I am not a fan of her music or her public persona but I really admire how she shut down, quickly and smartly, every time they tried to turn it round on how she wasn't a good enough victim. Fuck, it was satisfying to read. Let that creepy ass motherfucker take responsibility for the fact that he felt insecure and decided to reassure himself by molesting a young woman. Scum that he is.
'Countersued for 1$'
Dam, that is sassy.
"Mueller’s attorney Gabe McFarland asked Swift why the photo shows the front of her skirt in place, not lifted up, if Mueller was reaching underneath to grab her butt. 'Because my ass is located in the back of my body,' Swift replied."
"McFarland said, Swift could have taken a break in the middle of her meet-and-greet if she was so distraught. 'And your client could have taken a normal photo with me,' Swift countered'"
Not a huge TS fan, but goddamn, she was lighting them up. Respect.
I strongly suspect that's a very calculated legal/PR move. If he fails in suing her, there's no fault found. If she counter sues and wins, it shows he's in the wrong. It gives her further legal protection against him, because a court decided he did wrong to her. Also, It is really difficult as a defendant to not walk away from a $1 verdict.
Additionally, if she we're suing for, say, $3 million, people would inevitably say she was doing it for the money. If it's for $1, people just say it's sassy.
The number of fucking creeps in this very thread just expressing a "healthy skepticism" about whether Taylor Swift is lying about being assaulted tells you all you need to know about how important her decision is to publicly and zealously defend herself against this ridiculous lawsuit.
My personal favorite:
Wasn’t Swift critical of her bodyguard, who didn’t prevent such an obvious assault?
“I’m critical of your client sticking his hand under my skirt and grabbing my ass[.]”
Why would she lie?
For the money? It's $1.
For the attention? She's Taylor Swift.
I just looked at the picture and I can't believe his lawyer would bring it up. His hand is right at ass height and she's leaning away awkwardly while he's wearing a smile fit for the Grinch stealing Xmas!
If she wins one dollar, she actually wins one dollar plus reasonable attorney costs. Reasonable attorney costs for Taylor Swift should bankrupt any normal person. And although I normally object to the advantages the rich have in our court system, this seems fair.
the "healthy skepticism" is literally rape culture. a woman was grabbed, and everyone is like, "well let's hear this guy out... maybe he's right" it's happened to me personally! i'm sure it's happened to a ton of women. i'm sick of it man
"Then why is your skirt not up in the front?"
"Because my ass is in the rear."
I'm glad she's standing up for herself, but her high profile allows her more leverage than most people have. I'm afraid that most women who called to complain about something like this would just be brushed off. And unfortunately going to the cops for someone grabbing your ass is unlikely to lead even to charges much less a conviction.
I can't believe he filed a lawsuit against her with that evidence. To me, it proves exactly what she is saying. I can't imagine a jury seeing it any other way.
If you do a Google pic search for David Mueller Taylor Swift, you can see the pic. It's obvious where his hand is and his shit eating grin is repulsive.
Yup. Fuck that greaseball. Fucken creep. Edited for more precise message.
Women are more than wives, girlfriends, and daughters... I hate that people give us a relational value.
I wish I could upvote this a million times. A woman saying she was assaulted is usually met with more skepticism than a man saying he's innocent.
In context though, they're speaking to the abuser/molester, not to the general public.
It's terms that the sort of person that would grope a young person would understand.
This. Not every label is limiting. By calling you a daughter (which you are), no one is saying that's ALL you are.
And the commenter is hoping the abuser wouldn't grope his daughter. That's all.
I have heard it stated that a lawyer should never ask a question of someone on the stand if he doesn't already know the answers that person may give. Sounds to me like this lawyer got burned by not following that logic.
Some of these comments are straight cancer. The number of comments saying something to the effect of "well I'm not saying she lied but she could be lying" is disturbing.
she wasn't a good enough victim
I'm in the same boat as you, not really a fan of her music but that made me respect her.It's a huge problem you see basically every single time.
Don't you see though? Taylor Swift is using this poor man's degrading law suit to get attention and money, which she's incapable of earning on her own. This speculation about whether she's a conniving ruiner of lives is EXACTLY WHAT SHE WANTS. That innocent DJ had to suffer so that years later, Taylor could rise from the ashes of his career. /s
The jury has six women on it. Presumably, most of them have worn a skirt at one time and know that lifting one section doesn't ruffle the whole thing
I thought lawyers were smart...
Mueller’s attorney Gabe McFarland asked Swift why the photo shows the front of her skirt in place, not lifted up, if Mueller was reaching underneath to grab her butt.
Or just crooked.
The trolls in this thread are sad.
They also link it in the article.
Think it's insecurity? I bet the guy just felt like this was his one shot to get the all time topper of a bar story, and didn't consider the consequences of being, you know, disgusting. He's probably pretty fucking full of himself.
