The Victim-Blaming Abuse Narrative Pointed at Chloe Dykstra

Two sides to any story, it is also very easy for alleged/accused to suffer consequences through the court of public opinion, without proof. Even a blog is a public statement, not a vacuum free of consequence. The phrase I believe, as in I almost 100% believe an accuser, takes away from due process and can result in some immediate consequences for the accused, even if not law enforcement consequence. When the law is not involved , but straight to court of public opinion, the Evidence can be hearsay, an after thought, a tragic follow-up to the public lynch mob. Let's not let I believe trump innocent until proven, there has to be some measure of balance and reasoning. People can lie or exaggerate on either side, there are plenty of news stories of falsehoods that had to be surfaced by investigative journalism.

Now that AMC has completed their internal investigation, after Hardwick released SMS messages, after his wife and ex-gf came out to defend Chris, and after he has been reinstated as series host, I'm waiting for your follow up post. After all, you had already decided Hardwick was guilty while writing this and created a narrative of abuse from someone you don't know.
You can't play both sides. You can't claim #IBelieveHer while believing in due process.

"Undermines the victim's story by painting her as someone who is unreliable, promiscuous, and a liar. He claims he "found out" about her infidelity, which suggests she hid it from him"
Uh yeah, that's how infidelity works. Most people don't just immediately ANNOUNCE to their partner that they cheated on them, unless they're a total sociopath intent on emotionally hurting them as much as possible. Have to ever even met another human being? How can this possibly we a strange concept to you? And what if the person making the accusation IS unreliable and known to be a habitual liar? The entire basis of psychology is that past behavior is an indication of future behavior. You would CERTAINLY take the past sexual abuse behavior of a man as evidence that he likely committed another sexual abuse, so why wouldn't you take a woman's past behavior of excessively lying as evidence that she was likely lying now? Its a double standard

I wonder how all of this holds up under the revelation of texts in which she admits to cheating on him, causing HIM to leave HER, and her asking for forgiveness and to be reunited? If you want to post an accusation online, fine, go for it. I draw the line at people being punished before even an iota of evidence is brought forth, (which is exactly what happened here) even if that evidence consists of nothing more the a similiar accusation from another person. Hysteria and knee-jerk reactions brings justice to no one, the victim/accuser or the perpetrator/accused. Also, scrutiny is not the same as discrediting, it is a neccessity if any semblance of truth is to be derived from a testimony. This is why cross examination is practiced in court.

If an abuse victim is just looking for closure by posting anonymously online then why reveal yourself the very next day via Twitter, or include personal information that can easily be traced back to the alleged abuser? Unless you didn’t get the level of response you actually wanted when the article was first posted.
Why accuse somebody of something and claim to have evidence to prove it, but then not reveal anything? If a person did sexually assault someone, and there’s proof, then they deserve to be called out and face the consequences. Oddly the person showing all of the proof is the alleged abuser!
If all a victim wanted was an apology why not contact the person directly or via email or text? Then if they didn’t respond you could always threaten to post the information online. Unless you didn’t actually want an apology and were seeking revenge instead.
Maybe he did sexually assault/violate her, maybe he did blacklist her, but where is the proof? If you had proof that someone committed a crime/injustice wouldn’t you reveal it? Unless you already got what you wanted in the form of destroying someone else’s life. Maybe this proves that he did blacklist her, otherwise why would she be trying to get revenge?
She needs to reveal the proof she supposedly has that he’s an abuser so this whole situation can come to an end. Wouldn’t that be a truer form of closure?

Jacob, thank you for your comments, although they are offensive for a number of reasons. I'd prefer to think we can address our differences of opinion like adults without personally attacking one another, but perhaps that's too optimistic of me.
Once again, I am not automatically siding with women. I'm saying that there are reasons why we victim blame. And we do. Neither you or I will ever know what went on inside someone else's relationship, and it's not for us to speculate. Regardless of whether or not you know someone personally, there is no way you can know what happens behind closed doors. This is what is so insidious about abuse.
Just because Chloe is mentally ill or has lied in the past, doesn't mean she's lying about this. Just because someone hasn't abused their previous partners, doesn't mean they're not capable of it in another relationship. All throughout history women have been discredited for being "histrionic" (and even locked up for it), so you're only further underlining my point by using that term.
I am not saying that Chris Hardwick is an abuser. He has been ACCUSED of emotional and sexual abuse or "violation" -- whatever you want to call it. And Chloe's account rings true for a lot of victims, as does the general response to it. I am just saying that Chloe has a right to her story not being ripped apart by people who automatically discredit her.
This piece, although it refers to Chloe's story, has a wider context, but I can see it is one you don't agree with and that's fine. You are entitled to your own worldview, just as I am entitled to mine. You are not, however, entitled to chastise women for speaking up about their experiences of abuse or for sharing their opinions.
Society does and always has treated sexual assault victims less than favourably, and your comments are evidence of that.
How do you define an "actual victim?" I'm interested to know.

Oh, and by the way, I know Chloe personally. She's mentally ill, histrionic, and a habitual liar. She has even since edited her medium post to modify her sexual assault claims. Three of Chris's ex's have come forward supporting him.
This isn't some sort of example of how "society treats victims". It's an example of how society treats baseless hit pieces on medium.
You are a sad excuse for a journalist, and I hope people like you become politically marginalized so that we focus on actual victims.

