Oct 19 2006, 01:39 AM
I totally agree people are not always what they seem, and that I have no idea what really happens behind anyones closed doors,,,
Actually, the more I think about it I think I dont want these allegations to be true not cuz I dont think its possible,,,but that I'm sick of seeing woman as victims of abuse, just as much as I'm sick of seeing victims accused of lying. If Paul really did these terrible things to Heather, I wanna know that she fought back, or at least left him after the first incident. She seems/seemed like such a self-assured, strong/powerful, soldier-for-causes type of woman, I cant imagine she subjected herself to such strange humilation. Its almost like I rather see her the villian(golddigging bitch) in this senario than the abused innocent shes saying she really was this whole time. I'm sorry if I sound insensitive to abuse survivors, I'm not..I guess I just dont wanna believe this. I mean, think about it,..as sick as it is when the public/media is all "oh, shes a lying bitch", wouldnt it also be sick if the public/media was always "oh, poor poor girl, she obviously cant stand up for herself, she obviously was abused because shes a female and naturally weak." ech.
Oct 19 2006, 02:56 AM
Well, maybe the media does make a poor habit of portraying women as, "poor, weak, victim" type people who can't help themselves, and maybe it doesn't...but the fact of abuse is that human relationships between people are always much more complex than "well, she STAYED after the first time he hit her....so she's obviously a)partly to blame, and
helpless and weak.
Women ARE victimized all the time in our culture. That's kind of the whole point of patriarchy, and we haven't gotten rid of patriarchy yet...so it's not like it's surprising. It's not a static label, on one person; or a "stink" that sticks to and looks bad on all women when people do tell their stories of being abused or hit or "victimized" by someone they know. It's a means by which many women learn to survive the abuse; and a means of exposing abusers. I think that needs to be done.
It takes a hell of a lot of strength to be in the situation and to believe that things are salvageable, or that leaving might be a good idea but since so much of your life is invested in the relationship it can't be accomplished instantly. It would be great if all abused women had the resources handy and the mental resources to know that they could force a kind of committed closure to the situation where they would remain safe--but that is hardly ever the case. Even in instances where celebrities are involved, there is still much more going on in a relationship between people that might make "instant, easy" solutions like just leaving very difficult. It really bothers me that when women don't just up and walk away without a further thought that they are seen as stupid, or lying about the abuse, or just plain weak in the feminine way, because that is just such a whole hearted refusal to acknowledge the real dynamics which exist in peoples' lives.
Completely off topic, I know, but given that Wesley Snipes is also accused these days of being violent against women and of committing fraud and some kind of strange passport switcheroo in Africa...I'm wishing we would stop focusing on the women in these stories as victims so much, and start seeing the men in the stories for who they are, not what their celebrity makes us wish to see.
Oct 19 2006, 05:54 AM
My god, I just read that link Doodle posted. I don't see why she would lie. I also don't see why we should think the best of people because they're famous.
I hope she drags him through the courts successfully if that's true.
I was amazed at all the doubter's comments after that piece too.
I don't have any celebrity gossip, except I was at a recent event attended by a Beckham child! Very sweet and well adjusted he was too!
VERY disappointed he wasn't with his mum or dad though...
Oct 19 2006, 06:15 AM
One thing is certainly true--he's a well-known pothead and there's no way he's stopped smoking.
I can believe she--or anyone--would fall for the "Of course I'll stop when we get married." Addiction is so insidious and relationships are so complicated we convince ourselves of all kinds of things, in spite of the evidence to the contrary.
She shouldn't have believed him, but she's not the only person--man or woman--to fall for that lie.
As for why she would lie--well, there is a lot of money at stake and people do lie for revenge purposes as well when a relationship breaks down. But of course he could lie for the same reasons. I'm just saying that it is possible to think of motives. I'm not sure exactly what I think--I suppose that there is probably some exaggeration for the above reasons, but I also am damn sure that he's not the squeaky clean nice guy he presents.