Can it be both genuine and a good PR move? just because she's handling this in a smart way doesn't make it genuine.
it is a smart question. he's trying to cast doubt. that's what he's doing. shouldn't the skirt look disheveled if he has his hand under it? that doesn't seem so unreasonable.
i think you may be overestimating the intellect of average jurors.
Is it such a bad thing to get both sides of the story?
Absolutely... I can't imagine how many other female celebrities have been groped and never said anything just tolerated it.
Saying someone is a mother/sister/daughter reduces them to a relationship with someone else rather than as a person in their own right. I think that is the difference between these labels and the labels of man or woman, which acknowledges a person for who they are regardless of their relationships.
They do have good connotations and encourage empathy though, I see where you are coming from.
I think the key word that makes this argument off putting is 'your'. It's really sad that to make someone understand that it's wrong to do things like this you have to put it in context of a woman that person "owns". It's wrong because it could happen to YOUR daughter or YOUR wife. When really, the important thing is that she is a human being, and no one deserves to be treated that way, even if you aren't related to them.
It's meant to personalize it for ignorant people. Literally nobody is saying women are only these things, not here at least.
Every guy has had a mother.
Many have girlfriends or wives.
Some have sisters.
Sometimes it's the only way to make the lightbulb turn on over an idiots head.
You had to really reach on this one. It makes little sense to be offended by this. Women are mothers. Men are fathers. This is not new, nor should it offend.
Well everyone is/was babies so your other comment was confusing, it would mean yes everyone has value.
This thread reads to me like someone tries to support Tay in good faith by saying "What if your daughter..." and you are now kind of jumping down their throats about a precision of language topic.
So maybe you have a good point about the expression, but it comes off as fairly smug and unhelpful to point it out here or in this manner.
Put differently, if you REALLY care about this then you want to persuade people of your point right? So a better way to do that would have been something like "Hey not to jump all over you but it's really better to value women as human beings rather than their relation to a man. I know it's a common saying but it can be hurtful." <-- Same point, more persuasive.
You may feel that my suggesting this is forcing you to tip toe around your justifiable anger, and that's essentially what I'm saying. Because your anger is palpable and that detracts from the impact of the message. Worse, it feeds right into the dismissive attitude some have a regarding feminism.
Best of luck though I know you'll do great things!
I definitely agree with you that, contextually, it's like saying that the abuser wouldn't harm their own daughter. But when people have a problem with that phrase, it's not unreasonable - (including OP in this case), it often reads as if the only discussed reason why someone ought not to be harassed is because of their status as being related to someone.
Imagine if someone appealed to your abuser, telling them to imagine you being an expert in Krav Maga. Yeah, you probably ought not to mess with a Krav Maga expert (for personal safety reasons, just as you ought not to mess with your own daughter for the sake of decency).
But really, they shouldn't be abusing the Krav Maga expert because their target is a person, not because they can retaliate.
This is what the other poster was commenting on, and it's a pretty widespread problem: often, political leaders decried attacks on women by saying that they have daughters, (similarly, pols often try on their 'gay friends whose weddings they have attended' to defend gay rights).
But really, you should be willing to defend peoples' rights not because you have a daughter or because you have some friends, but because that's what all people should do.
Here's an article that explains it well (in my opinion)
Saying someone is a mother/sister/daughter reduces them to a relationship with someone else rather than as a person in their own right.
Except in this case no specific person is being labelled. It's to draw attention to the fact that when those men commit assaults they're contributing to the same problem that can harm the women in their lives they care about.
You're fabricating offense where none exists. These kinds of malicious misinterpretations are what gives fundamental progressives such a bad name.
So basically he's tellsing bullshit to trick the common people.
Here's an article that explains it well (in my opinion)
No. I think if you put on a skirt and had someone grab your ass, you may notice that the skirt moves or rides up. That's the point he was making, and I think it's reasonable. (Note: not necessarily true. just reasonable).
No one knows what really happened but those two. It's normal - and just - for both sides to poke holes in the other.
I think he approves of her calculated pr moves, those really turn guys on
I have skirts that move on their own - without a hand on my ass. It's not unreasonable to ask that question.
IKR, not even a fan but WOW that was refreshing. you go girl.
I think they're trying to incite empathy from the potential assailant. To get them to consider the consequences of their actions. Another way of putting it could be "how would you like it if this happened to Maria?", where "Maria" is the assailant's daughter.
Uhm... what? Every woman/girl is at least one of these thing's though, also I would have added mother. Additionally all of them have (to most people anyways) a positive feeling attached. It's like saying: don't call humans women or man, they're more than "labels".
So I don't get your point at all.
I am a father/son/husband and damn proud of it. I think you're being silly
I feel exactly the same way.