It is the height of dishonesty to "just believe" a career destroying allegation without evidence.
You internet feminists get confused about why the rest of us have slowly come to hate you, and yet you have supported the following liars:
Duke Lacrosse girl
UVA girl
Stanford Matress Girl
Aziz Ansari Girl
And now Chloe Dykstra.
Women are people, not ethereal creatures who fart butterflies and always tell the truth. The fact that you're automatically siding with women instead of properly contextualizing a situation where either side could be true, is what makes this a Gender War. And many of us are responding to it by just assuming that women are lying. So you're just hurting yourself here.
Emma, you raped me at that one thing last year. According to your logic, people need to believe me. I'm going to go write a medium post about it, and see how you feel being lied about.

She is being "victim blamed" because she is not a victim!
A "victim" does not have multiple narratives of the event they've described! Also, a "victim" does not try to get back into the supposedly horrible situation that they were in 7 months after the so called abuser ends the relationship!
She is upset that he ended things, possibly even the way he ended things... and wanted to retaliate!
Multiple sources, friends, ex-girlfriend/wife's, current wife, and employees have all said he's never been this way, but you want to take the word of someone like this for whatever reason.. is somewhat baffling, and questionable!

Gosh Emma-Marie, I do not “Twitter”, but I read that you are getting a lot of flack for writing about your “take” on how the media handles the victims of abuse. Please keep writing! If what you write gets people thinking - even if it makes them mad! - it means that you are an excellent writer! Doesn’t matter that some, like me, think differently. I don’t think of myself as a “victim”, but you and I have shared experience. (The man who assaulted me went to Attica State Prison.) Although we see the Hardwick/Dykstra situation differently, I want you to know that I admire your writing. Your goal is clearly to help lift up victims who may be margenalized. Keep writing! You are a thoughtful, talented young person, so do not be dissuaded from trying to help victims of abuse.

No question that we want victims to come forward.
And I must say, it pleases me to know that there are still wonderful young women in the world who really cannot conceive of a person being capable of claiming to have been a crime victim when, in fact, they were not.
That's a good thing. A really good thing.

Chris Hardwick’s accuser has changed the words in her essay from “sexually assaulted” to “sexually violated”. You can do that sort of thing when you self-publish on the internet. Literally, facts DON’T matter in the Wild West atmosphere of the blog!
Generally, I’m all for that. I draw the line when someone makes criminal charges without filing criminal charges. Essay writing is not nearly as therapeutic as knowing that the person who sexually assaulted you is going to prison.
Accepting the word of any one individual accusing another of sexual abuse without asking any questions - without doing any investigation - is senseless. And in some cases, it’s a crime. I am every bit as interested in protecting my loved ones - and your loved ones! - from false allegations as I am in seeing that rapists are brought to justice.
Always ask questions! Always discern! Never “just believe” anything. Human beings do a lot of things that we regret. Sometimes we color our perceptions in order to deal with loss or depression or anger. Sometimes we need help with problems that no amount of essay writing can resolve. If it does come to light that these accusations were a stretch of the truth, who is going to make reparation to the man and his family being subjected to such vitriol?
As for showing empathy for those who have been horribly harmed, I will sign myself simply as one who knows.

Hi everyone! Thanks for your comments,
You raise some interesting points, but I have a few questions:
How do we establish someone as a victim? With the proof she presents, or through witness accounts, both of which she has? Perhaps through a detailed description of the relationship by Chloe herself, which she has given? I don't think we're talking about automatic acceptance here.
And then there's the sexual assault she describes. However quick we are to doubt victims of rape, between 2 and 10 percent of rape claims in the U.S. are found to be false.
Men who abuse women (and women who abuse men) are always somebody's brother/dad/uncle -- does that mean they shouldn't be held accountable? Notice how rape and abuse against women are the only crimes where we automatically assume the side of the abuser rather than believing the alleged victim's account.
I do think there are some questions to be asked about the nature of these claims and how they are proved or prosecuted, especially in the post #metoo era. But where does it leave us if we don't allow people to self-publish essays about their abusive relationships? If we automatically assume that everyone who does so is lying unless there is concrete proof?
I write for HealthyPlace about the man who abused me. Do you know who I don't accuse of emotional and physical abuse? People who haven't emotionally or physically abused me. Our collective silence on this issue has allowed abuse against women to thrive until now.

It needs to be established that you are, in fact, a victim, in order to be “victim blamed”. Where are all these people mentioned here that support Ms. Dykstra’s allegations? I have only read about one. Do you want to live in a society in which one individual can self-publish an essay on the Internet accusing you of a crime - that’s it! - just an accusation- and have this accusation automatically accepted as fact? If the accuser had brought her essay to The New York Times, or The Washington Post, do you think it would have been published? No. And for good reasons, not the least of these being slander and defamation laws. Slip in the name of your dad or your brother or your friend in place of the name of the accused. Still okay with automatic acceptance as fact of horrible allegations?

Wait a second... but what if Hardwick is telling the truth? Then it’s not victim blaming at all, it’s simply the accused’s side of the story. And there is no way to know for sure as of yet. There has to be a balance in all of this, because just as we can’t blame the victim, we can’t automatically condemn the accused.

My comment is directed solely at your bolded statement above, namely, "Chloe knows that people will sooner disregard her statement than accept an uncomfortable truth that cannot be "proven" with evidence." My issue with this is that Ms. Dykstra claims to have both audio and video evidence to support her claims and her current significant other Robert Kazinsky claims to have viewed such evidence. In light of the tendency of some to doubt such claims, and in support of her credibility, would it not have been more practical to name her alleged abuser and present the evidence, where, according to Ms. Dykstra, her uncomfortable truth CAN be proven with evidence?