Interesting article/perspective re Julie...
...so most of you won't read it.
Posted Sep 25, 2018, 12:30 PM UTC
1325
Read it, interesting perspective.
6
Thank you for sharing this. I think in cases like this, there’s a (subconscious?) self-preservation drive that kicks in for these wives, whose identities, despite their own achievements, are still very entwined with their husbands. This comes across with Cosby’s, Kavanaugh’s wives as well.
2
That's a good point. It really seems like she just doesn't believe it about him, as opposed to someone like Melania, who has to know (at this point), and chooses to say nothing (publicly) .
2
Yeah maybe, this is why scientists say cognitive dissonance exists—human evolution’s way of protecting the self.
2
[removed]
1
I love when people are all about women and then do the exact same thing as the people they rail on.
It’s even more fitting considering she had a talk show and would gossip about these very issues but bounces from the show. LOL, what a con she is.
She’s a Hollyweird elitist through and through.
-5
ikr, The View and the shows of its type are going on about how we need to have a real, honest, national, discussion about these things.
Well, here's the chance, you all are right in the middle of it all. crickets
Insstead lets play a pre-recorded message about how we're leaving the show.
4
I’ve really soured on Julie ever since she changed her name, it just feels so condescending
-6†
Umm....that's been her name for awhile
16
Oh, really? How many times before a few weeks ago has she introduced herself as Julie Chen-Moonves? She has merely been married to the man with the last name, but has never publicly taken his name. Until recently, when she used it as a statement of solidarity to her husband.
-5†
I don’t understand how it’s condescending. It seems to me to be a very professional way of saying she is supporting and standing by her husband, but making good on her big Brother contract.
I thought it was a very professional move to get across her point.
6
I don't think it's condescending either, I think it's passive aggressive. She did that instead of saying, "I believe my husband and I don't believe those women, and nobody can change my mind."
-2†
She definitely made a statement by doing that, and the statement was, "I believe my husband and those women are lying."
4†
tl;dr Les Moonves is 100% guilty and Julie Chen-Moonves is a horrible woman for sticking by him instead of publicly condemning him.
-17
If that's what you got from that article you clearly failed reading comprehension in elementary school
9
you clearly didn't read it then, because that's not what it's saying at all.
7
[removed]
1
I definitely don't hold Julie accountable for the actions of her husband. I don't hold the idea that she should have known better/seen it coming/been able to stop it.
I DO think that her sticking by him so publicly and explicitly is problematic because she is inherently standing in opposition to the women who have accused him. She's in a tough position to either believe the man she married and the father of her children, or unilaterally stand behind women and #BeliveSurvivors as she has preached on her own public forums. This has loaded implications regarding our cultural beliefs about what women (and specifically wives) should do in these situations.
I don't know what the right answer is or how she should respond to it, both publicly and privately, but that's my 2¢.
Thanks for your perspective. I think this, from the article, is where she is right now:
"One thornier aspect of #MeToo consciousness-raising involves convincing not just men but other women that they might not know everything about a man they know well—that nearness does not guarantee transparency, that a man who is evil during the day might be patient when he returns home at night, that the powerful can apply a vile and discriminating calculus to who will suffer abuse and who will not."
But I don't know how she can read the accounts of his accusers and continue to stand by him, after supporting the women who accused other powerful men.
I think it's a "not in my backyard" thing. Like, "other women's husbands are trash and they're foolish for sticking with them, and there's no way they didn't know it was happening!"
"But my husband, he's an amazing father, he loves me, he would never do anything like that, I know him better than anyone in the world and I'm not a fool!"
So tricky. This line of thinking perpetuates the misconception that his behaviour has anything to do with her. Again, I personally am not holding her accountable for any of the alleged abuse committed by her husband. I don't believe she's a fool for being married to someone who may be capable of abusing his power.
What I AM holding her accountable for, are her actions going forwards. Standing by her husband is a choice. Leaving him is also a choice. If the alleged abuse allegations are confirmed, she then very publicly took a stand for a sex offender and against victims of sexual abuse. If it is somehow thrown out (fuck patriarchy), then she'll be heralded as someone who stood by her husband during a very trying time where he nearly lost everything. It's a catch 22.
Agreed.
She probably should have pulled a Melania and just refused to address it until everything shakes out. That way she wasn't in support of an offender (if he's guilty) but also didn't distrust her husband (if he's not). A lot of women do ride the fence that way, and it makes sense for the women who are actually in the situation- it covers their ass either way. When I think of it that way, it's almost (for lack of a better word) brave(?) of Julie to so vehemently defend her husband when it could likely mean her own personal ruin. She must really believe him.
I don't think it's likely that there's any way he's not guilty. I hope she figures out a way to cut ties and distance herself before it becomes truly impossible for her to recover. If she came out tomorrow as a guest on the Talk and said, "guys I was wrong. He's a scumbag and I was a fool to believe him and not the victims. I got so caught up in the fairytale life we have together that I couldn't see the person he really is. I am so sorry," I think most everyone would forgive her. But if she waits until after a guilty verdict it's gonna be "no, bitch, you made your bed."
I'm surprised Julie didn't at least issue a statement of neutrality.
such as "I believe in innocent before proven guilty....Please bear with me during these hard and confusing times.....while we search for answers...." or something along those lines.
u/ghost_sonata touched me where I feel funny. Now no one is allowed to support you in your side of things.
That's the problem with the "Julie must be punished for sticking with her husband who she believes is innocent" mindset. You can believe the accusers and allow an investigation while still believing in that whole pesky innocent until proven guilty nonsense.
Whether or not she believes he is innocent is a whole other discussion.
[removed]