Monthly Archives: October 2017

Woody, Mia, Dylan and Soon-Yi

I do have quite an opinion on this one. Not just because it’s quite an exposure what this couple has had in the media, but also because one of my best friends was a victim -though in a more mildly way- of a woman going beserk during their seperation.

Woody Allen is one of the most successfull storytellers of Hollywood. Big stars want to work with him, think his work is amazing, a piece of art and him an artist, most people rave on about it. There is, in short, recognition of the quality of his profession.
I’ve been watching some of his films. Annie Hall being one of them and the most recent to that (thank you, Netflix!). To be fair I wasn’t too impressed by that one. It happens, you don’t need to be a fan like everyone else is, right? Especially the characters Allen plays in his own films I really dislike. He is always such an a*hole. Again, MY opinion.

Also, I have read some of the stories that emerged about him during the years. Not too much -I haven’t been that interested- but I did read how Mia Farrow wrote an eight page epistel of how he did her and her children wrong in Variety magazine (or was it a different one?). Her eight page rant struck a chord with me. ‘Wow’, I thought, ‘her logic really doesn’t make ANY sense to me?!’
I also read how Dylan complained to big stars such as Meryl Streep etc, asking them how they could have turned a blind eye to what Woody did to her? I can imagine a child -who is, agewise, no longer a child- feels like such indeed, when they notice that their story has not been responded to by these highly acclaimed people.

If I’m honest: it’s tricky business.
When two people love each other, they will try everything in their power to be together as much as possible. They get married (for instance), or move in together, have children, or dogs or other types of pets, that sort of things really. They try to have things that bind them together. Things that are beings (children and/or pets) or actual things such as art, clothes, you name it. Collectables.
If things go wrong, however, it can take very nasty turns. Especially with children involved. Mothers are known to be lions when it comes to their children. They will do anything to protect their cubs from evil doërs. And let’s be honest: so they should. This is what mothers are for. Fathers too, by the way. In general, being a parent entails protecting your children. Or at least wanting to, even if it’s not really possible.
This is where parents can hit a tricky point. Having to recognise ones own mistakes and keeping things amicably on behalf of the children during a divorce/seperation, is one of those challenges. Some people succeed in this mission, keeping the children as a shield in front of their own emotions. A very wise thing to do, because lots of things will turn out for the best interests of those said children if they do.
Some people fail greatly at this, with the possibility of breaking the bond that is woven between the children. I know of a woman who told her children that whoever was on the side of their father, could never be a friend of herself again. Which isn’t exactly a rare story to be fair.

Where two people fight, there’s two people at fault, is my opinion. When there’s a divorce or a split up, this is no different.
After reading Mia Farrow’s report on what had happened during her time with Woody Allen, I was quite surprised.
For I read that there was an  “unwritten rule” in their household that Woody should never be alone with Dylan.
Dylan, an adoptive daughter. Not just that, the adoption wasn’t finalized yet when these things occurred. So I do ask myself: why would a mother ask a judge to let a man she doesn’t even trust to be alone with this child, to be the father of this child by law? Why would you do that? If you don’t trust him, why not adopt her on your own and make bloody sure that Woody Allen gets filed for some sort of report?
Because she didn’t do this. This is the weakest point in her entire raving about him being evil. Always has been. Reading about one of their children stating there was never any wrongdoing by Woody Allen, makes my believe in this stronger.
Mia did seem to fill Dylan’s head with allegations against her father, about him being evil. I have no idea if any of it is true.
I honestly don’t know.
I do know there have been therapies that to recall events that never occurred. Scary.

Woody Allen has, since then, gotten a famous relationship with Soon Yi. We all saw what happened there. With her, he also adopted two children.
I can’t believe a judge would allow someone to adopt children if there was a serious suspicion of them abusing children in the past?