If nothing else. if my child had treated my partner the way his have, I'd have hit the roof. I know that they're his children, but first of all I'd be ashamed that my child treated anyone that way, and second, I'd be disappointed that they couldn't just try to be happy for me, no matter how much they might struggle with it. I would certainly make it clear that decent behaviour was expected of them toward my partner. I never got the impression he did. It was more like "it's nothing to do with me."
I could be wrong about all this, but it's my impression.
Oct 19 2006, 06:43 AM
Oooh Margot, which kid was it? They're all so cute it's unbelievable!
The media in Britain certainly enjoys villifying Heather M-M, but no-one, and I mean NO-ONE (including people who have done charity work with her etc) has a good word to say about her. It seems she's just a very unpleasant individual. Having said that, he seems like a total knob too, and don't even get me started on Stella fucking McCartney. If it didn't just seem like a parade of the most horrid people imaginable, maybe I could have more sympathy. I just feel sorry for their little girl.
Oct 19 2006, 07:55 AM
yeah margot which one?! glad to hear that he was sweet and well-adjusted .
thpointybird, I feel sorry for Beatrice too, she's only 2 y/o and this is so acrimonious. You're right, noone in the UK has a good word to say about her. I saw a little of that women's programme Loose Women earlier and they said that she shouldn't be taking him for all he's got and should have settled for the £30m or whatever she was offered. Um, the money isn't the point - was that to shut her up? The affadavitt that doodle posted was simply shocking: she was emotionally abused definitely.
Oct 19 2006, 08:29 AM
The fact that he marries a chick half his age already makes him a fuckwit in my book.
Oct 19 2006, 08:54 AM
true. he's the UK equivalent of michael douglas (and czj's career improved).
Oct 19 2006, 10:56 AM
Whew. That affidavit is awful. I don't doubt for a second that the abuse took place...I just think Paul McCartney's gotten away with murder so often he'll probably escape any repercussions now just because he's still got that nice guy, former Beatle image. It bugs me and it's bugged me for a long time that he was the one who sold away the rights to all the Beatles songs--opening the door for all the crass marketing that's now so much a fixture of pop music of all kinds that it's all just about manipulating us to buy more junk. No wonder John Lennon thought Paul was deficient in both abilities and intellect.
Oct 19 2006, 11:47 AM
Paul has never owned the rights to the Beatles songs. Captitol records and Michael Jackson do. Michael Jackson outbid Paul on the rights and won't negotiate to sell them to Paul or a lower copyright price. Jackson is also the one who sold the rights to Nike, etc.
Oct 19 2006, 11:58 AM
I dunno guys,..I still have trouble reading those stories and believing its the whole truth. Certainly they had their fights, all couples do...but hes an old man and shes a feisty young woman whos already been tested physically, and triumphed. Take that wine instance again, I mean, are we expected to believe that she just stood there and took that? Howd did that go?
Paul: "hold still while I pour this wine over you"
Heather: "hey. thats not cool"
Paul: "now I'm going to throw the remainder of my glass at you"
Heather: "darn, got me again"
Paul: "now I will stab you with broken glass!"
Heather: "ouch! Stop that!"
Sorry, theres really gotta be more to this. I'm not saying hes innocent just on merit that has a former Beatle, but I'm leaning towards him because of his succesful first marriage and the one-sidedness of these allegations. Plus, he was naive to marry half his age and without a pre-nup no less,..a sign that he didnt have anything to threaten her with if she did want out (and wasnt it HE who filed for divorce??) Just sayings all.
Oct 19 2006, 12:09 PM
I believe it is an over exaggeration for money.
I have a hard time believing that that level of abuse was going on and she did not call the cops. I have ahrd time believing hte Heather is that meek, she seems to me that if you are going to mess with her, you better be up for a fight. I also think that if it was so bad, that you did not want to publicly humiliate yourself while married, then why are you doing it now?
It just reeks to me.
Oct 19 2006, 12:34 PM
Well, greenbean, it does say in that specific incident's description that she had just undergone a surgery on the leg where she'd had a limb amputated--I think she was probably not able to move away all that easily, since half her leg was missing. That might explain her inability to get away. Still, she sustained a cut on her arm--which kinda makes me believe she tried to get away.
