This is just a fancy way of saying that some people think FV owes them an apology.
We have our popcorn. Enough trailers. Roll the feature, or give us our money back. This is getting boring.
Guru falls
- Thread starter redpepper
- Start date
This is just a fancy way of saying that some people think FV owes them an apology.
We have our popcorn. Enough trailers. Roll the feature, or give us our money back. This is getting boring.
vinsanity0
Active member
Nobody thought it was connected to the legal justice system. It was pointed out how arbitrary it is, not because it is not understood, but because it is arbitrary.
Even in this response it is implied FV is guilty, though in other responses it has been claimed that guilt or innocence is not important to the process. Also, it is either naive or disingenuous to believe FV is not being punished by these public actions. One member of your pod went so far as to say that didn't matter.
I have to wonder if any weight has been given to FV's claims of abuse?
And people wonder why I'm not a joiner of communities. The politics are overwhelming.
Following the links left by the pod spokespeople, I found Eve Rickert's interview here (but it will only be accessible until March 1, so this link won't be helpful in a few days):
http://successfulpolyamory.com/day-8/
(You might have to sign in with an email address to view the video, so I understand if you don't want to do that).
The interview (sort of) adds a little bit of the specific details that are sorely missing from this whole thing (although still leaves many questions).
The gist of Eve's story: Franklin claimed to be in a long-term relationship with the woman he called his "Game Changer" (the subject of his book with that title). Eve met her several times. It turned out, much to Eve's surprise, that she had broken up with Franklin years earlier and just considered him a friend, and she had no idea that Franklin was telling Eve she was his partner. Along with Eve, she is now one of the 6 exes (one of the former nesting partners) alleging abuse.
The interview doesn't have any more details beyond that, but I found it worth watching.
I find Eve believable, but I am also, like others here, frustrated with the vagueness of the accusations. We are being asked to listen, but there are no actual stories being told.
I don't agree with those criticizing Eve's writing as "jealous rants." Her pieces describe exactly what it FEELS LIKE to suffer emotional abuse. The pieces do not, however, actually give any specific details of what Franklin did, so I am still not sure what we are supposed to make of this whole thing. "It Was Never About the Nail" is a fine metaphor for what abuse feels like, but I am still left wanting the actual story, I guess.
Vinsanity has really good questions about why should we assume Franklin is guilty of abuse, but NOT believe his claims that Eve abused him. The pod representatives have not even attempted to answer Vinsanity's questions here. Which is frustrating.
For my part, reading the very few examples I could find of Eve writing about Franklin, and Franklin writing about Eve, the only thing I have to go is my subjective impression: that Franklin's tone doesn't convince me, and Eve's does. Other people seem to have the complete opposite reaction, though.
http://successfulpolyamory.com/day-8/
(You might have to sign in with an email address to view the video, so I understand if you don't want to do that).
The interview (sort of) adds a little bit of the specific details that are sorely missing from this whole thing (although still leaves many questions).
The gist of Eve's story: Franklin claimed to be in a long-term relationship with the woman he called his "Game Changer" (the subject of his book with that title). Eve met her several times. It turned out, much to Eve's surprise, that she had broken up with Franklin years earlier and just considered him a friend, and she had no idea that Franklin was telling Eve she was his partner. Along with Eve, she is now one of the 6 exes (one of the former nesting partners) alleging abuse.
The interview doesn't have any more details beyond that, but I found it worth watching.
I find Eve believable, but I am also, like others here, frustrated with the vagueness of the accusations. We are being asked to listen, but there are no actual stories being told.
I don't agree with those criticizing Eve's writing as "jealous rants." Her pieces describe exactly what it FEELS LIKE to suffer emotional abuse. The pieces do not, however, actually give any specific details of what Franklin did, so I am still not sure what we are supposed to make of this whole thing. "It Was Never About the Nail" is a fine metaphor for what abuse feels like, but I am still left wanting the actual story, I guess.
Vinsanity has really good questions about why should we assume Franklin is guilty of abuse, but NOT believe his claims that Eve abused him. The pod representatives have not even attempted to answer Vinsanity's questions here. Which is frustrating.
For my part, reading the very few examples I could find of Eve writing about Franklin, and Franklin writing about Eve, the only thing I have to go is my subjective impression: that Franklin's tone doesn't convince me, and Eve's does. Other people seem to have the complete opposite reaction, though.
SEASONEDpolyAgain
Well-known member
"I don't agree with those criticizing Eve's writing as "jealous rants." Her pieces describe exactly what it FEELS LIKE to suffer emotional abuse."