The whole case does make it impossible for Woody Allen to comment on the Weinstein issue, I’ve noticed. Even though things weren’t necessarily proved or unproved in his (Allens’) case, he did flirt with disaster and that doesn’t give him a strong ‘innocent’ side, I’ve noticed. I agree with him that it’s hard to get away from even the suspicion of abusement, even if you haven’t done anything. The point he is making is valid, as I just said: I don’t know who to believe: Farrow or Allen.
Dylan is quite a different story. She is a victim, in whatever way you point it. Either because she has been fed false info as a child (this is beyond wrong) or because she has had to endure/experience things she should never have experienced in the first place (this would be extremely sick to do to a child).
Let’s hope that some day one of her parents decides to tell the actual true and tell her ‘Sorry Dylan, I’ve been most unkind to you and your childhood and I will regret doing that for the rest of my life’, and for Dylan to reply by: ‘well, what the hell took you so long?!’

And for those still in doubt, here is one of their own children’s piece of mind about it:


Posted by on October 24, 2017 in Opinion


Tags: , , , , ,


Like the church a few years ago, Harvey Weinstein and lots of other big Hollywood bozo’s suddenly collapse under the force that’s the united complaints of loads of people who finally go and tell who exactly harassed them when they were young.

I hear many men complain ‘oi, it’s not ALL MEN?! I was actually raised pretty properly!’ and I can imagine it feels like being trapped in the ‘guilty’ box even though you’re pretty sure you’ve never done anything.
First of all: hello and welcome aboard the Shittrain Of Accusations that women endure when they even so much as try to report what happened to them.
First questions asked aren’t ‘what did he wear? What does he look like? Shall I punch him in the face for you?’ most likely it’s:
‘What were you wearing? Did you say something that might have given him the idea you wanted it?’ or ‘how did he get to be alone with you?’
It’s mostly trying to see if it could be blamed on you. You. The one who just reported the harassment.
As a society we’re clear: it’s NEVER your fault.
Then again, as a society, our first approach is still that is COULD BE your fault after all. Maybe it’s not how you intend it, but it is how you approach it, quite likely.

Ages ago, when I was quite heavily underage (or at least very heavily underdeveloped as I recall), an aquantaince found a way to spend time with me. I hadn’t realised I had never been alone with this man, nor what the look in his eyes had meant when I had been wearing a bathing suit around him some time before that. I do recall -afterwards- that I had never seen anyone look at me like that. Not knowing what it meant, I didn’t act upon it in any way.
One afternoon his wife went out. It then happened. I am not a person to actually verbally say ‘stop that, please’. Even without the please. I just freeze. I’m quite introvert. I have learned from a young age that telling ‘stop, I don’t like it’ doesn’t help. Being the daily target of bullies at school, I had, in fact, learned that usually had the opposite effect.
I did try to at least turn my legs away, but being in a rather small space, that wasn’t a real option. It was caressing, touching, without actual looking at me. I got up, in hopes of escaping, but my leg was caught in his arms and he pulled me closer to him. As I couldn’t use my leg to keep my balance, my automatic response was to look for a way to keep my balance. That was sort of a ‘wrap my arm around his head’ kind of situation. So he got to touch my breast aswell in his next move. Given that my leg was now free, I got to walk away from that scene after that.

It took me quite some time to get over that. I had no idea what just happened, why it happened and especially not why it had happened to ME. I have never found myself attractive in any way whatsoever, people have always told me I look far too skinny to be that in case I might think different: so WHY me, really? And for the record: I had been wearing short skirts and dresses around this man for quite some time (it was summer and I was a daily visitor to the pool that was less than 10 feet away) but I was actually wearing trousers and an oversized T-shirt that particular day. Just so you know.

I decided to tell someone that same day, as I couldn’t stop crying for a full hour when I got back to where I was staying. I told the right one, thankfully, as the aquaintance who did it got an angry visit after that right away. I was told, before that visit ‘you have done NOTHING wrong, it wasn’t your fault and I’m glad that you have told me’. To be fair I have no idea what would have happened if the first one I told it to hadn’t responded like that.
I do recall telling some of my family members, and at least one of them responded with:
‘Are you sure it was that bad what happened? Uncle Blahblah has sometimes touched me weirdly too, it doesn’t necessarily mean anything’. I was a bit shocked by that. Not just Uncle Blahblah apparently not being able to keep their hands away -something I never have endured, thankfully- but also the idea that my interpretation of the experience could be questioned.