Exactly why would someone make stuff like this up? It's not like it's going to get her very much money, or public sympathy. I expect most people will come away with the same conclusion as yours, greenbean-- that she's faking. It's like women who have been raped--people want to believe, for some reason, that anyone who would cry rape has some kind of hidden motive for gain in the accusation. I just don't know why or how, given what rape survivors have to go through if they do go public.
McCartney to this day receives 50% of the royalties due for the vast majority of the Beatles' music, the rights to which he and Lennon held a more exclusive title until 1965. So, yes, McCartney did at one time own the rights to that music, in an equal share with Lennon. And, yes, he tried to buy them back from ATV and Northern Songs (not Capitol records--though later Sony and ATV/Northern Songs amalgamated, but Jackson was at the core of that deal too) but he was "outbid" by Michael Jackson. Now, every time Jackson sells someone access to the music for advertising purposes, McCartney gets 50% of the songwriting royalties he's due (which he's got to split with Lennon's estate). If he'd managed to outbid Jackson, he'd be splitting 100% of the royalties with Lennon's estate...but I doubt he'd have been able to sell the music to advertisers the way Jackson has because Lennon's estate would most likely not have allowed it. And I bet McCartney knew that's what Jackson had in mind for that music (whereas Lennon is only slowed in his gravespinning by the accumulation of his own vomit in disgust to their current use), so he let Jackson "outbid" him.
Oct 19 2006, 12:59 PM
He did write half of those songs.
Also, people do this for money and public sympathy. If a 30 million settlement was not enough for her, well, I am wondering how much she is going after.
I know people are famous and want "privacy", but I really believe she would have filed formal charges, especially in her position. I think it is tacky how people say they want a divorce to be private and tp respect that right, then they leak thee reports.
Though, to be honest, I could give a crap about either of them.
Oct 19 2006, 01:18 PM
I always liked the fact that apparently Linda and Paul never slept apart a single night the whole time they were married. Well, ya, if a fraction of what I've heard about the Beatles is true, I wouldn't have let him out of my sight either, hee.
Oct 19 2006, 01:18 PM
Chacha, its not that I think she entirely making this stuff up,..I just dont think were getting the whole story, just her side. And I did say before that I USUALLY believe the woman in these senarios, because it is a serious and very real issue. I agree with ggg that the scenes in the affidavit are probably exaggerated.
Sure Paul probably drinks a lot and smokes pot, sure hes spoiled rich, sure hes probably still in anguish over losing his first wife...all makes for a tumoltuos marraige...I just think Heather is the type to fight back, and I'm sure for every mean, vindictive thing he done to her shes done it right back. As a feminist I believe that women are just as capable as men to be abusive and bad partners. Seems like they were equals.
If she gets a ton of money outta this, whatevs, I dont care about him losing money. I more upset at the example it sets, that abuse allegations equal more settlement. How about sending him to jail? Has that even come up? Dont think so.
Oct 19 2006, 02:09 PM
Greenbean, sending him to jail would involve criminal law, not civil law, and this is a divorce document. You can't send your former spouse to jail in a divorce, you can only split your assets and figure out who will care for any children (so the asset division has to take this into account, too). So money is the issue in every marriage's end as marriage is still an economic union (a "partnership", just like in that other economic union, a business).
And I don't know of many cases where women who have abusive husbands or partners call the police and actually have their abusive mates locked up in prison. if it happens at all, the abusers stay in the clank overnight, and come back to kill their wives, or at least knock them around some more. As a feminist, Greenbean, are you not aware of how this usually goes?
McCartney may think he wrote half of those songs, but Lennon always contended that Paul was responsible for "Yesterday", and not much else. In fact I think there's quite a famous recording of Lennon saying, "What did Paul write except "Yesterday"? 'Yesterday, all my troubles were so far away....' Thank you Paul, very nice." That's probably just a hurt and seething person's observation...but there you are. Makes me think Lennon and his estate would have done all they could to keep Nike from getting their hands on "Revolution" into infinity. So McCartney just gave himself a new business partner by letting Jacko "outbid" him: one that was a little more profitable for him to know.