I agree that it describes exactly what it feels like to suffer emotional abuse. I'm also aware that some people confuse an emotional abusive partner with a unhealthy relationship which becomes abusive to the people in it. I've seen situations where a monogamous person feels a partner desiring polyamory is abusive for wanting a relationship style that is different to what was initially agreed and won't make their partner happy. I do not disbelieve that the person feels abused - staying in a situation which obstructs happiness is abusive - but the people involved might just be incompatible. Their desires and needs are oppositional but the people with them aren't abusive to their partners. Even if they fight to try and make it work. Even if they fight in ways that ultimately make things worse.
When Eve's story was linked, it was implied that her account means that FV is abusive and we should see that as evidence, just by what she said. Whereas I think that could be written by someone who is either in an abusive situation or someone with an abusive (former) partner and neither would be disingenuous or exaggerating about their feelings.
I agree that it describes exactly what it feels like to suffer emotional abuse. I'm also aware that some people confuse an emotional abusive partner with a unhealthy relationship which becomes abusive to the people in it. I've seen situations where a monogamous person feels a partner desiring polyamory is abusive for wanting a relationship style that is different to what was initially agreed and won't make their partner happy. I do not disbelieve that the person feels abused - staying in a situation which obstructs happiness is abusive - but the people involved might just be incompatible. Their desires and needs are oppositional but the people with them aren't abusive to their partners. Even if they fight to try and make it work. Even if they fight in ways that ultimately make things worse.
When Eve's story was linked, it was implied that her account means that FV is abusive and we should see that as evidence, just by what she said. Whereas I think that could be written by someone who is either in an abusive situation or someone with an abusive (former) partner and neither would be disingenuous or exaggerating about their feelings.
I would also like to see an answer to that question.
There does seem to be a lack of clarity about these aspects in the very basics of this "transformative justice" approach. All the texts I've read so far ... they start with the premise that harm was done ... by someone. Sure, some of them continue to say that we can all be victim and perpetrator and no blame should be assigned. But it IS entirely possible for a person to feel hurt without there having been anything wrong with another one's behavior. (Not saying this is the case.)
Community accountability seems to be a step forward, and a step back at the same time.
I do think accountability can work great. I looked at what Reid Mihalko has written, and that man seems to have done a leap in awareness. Which is good, since he's a professional. We do need ways to transform stereotypes - and I'm excited to see people think about these new approaches to justice.
But. There is a reason why law and trials and the presumption of innocence were invented. There's no assessment process that would take the input of the other side into account. (At least we don't know about it in the FV case.) It's a group of people sympathetic with the alleged victims, who is starting all this and pulling him in. And... this can be a good thing. It's certainly much-needed pressure on the "ignorant, but not evil" to examine their ways. But also, it's a very dangerous group dynamics in general.
In this case it has been determined, who has more power and more responsibility to bear. The women get "survival support" while FV gets to be "accountable", although the abuse might have been mutual. I get that the reasoning is, that there is a power differential present, therefore it's important to stand by the side of the weaker party. At the same time, it may not be all that clear - often! - who the weaker party really is.
Throwing structures of the law out of the window, what protects us from tribal behavior? What protects our own 'community accountability' or 'transformative justice' approaches from primitive group dynamics - slander, ostracization, scapegoating, powerstruggles?
In Reid Mihalko's case... there was a story of a victim. He could have denied that it happened, he could have continued to minimize it. But he chose to engage and form an accountability team, and that decision of his own is why it (hopefully) worked. Still, the amount of PR he obviously had to put in his writing to make his messy inner movements believable and acceptable ... worrying.
Last edited:
This is just a fancy way of saying that some people think FV owes them an apology.
We have our popcorn. Enough trailers. Roll the feature, or give us our money back. This is getting boring.
None of this is for your amusement, or that of anyone else on this forum or anywhere else.
The survivors stories will be released when the survivors are ready to do that.
One factor in deciding when that is, will be Franklin’s engagement with an accountability process - which the survivors asked for, and he said he’d do.
While I’ll do my best to answer genuine questions if asked, I’m going to manage my time, energy and do a bit of self-care and disengage from debate with people who have entrenched positions here.
Yeah you go do your self-care. Eat your vegetables. Do your yoga. Disengage from all of *our* "entrenched positions"
Bye.
Last edited:
This is just a fancy way of saying that some people think FV owes them an apology.
We have our popcorn. Enough trailers. Roll the feature, or give us our money back. This is getting boring.
Just curious. What evidence leads you to that conclusion?
The words used here in this thread (you know, the ones I quoted in the post you quoted).
"Evidence" is not relevant. I am not a judge or a jury, just a spectator of a spectacle being made by others. I can read the words and it just reads as a fancy way of saying FV owes these women an apology for... something. But whatever it is, we better believe it's true, or we're part of the problem.
Last edited:
The words used here in this thread (you know, the ones I quoted in the post you quoted).
Nah. Sorry, not quite following there. Which words lead you think that it's all just "a fancy way to get Franklin to apologize"? I'm genuinely interested in your wisdom on this topic.
Okay, I'll play with you on this.