I’ve noticed something else too, with the #MeToo hashtag: women are being far braver than ever before. They still hardly mention any names though. Only when it’s one of them big bastards, like Harvey Weinstein, they do. He is already proven guilty after admitting he has done wrong things. So women do feel they no longer have to keep silent on his part. Good for them. But these other men, why still protect them?
I get it and I don’t get it, is all. And yes, I’m aware I’m doing exactly the same, but I think everyone’s story as to why they protect their harasser is different. I’m just curious to why others do it.
In my case, I find the fact that this man was already confronted with what he had done and afterwards apologised to me with the demands of the one who confronted him, he’s had his punishment. He thought he could get away with it, he couldn’t. I told, it was solved.

Another thing to be noticed with the hashtag: mostly it’s women coming forward about men harassing them. Unfortunately, men are sufferers too. There’s a book out about a boy growing up in an unsafe environment too. It’s called When The Waves Break The Silence and is available on and on in both paperback and kindle edition

Leave a comment

Posted by on October 20, 2017 in Opinion, Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Anne Faber en het falende rechtssysteem

Met het verdwijnen en de zoektocht naar Anne Faber, werden er in minder dan twee weken tijd ineens een hele hoop mensen met hun neus op de feiten gedrukt: ons rechtssysteem deugt niet.

Dat wisten we, op zich, allang, maar met de dood van een (plotseling) zeer geliefd meisje -met alle respect voor de nabestaanden; zó lang kenden velen die naar haar zochten haar tenslotte niet, áls ze haar al kenden- werd het ineens héél duidelijk.

Want hoe kon het dan zo’n psychopatische gek zomaar los kon rondlopen, die feitelijk al maanden bezig was met het plotten van de ‘ideale’ moord. Als ik de vele spookverhalen op twitter, verscheidene blogs en nieuwssites mag geloven, tenminste.
Er werd dan ook meteen een petitie opgestart. Een zeer emotioneel opgestelde. Dat begrijp ik. Ik heb net zo hard op m’n twitter-feed zitten kijken elke dag. Het doet wat met je, of zo iemand nou bekend is of niet.
‘Is ze al gevonden?’ spookte het door m’n hoofd. Gek genoeg had ik al vrij snel (na het opduiken van haar jas en fiets) het idee dat er helaas geen levende Anne Faber meer zou worden gevonden.
Het viel me wel op hoe ontzettend rechttoe rechtaan het hele verhaal ging. De twee weken waren weliswaar zenuwslopend, maar na een DNA spoor op de jas van Anne Faber, ging het snel met het opsporen van de verdachte en het vinden van haar stoffelijk overschot.

En dat is het een beetje: als dat al meteen zo duidelijk was, wáárom was het dan zo dat deze meneer al aan het wennen was aan het leven buiten? Ja, hij had een relatie met ‘s werelds meest achterlijke begeleidster/therapeut (wat is dat voor neukhol geweest daar in Den Dolder?! Weet je als professional daar soms niet wat de werkwijze is van zo’n psychopaat? Dan ben je dus ook niet voldoende geschoold, lijkt me?) en zat kennelijk in een soort ‘vrijwillig’ therapeutisch traject.
Punt is dat men kennelijk wel door gehad moet hebben hoe gevaarlijk hij was. Ondanks de zogenaamd uitgezeten straf. Die dus niet heeft geholpen.
Ik las ergens dat er een lage recidive te verwachten is na TBS, in tegenstelling tot gevangenisstraf. Ook las ik dat TBS bij psychopaten zinloos is. Belangrijker nog: mensen mógen KIEZEN voor TBS. Dus of het nu geschikt is of niet, de keuze is ook nog eens aan degene die het leed al heeft doen geschiede. Dat is toch uiterst curieus? Dat zou niet moeten mogen. Zodra iemand ook gebruikmaakt van de ‘ja maar ik ben niet helemaal goed wijs’ factor, zou dat gevolgen moeten hebben voor iemands strafmaat. Misschien niet in de cel zitten, maar op z’n minst verplicht TBS. Niks kiezen. Dat vrijwillige móet er vanaf, als er onherstelbare schade aan iemands leven is ontstaan, als gevolg van iemand met psychische problemen.