Oct 19 2006, 02:40 PM
here's a link to an article in the mirror which talks about Heather's lying. these are very similar to the things Viv said a few years ago.heather mills
I'm not claiming that she was or wasn't abused. I just think that if we're going to talk about Paul's past and how he smokes pot (which not only do I not see as a big deal but I can't imagine anyone being high and abusive), then Heather's past should be looked at as well esp. since her friends and relatives have all gone on record to disprove her lies.
one more thing: on the mirror site there's another article where Paul's 'friends' say that Heather had the court docs leaked on purpose because Paul wants custody of Bea since he finds Heather unstable. The "friends' also say that Heather wants to completely ruin Paul. Custody battles get so ugly.
Oct 19 2006, 03:26 PM
bluejupiter, that link doesn't work for me! And anyway, I think these people are all awful. I've never, ever liked Paul McCartney and at best I thought he and his wife were misguided when they were together.
And Stella McCartney's awful, too. Bah.
Oct 19 2006, 03:34 PM
Oct 19 2006, 04:08 PM
Just because smoking pot is innocuous for some people doesn't mean it can't be a serious addition for others (kind of the way alcohol can be.) I'm glad you've never had to encounter this in your life, bluejupiter, but I wouldn't be so blithe about it.
I wouldn't underestimate any addict's response potential if their addiction is threatened.
Greenbean, I find your comments pretty disturbing, though I appreciate your honestly. Women in particular have been disbelieved about abuse for most of history (and children as well) because, well, it's just ugly and we don't want to believe it, and why are you telling me this ugly stuff anyway--YOU must be the bad one.
Also, the things that tie people to an abusive relationship are generally a lot stronger than physical inability to get away. If you can't imagine how something like this could happen maybe it is a good time for you to educate yourself a bit more on the dynamics of abusive relationships. (I'm a mental health professional, and there are lots of mental health people who don't get it either--it's something we dont' talk enough about and again, find it easy to blame the victim.)
I don't know if it's true or not, but I certainly don't doubt it on the basis your giving. I mean, have you never been stunned into silence or immobility in an argument, for example? It's soooo easy to say "I'd just walk away" but if your partner--the father of your child--was suddenly behaving this way it's not like you have a lot of time to rationally plan the best thing to do--and I can see anyone being stunned and even having a hard time registering it was happening.
And the Mirror is a tabloid rag--I'm hardly going to believe them as a teller of truth.
Paul also hired a big gun attorney firs, if I recall correctly. He knew things would get ugly then. So did she, of course, but it's not like he would have expected otherwise with that choice.
Oct 19 2006, 04:26 PM
I haven't done more than skim, sorry, but I wanted to post something....
I honestly don't know whether or not these allegations are true. Can't say, have no opinion, wasn't there. BUT....
I think it is a mistake to assume that a woman experiencing abuse ever thinks it's "bad enough" to warrant bringing in the police or to "just leave." To be honest, when I read the excerpts from the affidavit, I thought it was some pretty TAME stuff, compared to a lot of what I've seen through the women's centre. And I've known many women to put up with ten times, sometimes a hundred times worse treatment and not been able to leave. Most women are manipulated into staying (and into not bringing in the law) by way of psychological, emotional, and financial abuse, and especially, threats against their children or threats to take custody (in fact, in my experience, custody and access "disputes" are THE most common way abusers continue to psychologically abuse their victims after separation). Women often think because it's not physical, or because it's only been physical a handful of times, that they don't have it "as bad" as "real" abuse victims, so they don't call the police, and they change their minds a million times about whether or not to leave, especially as the abuser keeps promising to change or as other circumstances limit their choices. Many women do not even recognize their experience as "abuse" until after they've ended their relationships, and start to seek recovery and healing.
Re: the alleged wine incident....I once poured an entire pitcher of beer slowly over a guy's head, then hit him in the head with my beer mug, all the while raging at him verbally. In my defense, he gave my friend a joint without telling her it was laced with opium, so I went berserk while she was throwing up in the bathroom. But he did sit there and take it - yes, in shock.