First of all, I said "a fancy way of saying that some people think FV owes them an apology", not "a fancy way to get FV to apologize". You seem pretty smart, so you can probably figure out what the difference is there.
Second, these are the words I'm referring to, since you couldn't be arsed to go back and reread the post of mine that you were responding to:
This is the post. Italics mine. The whole thing is just a fancy request for a public apology. For what? *The public still does not know.*
Somehow, I just don't believe you're *genuinely* interested in my "wisdom on this topic".. I think you meant *disingenuously* interested. Also, I never claimed to have any "wisdom" on this "topic". I simply made a comment about a comment someone else made, and it wasn't even anything that had to do with something *you* said.
So, that is all you're going to get in the way of an explanation about this from me. I have answered your question. If you don't *like* the answer, that doesn't mean I am required to keep providing more explanation until you're satisfied.
Have a pleasant weekend.
Last edited:
I did read the thread. I just couldn't see how you got to the conclusion you got to, which is why I asked.
But let's look at the quote you've emphasised in question:
"Transformative justice is about acknowledging harm, witnessing those who were harmed and helping those who harmed stop harming."
From that you've concluded these things:
- There are some people who've had a bad experience with FV who feel entitled to a public show and apology from FV
- Said people haven't been abused in those relationships
What doesn't follow is that it's been said here and elsewhere (because I haven't been imparting any "inside information", just what I've gathered from some googling and searching in various forums) that the victims want no contact with FV whatsoever. I find it strange to think that someone would feel they need an apology from someone they want no contact with.
However, repeatedly it's been said (and dismissed by yourself and others) that the aim is about reducing harm. But clearly you must know more about this, I guess. Who knows?
And I dunno, maybe these people just don't want their stories to continue to be exploited and profited on by FV? Who knows?
Also I haven't seen any of the writings offered up as "evidence". Just as accounts. There's a big difference.
Got it. In the absence of information, you'll go with your assumptions. Good thing we have smart people like you out there to show us the right way to think.
I'm merely engaging you at the same level you're engaging this thread. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I wasn't referring to anything *I* said. I was responding to your assessments which you are sharing so freely in this thread as if they are wisdom for us.
It's not about what I "like" or don't like. If you don't enjoy your trolling being criticised, you're free to ignore my comments about it.
I hope you have a lovely weekend.
WhatHappened
Active member
No, it's not for anyone's amusement. It's to paint FV as an abuser.
I personally have little interest in him or his current or former partners either way. I have no reason at all to defend him. If anything, the opposite.
But I do have an interest in integrity and fair play.
And it's incredibly disingenuous to tell everyone to disconnect from him--not work with him, not buy his books, etc., whatever--but claim you're not trying to punish him.
It's even more disingenuous to call these women 'survivors,' to imply something truly horrific happened and they're going to tell everyone something truly horrific happened--but not what. But we're just supposed to believe, without any details, without any evidence, that he did something really, really bad.
And to even ask for any evidence before burning a man at the stake is supposedly wrong, to say they're 'not ready,' and imply that it's further distressing them to be asked to actually tell their story.
Sorry, but once you accuse someone publicly, you have an obligation to back it up. There are slander laws and such. I agree with whoever said they better have good attorneys.
That was me. I said that. I was thinking that if FV lawyers up, the lawyers should be able to prove hella damages *unless* FV is found guilty of something *criminal* in relation to these "survivors".
IANAL, but I have had to bring civil litigation against a relative of mine for something far less...extensive than this, and let's just say that mine was settled out of court because I had more than enough evidence to prove defamation of character... I forgot the exact wording but there was also another legal term in my case.
If I had to speculate, I would guess that the reason FV took down his original responses (and put up some vague facebook post instead) and is now remaining silent about it in public is precisely *because* an attorney advised him to do so.
I sure hope the "pod" has a legal team on retainer. Like I said, it'll be interesting to watch this play out.
Last edited:
YouAreHere
Well-known member
Two things, the first of which seemed to get ignored when it was previously mentioned:
1. Both parties have alleged abuse, or harm. I think it needs to be made clear that believing the victims represented by the survivor pod in no way means that we are not to believe Franklin Veaux as well. Instead, asking for Veaux to step down from speaking about abuse paints him as a liar while this process is going on.
If both parties have been harmed, then they both need their voices to be heard.
2. I understand that the survivors are not yet ready to share this story, but by telling us that there *is* a story, and that we ought to believe it when it's shared, and that Franklin needs to tone down his speaking engagements and work on becoming accountable for whatever this story is... well, what are we supposed to *do* with this information? What is your intent here?
Not your intent with respect to the accountability pods (I'm sure I'm screwing up the nomenclature here), but your intent with respect to telling the public. What is the public supposed to do with this info? What am *I* supposed to do with this info?
Are we supposed to look more critically at Franklin's work? Are we supposed to just keep our minds open and wait until the stories come out?