Omdat therapeuten ooit hebben bedacht dat therapie alleen werkt als de patiënt er zin in heeft, hóeft het dus niet? Met het gevolg dat zo iemand na slechts maximaal 2/3e van zijn/haar straf te hebben uitgezeten -en de straffen zijn al te laag, zeker in relatie tot pyschisch danwel lichamelijk letsel-  vrijkomt en weer opnieuw kan beginnen? Het lijkt een beetje op het omgekeerde van het Florence Nightingale-complex: zoveel mogelijk slachtoffers maken in korte tijd, en maar zien hoe de samenleving dat oplost.
Je mag het recht niet in eigen handen nemen, zegt men. Als het recht zou wérken, zou dat niet hoeven. Het valt me op dat in verkrachtingszaken, het beroerd gesteld is met het Nederlands recht. Kinderen die verkracht worden, hoeven geen vergelding via ons rechtssysteem te verwachten. 3 maanden, hooguit. En dan nog alleen als de verkrachter toegeeft, het gefilmd heeft, en het liefst ook zwart op wit heeft gezet dat-ie het van plan was.

Geld jatten van de overheid, dát levert pas levenslang op. En geen haan die daar verdomme naar kraait.

Ik sprak een advocaat, wiens terrein an sich dit gelukkig niet is, maar daarom nog wel kennis van zaken heeft.
‘Als advocaat ben je in dienst van je cliënt. Ook al vindt je wel dat iemand TBS nodig heeft, of wat voor therapie dan ook, als de cliënt niet wil, dan heb je daar naar te handelen’.
Iedereen heeft recht op een advocaat. Dat is gewoon zo. En als het de taak is van de advocaat om datgene te doen wat zijn cliënt ‘m opdraagt, dan moet de verplichting van de veiligheidsstelling dus via de wet geregeld worden.
Kennelijk.  Als jurisprudentie of wat ook. Het zou in de wet moeten staan dat een rechter verplicht is de samenleving te beschermen, dat TBS een verplicht onderdeel is als er sprake is van zwakzinnigheid, ofwel onwillige verdachten.
Een advocaat moet, namens zijn cliënt, hard kunnen maken en kunnen toetsen dat TBS (of wat dan ook) niet nodig is. Faalt hij/zij daarin, dan zit de cliënt er dus aan vast.
Is er gebleken dat iemand bijvoorbeeld ‘licht ontoerekeningsvatbaar’ is of wat dan ook? Prima, dan ook verplichte behandeling.
‘Dat helpt niet’ hoor ik u denken. Het zal u verbazen: iemand loslaten in de maatschappij, werkt nóg duidelijker al helemaal niet.

Weg met dat ‘vrijwillig’. Laat meisjes zoals Anne Faber en uw eigen dochters, nichtjes en trouwens ook neefjes en zonen, rustig buiten fietsen en lekker hard worden door een buitje, en niet door psychotische rotschoften, omdat de therapeut/begeleiding d’r broek liet zakken. Of zoveel meer in iemand zag. Daar komen slachtoffers van, weten we nu.

Leave a comment

Posted by on October 16, 2017 in Opinion


Tags: , , , , , ,

The Lovely Bones

This incredibly long film stuns mostly by not being boring even one moment. And it even stuns more by not being boring without actual ‘quick’ parts. It even has quite some bits that are a bit more slow, and still: it works.

The story is quite dreadful and you need to be in the mood for drama. On her way from school to home, Susan Salmon (very well played by Saoirse Ronan) is tricked and as such killed by her neighbour, played by Stanley Tucci. The film is mostly about how both parties -the living and the dead- deal with the situation.

Susan Salmon is the voiceover and tells everything in an at times warning voice, but mostly nearly excited. Her voice does its work really quite well, and all the things that keep happening after her disappearance and the things that happened before, make this film a sort of perfect mix of loss and not loss altogether.

I’ve read on InternetMovieDataBase that Stanley Tucci was actually quite uncomfortable with the kind of personality he was supposed to be playing, so he did everything he could to make the role physically as far away from himself as possible (wearing a fat suit, dye every hair he got in a different tone, wear colored contact lenses, even dying his skin in a different shade), but still you immediately recognise him. At least I did.