Oct 19 2006, 05:15 PM
Well said, doodle.
Oct 19 2006, 08:54 PM
Here's the thing--
This was all going to be kept quiet. That was, until she found out the divorce wasn't going to go well for her. Then she made some sort of oddly veiled threat about "revelations" and now this. Now, I understand women keep quiet for dozens of reasons, but I find it odd that she was only going to be mum for money.
I have no huge love for McCartney nor any pre-existing huge hate for her, but it just seems to me that if you want to go public for the good of others then great. If you feel ashamed and want to hide it, that is also personal. Suddenly deciding the world needs to know after a thinly veiled threat to ruin someone for not paying you smacks of foiled extortion.
Oct 19 2006, 09:27 PM
I hate when a couple divorces and they start saying sh*t about each other that they would have never said before. That's dirty.
Oct 19 2006, 10:24 PM
I never gave two shits about the Beatles, so hearing PM might be a schmuck doesn't rock my world much. A lot of famous people are schmucks. It's the nature of the beast that when someone gets told their shit doesn't stink for decades, they start to believe it.
Oct 19 2006, 10:49 PM
If I had a kid with someone as well off as PM I'd want to be sure of a good settlement too.
And I woudn't be sure I wouldnt' get screwed either, considering the money he has to hire the most cutthroat of lawyers.
I love the Beatles, but doesn't mean anything about their personal lives.
Oct 19 2006, 11:23 PM
doodle, i'm delurking to wholeheartedly agree with you...too many women i've known have made excuses (and do to this day) for me to feel much sympathy for the guy in question, who is usually bigger, stronger and more influential than the female. of course, there are exceptions to every case and i by all means do not want to discriminate, but from what biographies i've read about the beatles as a band and as individuals i really and truly do not give all of them the benefit of the doubt.
Oct 20 2006, 12:25 AM
You guys got me all wrong. If you have seen any of my posts in the F-word, I usually always side with the women in these situation. Kobe case, Duke case, etc. Am I not allowed to once see the senario as pretty one-sided? Am I not allowed believe that a strong-willed and powerful woman probably would have fought back? Why are you all insisting that women are ALWAYS the victim? Doodle, you yourself claimed to have assaulted a man, (I'm not saying its without good reason), so isnt it safe for me to assume its possible for women to fight back when they have good reason? I know I have! I punched a teenage boy in the neck for grabbing my tits,..I was an adult, and could have been arrested. Didnt scare me.
ChaCha, I didnt mean she could send him to jail after they seperated, I meant, like GGG eluded to, why is she making these allegations NOW when she could have DURING the marriage? And if yer saying its because he would just come back from one night in jail and kill her, then WTF?!? Youre saying that the only option is to keep it quiet until you are seperated, and then use it later to get a divorce settlement?!? Is that the only option? great. swell. What a super example for women everywhere.
Oct 20 2006, 02:13 AM
greenbean, I am not saying it's not possible. I do have the ability to see it, and many things, from different angles, but I'm not posting to speculate. I honestly have no opinion yet in either direction - I've said that clearly both times I've posted. No one can know what happened unless they were there....how can I know after reading a few lines in a newspaper? How can any of us? What I've posted has genuinely only been to, hopefully, provide basic information about the condition of "typical" abused women in general.
Except for my own story, of course, about the guy I poured beer on. I want to be clear about why I posted that. I am trying to show evidence of how an incident very physically similar to the wine-pouring is entirely possible, without the victim fighting back. You wrote: "...are we expected to believe that she just stood there and took that." I am not trying to say whether it's true or false, just that, as the evidence shows, it IS a possibility that can't be discounted, whether it's believable or not.
Oct 20 2006, 03:45 AM
The thing about "keeping this all hush hush" is that abusers ALWAYS tell the people they abuse "not to tell anyone". Or, "if you ever tell anyone....there will be repercussions...." This happens in all situations of abuse, not just the ones between abusive men and their partners.
Then, when the abused person speaks out--well, they aren't often believed.
That's the way things go, Greenbean. I'm not insisting we see women as victims, I'm just insisting YOU want to believe there are no victims in abuse. At least in this case.
Yes, if I had a child with one of the world's most wealthiest addicts, who could hire the most expensive lawyers in the country to protect his interests (including limiting the amount of money he'd set aside for his offspring's future and inheritance, as many men are wont to do) you bet I would fight to let what happened be known. Especially if his intentions were just to keep as much of his money from me and his child as he could.
If that meant I'd have to break a silence to accomplish it, I'd break a silence. After all, staying silent would really just make me a silenced victim, wouldn't it?
I doubt anyone would go to the lengthy extent that Heather Mills has gone, with great detail, dates and times...to perjure herself in court. I'm quite sure that's still seen as a crime, isn't it? Even if it isn't, it would destroy her credibility and her chances at what she claims to want--a fair settlement. Why would she make all that she's saying up, when McCartney has enough money to make sure he could prosecute her for libel if what she were saying weren't true? Why would she publicly declare false statements this numerous and this varied so as to put herself at huge risk in law? Seems suicidal, to me. Only reason she'd make such statements would be if she knew she could prove any one of them beyond any legal doubt. That seems to make the most sense to me, anyway.
Also, I don't think feminism is about always taking sides with women or believing that women are capable of just as much violence and malevolence as men are in order to even up the score patriarchy's had over women all these millennia. It's about placing the whole situation in the context of how these institutions are created to work, how all people function in a world and society which values men and what they value more than it does women.
Oct 20 2006, 06:56 AM
As a newbie, and in response to the whole PM/HMM issue, here are a few of my observations/positions:
- I'm a big beatles fan from way back - I thing PM was part of the seminal pop writing collaborations ever. Now, although I'm done with pop, my love of Beatles music helps me understand my teenage daughters' fascination with current pop fodder (oh goddess - dare I say crap!);
- do we really think that PM, with all his influence, power and money, didn't uncover HMM's indiscretions and skeletons (a la The Mirror) before their marriage - and that investigation in to her past absolutely would have been done by his minders/publicity spinners.
- I cannot let go of the gut feeling (absolutely nothing to base it on) the HMM has used the marriage to her advantage and entered into it with that in mind.
- the particulars of the offences claimed by HMM are framed realistically and are not unfamiliar in domestic violence cases. Quite frankly, I don't care how much alcohol or dope PM partakes of, that's his choice, but the effect of recreational drugs/alcohol on others is a different issue - violence is never excusable.
At the end of the day, is this acrimonious divorce much different than most others? - apart from celebrity and the phenomenal amount of money involved.
I say - PM, you knew what you were getting into. HMM, you have only the right to enough money to support you & you child in the manner to which is fitting a child and ex-wife of a celebrity the ilk of PM. Lordy - stop the muck-racking, both of you!
(Ta Dah! - post no 1. Have been lurking here for a couple of years - gotta luv the Bust!)
Oct 20 2006, 08:06 AM
Ugh, Calpurnia--that part about PM having that old dirt dragged up about HMM (maybe, just when he was getting tired of the whole charade?) That's even lower than I'd have thought about him.
Don't think he didn't stand to benefit from his marriage to her, either. It's not like she didn't become his lovely ambassador (meal ticket) for quite a lot of his own charity interests...which in turn drummed up interest in his tours...
Not picking on these two as extraordinary--you're absolutely right, as this divorce is like all other divorces. The money issue is moot.
Oct 20 2006, 08:30 AM
I completely agree Chacha - I think theirs was definitely a mutually benefical arrangement - I'm sure they both reaped the benefits. I'm not suggesting PM arranged to have HMM's past 'quirky' behaviour raised in the media (even tho they appeared so soon after the particulars of her claims became public) - it was just an observation that I dont think there would have been any way he would not have found out practically everything there would have been to know about her, before their marriage.
Oct 20 2006, 08:45 AM
Her original settlement was $30 million.
Ivanka Trump did not even get that much.
I mean, seriously, I raise kids, two of them. $30 million would work.
Oct 20 2006, 09:14 AM
GGG, I'd do just fine on 30 million too--but if the publicity generated by a wedding, some high profile media coverage in support of charities I find worthwhile and I'm connected with (that he looks great attaching himself to), and the fact that I'm not too demanding on the eyes helps the guy I marry look interesting enough to put together and sell out a very profitable tour, from which he earns millions...
then, yeah, my share of that would mean I'd get more than just the 30 million that was proposed as a settlement (by the way, a proposal doesn't have to be accepted, so I'm not sure what the gripe is about her turning that down).
Same idea with Ivana Trump, 20 years ago; the woman made it possible for the man to earn the extraordinary amounts of money they had. So when they split: she was enetitled to have her share of that for the effort she expended to produce it.
Maybe HMM didn't work her ass off to help him earn more, but her certainly capitalized on her for his benefit.
Oct 20 2006, 09:39 AM
I see it as just the opposite. People on this side of the pond had no clue who HMM was until she was linked with PM. He did more for her career, than she for him.
Ivanka was with Donald from the beginning.
Oct 20 2006, 09:45 AM
I thought this was supposed to be Celebrity Gossip?
But. In any event.
Do you really, REALLY think, that a man who has been a musical icon for DECADES, needed a younger wife to make a profit on a tour? Because I hate to tell you this, but Paul McCartney hasn't NOT had a sold out tour pretty much ever, even before he was married to Heather.
I'm sorry, but I really don't think that Heather Mills McCartney did ANYTHING for Paul McCartney's career. She was his "meal ticket" to charity events? Are you kidding? He's PAUL MCCARTNEY. He can go wherever he wants, as he wants. I'm sure charities have been tripping over themselves for decades to get his name attached to them, way before HMM. Remember, he has been one of the most famous men in the world since the early 1960s, and he is also one of the richest men in the world, and has been way before he met HMM.
And whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Yes, when I hear allegations of domestic abuse, I usually do believe the wife.
However, given HMM's Courtney Love-like obsession with wanting to be famous, I'm going to discount all of this until I see stuff proven.
Oct 20 2006, 10:06 AM
I take issue with the idea that a woman is a helpless victim (and I resent the implication that to be a victim somehow equals pathetic) unless she hauls off and punches the abuser at the first signs of abuse.
Again, I suggest this, at the very least, shows a profound lack of understanding about how abuse and control in relationships works. The abuser generally builds up his (and I say his as it usually is, but not always, a man) control little by little, in subtle ways, and by the time it gets to physical or other egregious abuse, the control, distorted thinking, self-blame, etc, that is an essential part of abuse is generally really well established.
I think it's pretty dangerous to get all self-rightious and say, in essense, only stupid, weak women get abused.
Oct 20 2006, 10:21 AM
Ya know, not one person has said or insinuated only stupid, weak, women are abused.
There is a HUGE difference to abuse allegations about a famous person leaked out by the person who is divorcing him, who rejected a $30 milllion settlement, and an every day situation.
I think healthy disagreement is a good thing, but let's let up on the sanctimony.
Oct 20 2006, 11:07 AM
okay, I'm gonna try to drag this thread back to the dank, dark, superficial marshlands where it belongs...I just read a snippet about the dress katie holmes will be wearing for her wedding, and in passing it mentioned that she and tom have been engaged since june 2004. sweet screaming jeebus, we've been subjected to the tomkat crap for over 2 years? how time flies.
Oct 20 2006, 11:10 AM
no, it was definitely june 2005. that must have been a typo.
the reason i remember so clearly the date is because i was living in paris at that time, and the day he proposed to her on the eiffel tower i was walking aimlessly around that area and thought "hmm, which way should i turn?" and chose the direction AWAY from the eiffel tower. subconscious self-preservation? i think so.
Oct 20 2006, 11:23 AM
thanks for the clarification, mouse. I honestly thought I was losing my mind there for a sec...but then, it does feel like we've been subjected to their insanity for years...
Oct 20 2006, 11:44 AM
Everytime I see Katie Holmes on TV or in a magazine, I still scream "Run Katie! Run!"
Oct 20 2006, 11:52 AM
ggg, that's how I read greenbean's posts. Pathetic victim or strong woman--that's your choice.
There may well be a difference in this situation, with money at stake.
It also seems like a good way for a rich, powerful man to get away with abuse--to claim she's only saying it b/c she wants money.
It's not like that's anything new, is it?
I don't claim to know the truth of this situation, either. Like chacha said, I think they all sound like rather odious people. But I think the hint of "she must be lying b/c she didn't respond the way I imagine I would" is pretty dismissive and I think it's fair to challenge on a feminist board, celebrity gossip or no.
Oct 20 2006, 12:30 PM
Sorry guys, I know this is Celebrity Gossip,..but I just want to add one more thing on the HM thing:
Anoush, I by NO MEANS am saying that victim equals pathetic. I'm disappointed that my post came off that way. I looked back over all my posts and I never used that word. If anything I'm saying the opposite, that I am tired of victims either being represented 'weak' or 'lying' in the media. And I'm not saying that if a woman doesnt fight back that she is weak, but I do think that some women do fight back, and we are doing women a disservice by acting like it doesnt happen. I'm also not saying HMs allegations are made up, just that they are one sided. If PMs lawyers leaked his affidavit, maybe we could get his side.
I understand that this is an emotional issue for Busties cuz a lot of us have dealt with abuse or work with victims. I've never said this in any theard,..but ther was a time that my mom was abusive to my dad. I've never been able to talk about it because I grew up with the idea that only men could be abusive. My mom was/is a cool, strong, political woman, and is featured in newspapers from time to time for civil service she does. Growing up my dad did all the cooking, and at nearly every dinner my sister and I would put are head down trying not to hear my mom viciously insult my dad's cooking. It was always too salty, overdone or just boring. My dad never defended himself. After dinner my sister and I were sent to our rooms to do homework, but I would eavesdrop on my parents, my mom still hurling insults to my dad like "pathetic" "spineless" "embarassment" and my dad would just take it. Once I was so sad for him that I ran into the room crying, hugged my dad and told him to "tell mom to shut up!" But he stuck by her side, saying that that was disrespectful to say to her. That night she got worse, claiming that he was trying to get us (my sis and I) on his side. This type of thing happened almost everynight for about 4 years. My parents are still together (30 years) and very happy.
Now that I'm older I know that my mom was suffering from grief (her sister died while giving birth) and so my dad gave her a free pass to treat him that way. If he didnt put up with it, and filed for divorce, I'd hate to think of what wouldve happened. Was my dad weak for the abuse he took? No. Its more complex than that. I would think less of him if he used this to take my sis and I alway from my mom (eventhough at the time I would have rather been with him).
What does this have to do with the HM thing? I'm not sure. I guess I just think that with Paul suffering from the loss of his first wife, and Heather with the loss of her leg, their household was probably pretty emotional, and more complex than just "he abused her and now must pay". I not saying Heather should have stayed in an abusive relationship,..I'm just saying that its my belief that its more complex than that. Sorry for the long post that really doesnt belong in this thread, I'm just feeling a catharsis right now.
Oct 20 2006, 03:22 PM
Maybe that announcement about Tom and Katie wasn't really a typo at all...maybe they meant to print 2004 instead of 2005 because now they're going to play with history on us....
kinda like all that speculation about when Katie was pregnant...and when the baby was actually born...
Oct 21 2006, 08:44 AM
Keith Urban enters rehab for alcohol abuse
*grabs Nicole's hand* Nicole, you know how much I love you. But there was a reason I didn't want you to marry Orange Man, and now it pains me to say I told you so
. If you wanted to marry a drug-addicted man-whore, I would've totally supported the Lenny Kravitz thing. He's hot. But Orange Man?!! I'm afraid I still can't get over that. *groan/sigh*
Oct 24 2006, 12:04 AM
Kate Moss is supposedly pregnant with Pete Doherty's junkie baby.
Oct 24 2006, 05:22 AM
feckin' idiot. maybe that's harsh but c'mon kate, some sense woman.