At this point, I have no reason to believe any one party over the other. Both have alleged harm. I'll wait until the stories come out *and* I see Franklin's response. Or potential legal action, as others above have referred to.
1. Both parties have alleged abuse, or harm. I think it needs to be made clear that believing the victims represented by the survivor pod in no way means that we are not to believe Franklin Veaux as well. Instead, asking for Veaux to step down from speaking about abuse paints him as a liar while this process is going on.
If both parties have been harmed, then they both need their voices to be heard.
2. I understand that the survivors are not yet ready to share this story, but by telling us that there *is* a story, and that we ought to believe it when it's shared, and that Franklin needs to tone down his speaking engagements and work on becoming accountable for whatever this story is... well, what are we supposed to *do* with this information? What is your intent here?
Not your intent with respect to the accountability pods (I'm sure I'm screwing up the nomenclature here), but your intent with respect to telling the public. What is the public supposed to do with this info? What am *I* supposed to do with this info?
Are we supposed to look more critically at Franklin's work? Are we supposed to just keep our minds open and wait until the stories come out?
At this point, I have no reason to believe any one party over the other. Both have alleged harm. I'll wait until the stories come out *and* I see Franklin's response. Or potential legal action, as others above have referred to.
Last edited:
Speaking only for myself—the most disturbing thing I have heard here so far (nightmare-level disturbing, may I go so far as to say... *triggering*
) is the idea that being falsely accused of something is easy to get over for the person being falsely accused.Don't nobody ask me to go back and find the quote. It is for damn sure in this thread and has passed the 12 hour edit window. I can't go back and re-read it because it was THAT upsetting to me.
The second most disturbing thing I have read here is the idea that because women have been oppressed by the patriarchy for so long, that we as a society need to compensate by accepting a woman's story instead of a man's, *just because* of gender, and not based on merit. Women, if you want to be equal, you need to step up and *be* equal. You can't have it both ways. People who believe that women should be believed *just because* they are women do all of humanity a disservice. You don't solve the problem by becoming the problem.
I think I had something else to say, but I forgot. If I remember what it was, I might be back for an edit or a few.
ETA: Oh yeah. I forgot to say that I too am a woman, in case accusations of "misogyny" are forthcoming. Of course, just because I am a woman doesn't mean I can't be a misogynist, I suppose...
Last edited:
YouAreHere
Well-known member
The quote ref is referring to... (warning for those who don't want to read it again)
Note that WhatHappened also took this sentiment to task.
Believing women shouldn't mean destroying men in the process. If Franklin is cleared of any harm/abuse during this process, much of the damage will already have been done. Will the web articles pointing to this incident then push out a retraction as fervently? Will the people who believed the alleged victims even read or believe it?
I'm not saying allegations of abuse shouldn't be believed. People bringing forward accusations of abuse NEED to be believed and supported when going to the police, or authority figures, so they can begin to go through the process of bringing about justice. They need to be treated like human beings worthy of justice. I'm not denigrating the people who have been abused.
However, Franklin also considers himself abused. Tangible damages here may not be easily repaired.
I'm not saying anyone is wrong here and shouldn't be believed. I'm saying that I need to wait for all the information to come out and not believe one party over another prematurely.
Note that WhatHappened also took this sentiment to task.
Believing women shouldn't mean destroying men in the process. If Franklin is cleared of any harm/abuse during this process, much of the damage will already have been done. Will the web articles pointing to this incident then push out a retraction as fervently? Will the people who believed the alleged victims even read or believe it?
I'm not saying allegations of abuse shouldn't be believed. People bringing forward accusations of abuse NEED to be believed and supported when going to the police, or authority figures, so they can begin to go through the process of bringing about justice. They need to be treated like human beings worthy of justice. I'm not denigrating the people who have been abused.
However, Franklin also considers himself abused. Tangible damages here may not be easily repaired.
I'm not saying anyone is wrong here and shouldn't be believed. I'm saying that I need to wait for all the information to come out and not believe one party over another prematurely.
Last edited:
I predict that when the *support pod* gets contacted by FV's *legal team/pod*, the moderators of this forum get pelted with a volley of demands to remove this thread. We'll see if I'm right. If I'm wrong, I'm okay with that too.
FV has written extensively about his "abusive ex" whom he identified as the co-author of MTT. He's given a talk at a national poly conference about his experiences of his abusive ex. His voice is being heard.
I think you answered that in your first statement. It sounds to me like there are voices that have previously been unheard that want to be heard.
I don't know. What should you do with the extensive writing about his abusive ex that FV has already done?
Is it unreasonable to ask people to look more critically at his work?
What's interesting is that I've come across some analyses by people who have a decent amount of expertise and professional credentials in the field of abuse. Those people have all concluded that the stories of the women are far more credible for various reasons.