There’s also the early years of Rose McIver to enjoy (who we now know as the iZombie leading part) and as a whole, the parents and grandmother of Susie.

All in all I’d say it’s a film well worth watching, expect quite some mixed emotions here and there, as it’s the killed one versus the killer who doesn’t want to be discovered. Logically.

Leave a comment

Posted by on October 9, 2017 in Films, Opinion, Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , , ,

The Drowning

With Julia Stiles, Avan Jogia and Josh Charles amongst the actors.

A psychiatrist is confronted with his past influence in court, when he saves a drowning young man who turns out to have been his patient, years ago.

This film is actually quite boring and it feels, at times, a lot is left out, without being explained. That doesn’t make it better. In itself Josh Charles’ play is good, but it seems out of character for any loving husband to not tell his wife so much. Julia Stiles is a properly annoyed wife, not understanding what’s bothering her husband about certain contacts she has.
Avan Jogia is brilliant as annoying bastard. Too pretty, too young, too luring. In that sense it’s a bit too obvious that he is the dangerous factor in here. His actions seem weird and aren’t too well explained either, not until the end.

The people in court aren’t of much help either. The colleague of the psychiatrist asks him for favors, but in return doesn’t give any information either.

It’s not a bad film, and the tension is properly build up at times, but the only moment where you think ‘ah, finally something is explained’, it’s only one thing and you agree with the character there: ‘why didn’t you tell me before?’

If you’re a Julia Stiles fan like myself, you will probably enjoy yourself. Josh Charles is doing a far better job in The Good Wife.

Leave a comment

Posted by on October 4, 2017 in Films, Opinion, Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , , , ,

Our Souls At Night

With Jane Fonda, Robert Redford and Iain Armitage.
A curiously dull film, to be fair. One night, Addie Moore (played by Jane Fonda) knocks on Louis Waters’ (Robert Redford) door. She has a proposal of sorts.
She would like to sleep together on a regular base.

‘Not for sex, I’ve long lost interest for that’, she explains, making the proposal a little less awkward and in a way funny, but still: Louis Waters doesn’t know what to say to that??

The storyline itself is very unsignificant. It’s basically what happens when two elderly people who are alone get together to spend the night -just to talk and not be alone. They are the talk of the town amongst their peers, but it’s not really that shocking. It still is two people who have the age and the maturity to choose for themselves. Louis Waters does get angry with his peers for a bit, but that’s about it.

For people looking for an exciting film: this isn’t it. It’s a very demure, peaceful story about two elderly people who spend time together, with minor incidents like a grandchild coming over, some friends who become curious and so on. The biggest event is one of their children protesting against the parent being happy.

Given that Jane Fonda currently also stars in the series Grace & Frankie, this film will disappoint. Jane Fonda actually tries to look attractive in that series and is a lot more progressive. Besides, the film Barefoot in the Park, that has both Jane Fonda and Robert Redford in it, has a lot more to offer when it comes to weird and sillyness entering the building.
Robert Redford actually has feelings in that film too. He is far more of an introvert here. He barely talks about himself. He asks her why she picked him. In the end you still don’t really know.

In short: if you love the actors, go for it, but don’t expect much of it. It’s really quite dull.

Leave a comment

Posted by on October 3, 2017 in Films, Opinion, Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , , ,

Rights to your own body.

You know that scene from Sissi, in which she tells Franz that their first child is on its way? Just in case you haven’t, here’s his response:


Unless your response as a man is the same as the above, I don’t think you have any rights at all to judge a woman who is quite unsure what to do next, once she has found out she is pregnant.

For ‘normally’ pregnant females, there are websites, which tell you what feelings are normal to experience when you find out you’re pregnant. Also that it’s normal to feel quite ambivalent about it. To be scared. To want to get rid of it. To feel ill equipped. Those websites tell you to talk about those feelings. That it is normal to feel that way.

This is true. I have several friends who admitted to being scared shitless after finding out they were pregnant. No matter how much the unborn child was wanted, those thoughts were among the happy ones. It happens. Mostly, I’ll admit, with friends being heavily nauseous during that first trimester. Pregnancy isn’t always jolly good fun, after all.

