,  too.  All because she was done wrong by Chase Finlay.  It's a bit rich that she's complaining about her conversation being recorded when she is the one who went through Finlay's texts and revealed conversations that had nothing to do with her.  

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...