It’s also true that types like Jacob Rees-Mogg wake up another type of disgust. Because what if your pregnancy is the result of a rape? The result of a rape by someone you trusted to be your protector? Or just someone who brutally grabbed you, pulled you into the bushes and made you his? Rape itself is traumatising enough, it’s disgusting that a man in suit and tie also claims abortion is wrong in all circumstances.
I was astounded to hear that Jacob actually has a wife and no less than six kids. After his bold confessions that he is against abortion in any case, I thought to myself: that poor daughter of them! Because this also entails that whatever will happen to her, she now has the security that her father will always assume that it was her fault, should something happen to her. Even if Jacob Rees-Mogg did it himself. Or his sons. He has enough of those.
With what kind of world view will these boys be raised? That it’s OK to rape a girl, because she denied him? That it’s OK to rape in general? Because yes, that’s basically what someone with those views, is saying. It is actually denying that rape exists at all. It is beyond the pillory, even. I wanna bet that Jacob Rees-Mogg was mourning the loss of the Magdalene laundrettes in Ireland when they were closed?!

And yes, I know those are his personal views, but still I consider this man to be very dangerous. And a bloody hypocrit, given that he profits from the sales of abortion pills. I’m pretty sure your God will kick you out of heaven, Jacob Rees-Mogg!

Then there’s yet another point of reasoning to consider. What if your child has a chromosomatical deficit, or is handicapped in a different way? This is, again, a very personal point of view. But that’s it: personal. There’s people who say a handicapped child shouldn’t be included in the pro choice process. Why is that?
I know there are experts and lots of people who are very willing to accept any type of people into their lives. But there’s also those who don’t. Why would you force a child to have a parent who will never fully love their child? Don’t forget that many of these children have needs that are mostly costly within health care. A health care that’s slowly bleeding to death, in nearly every country that even has this type of health care at the ready. There are lots of possibilities for people who have money, but not so much for those who don’t. Are you going to be the one who judges if a live is compatible with the current life? Or are you gonna leave that to a professional (the doctor) and the parents who actually need to take care of such a child?

I saw the other day an article about men talking about their side of the story when it came to abortions. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find the link any longer.
One man I felt for. He had wanted to have children with the love of his life, and I do think that if he would have had more time with this girl, they might have had a shot at being happy together. I did think: if she would have known how much he loved her, and how much her hormones were possibly confusing her, she might have kept it. Of course I can never be sure. It could be he wasn’t the love of her life, in which case it’s not all that brilliant to be tied together forever because of a child you have to raise. Parenting is tough enough if you are in harmony about things, as children will try to play you out at every single occasion possible.
Another story was from a man who had also unwillingly supported his girlfriend during her abortion. He later forced another woman to carry out her pregnancy, even though doctors had told them their child would not live out of the womb. Of course I felt sorry he had the traumatising experience of his girlfriend undergoing an abortion, but I could not, for the life of me, think why he would punish another woman for that?! He said in the end it was a healing experience, but I thought he had been very cruel to that woman. He had no right to do so, in my opinion. You’re not going to force someone you love, to loose someone if that’s not necessary.

And for those who are still not convinced it’s the choice of women themselves: I’ve read a website where women who had had an abortion could leave their story. I was astounded, shocked and disgusted by how many of these women had been chaised by their angry partners with knives, belts, bats and lovely promises (‘I’ll kill you and that unborn of yours if you keep it!’) before they went to indeed have an abortion. Imagine what that would be like if you did that where it’s illegal. How safe are you going to feel as a woman or a young girl in trouble, if everyone is opposed to any action you can think of?

If you want to help, then really help. Not short term. Don’t say ‘you are a murderer’. Try to actually foresee what could happen to this child if it was born. Are you gonna take care of it? Is that a solid promise, no matter what? Or are you just prolife because you once had an abortion and you’re sorry about it now? Your life isn’t the life of the other. You literally have no idea what you’re up against.

Leave a comment

Posted by on October 2, 2017 in Daily life, Opinion


Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

%d bloggers like this: