Yes, that one could be misinterpretation. But there are also more problematic behaviours listed in the lawsuit:
The legal action, filed in Los Angeles on Tuesday, includes allegations the dancers were “forced to endure sexually denigrating behaviour” and were “pressured into participating in disturbing sex shows” between 2021 and 2023.
Among the claims against Lizzo - whose real name is Melissa Viviane Jefferson - are that she “pressured Ms Davis to touch the breasts” of a performer in a nightclub in Amsterdam, and Ms Davis - after resisting - eventually acquiesced “fearing it may harm her future on the team” if she didn’t do so.
The case also alleges that staff working for BGBT scolded dancers for “unacceptable and disrespectful” behaviour while working on the tour, without specifying what that behaviour was.
The dancers allege that “only the dance cast - comprised of full-figured women of colour - were ever spoken to in this manner, giving [the dancers] the impression that these comments were charged with racial and fat-phobic animus”.
Additionally, it alleges the dance team’s captain, Shirlene Quigley, pushed her Christian beliefs on performers and derided those who engaged in premarital sex.
She is also accused of openly discussing one of the former dancers’ virginity, and posting about it on social media.
True, they do sound more serious, I agree. But the problem with the example I quoted is it makes me wonder what the standard is for these other allegations, in terms of the relationship between what was actually said and what was inferred.
If someone’s the kind of person who assumes having their commitment questioned must be veiled fat shaming, then they might be doing the same kind of leaps with these other things.
For example, being scolded for disrespectful behaviour, might genuinely be because the clique of dancers were the only ones engaging in the behaviour.
It just makes me a little hesitant. Perhaps the suit makes it clearer.
People also need to remember that we should believe accusers long enough to find out whether their accusations are accurate. So we should believe it is possible and look for more details instead of dismissing them outright.
So we shouldn’t throw out everything just because a few of them are phrased like sour grapes or remind us of people that infer the wrong things. Let’s wait for more context before vilifying the dancers or Lizzo.
we should believe accusers long enough to find out whether their accusations are accurate
I always want to keep an open mind until we get more detail, and I bear in mind with rape that it’s an underreported crime and statistically the vast majority of accusations that go before the courts have merit (not sure about stats around pressuring people to do sex acts or fat shaming).
The exhortation to “believe” outright always troubled me but thanks to your comment I see what it means is that people to be in a mindframe where they can believe as in finding out - it’s not an exhortation to prejudice (in the literal sense of the word).
Fat-shaming is so commonplace especially in ballet and dancing in general and this is quite a common way to put it - using the allegory of “motivation” even when they refer to shape, so I would argue that this is a justified way of “reading between the lines”.
“pressured Ms Davis to touch the breasts” of a performer in a nightclub in Amsterdam, and Ms Davis - after resisting - eventually acquiesced “fearing it may harm her future on the team” if she didn’t do so.
So that could be bad, or it could be “go on girl, touch em!” and she interpreted refusal to be deleterious to her career without direct evidence.
The dancers allege that “only the dance cast - comprised of full-figured women of colour - were ever spoken to in this manner, giving [the dancers] the impression that these comments were charged with racial and fat-phobic animus”.
That confuses me. It’d make more sense if the dance cast had women of full-figure and not full-figure, and women both of and not of color if only the former of each were being denigrated. But it could also be that the dance cast misbehaved and was scolded in entirety and this is an assumption.
Additionally, it alleges the dance team’s captain, Shirlene Quigley, pushed her Christian beliefs on performers and derided those who engaged in premarital sex.
She is also accused of openly discussing one of the former dancers’ virginity, and posting about it on social media.
2nd line is about Quigley as well? That sounds weird since Lizzo isn’t exactly a Christian virture bastion and her videos and songs can be quite sex-positive. But even if so, that’s tangentially only a problem with Lizzo for employing her.
These accusations seem oddly non-specific for sexual harassment.
Yes, that one could be misinterpretation. But there are also more problematic behaviours listed in the lawsuit:
True, they do sound more serious, I agree. But the problem with the example I quoted is it makes me wonder what the standard is for these other allegations, in terms of the relationship between what was actually said and what was inferred.
If someone’s the kind of person who assumes having their commitment questioned must be veiled fat shaming, then they might be doing the same kind of leaps with these other things.
For example, being scolded for disrespectful behaviour, might genuinely be because the clique of dancers were the only ones engaging in the behaviour.
It just makes me a little hesitant. Perhaps the suit makes it clearer.
People also need to remember that we should believe accusers long enough to find out whether their accusations are accurate. So we should believe it is possible and look for more details instead of dismissing them outright.
So we shouldn’t throw out everything just because a few of them are phrased like sour grapes or remind us of people that infer the wrong things. Let’s wait for more context before vilifying the dancers or Lizzo.
I agree. Hey thanks for this explanation:
I always want to keep an open mind until we get more detail, and I bear in mind with rape that it’s an underreported crime and statistically the vast majority of accusations that go before the courts have merit (not sure about stats around pressuring people to do sex acts or fat shaming).
The exhortation to “believe” outright always troubled me but thanks to your comment I see what it means is that people to be in a mindframe where they can believe as in finding out - it’s not an exhortation to prejudice (in the literal sense of the word).
It is hard to get a catchy slogan with a little bit of nuance to catch on so they tend to end up as absolutes.
Fat-shaming is so commonplace especially in ballet and dancing in general and this is quite a common way to put it - using the allegory of “motivation” even when they refer to shape, so I would argue that this is a justified way of “reading between the lines”.
So that could be bad, or it could be “go on girl, touch em!” and she interpreted refusal to be deleterious to her career without direct evidence.
That confuses me. It’d make more sense if the dance cast had women of full-figure and not full-figure, and women both of and not of color if only the former of each were being denigrated. But it could also be that the dance cast misbehaved and was scolded in entirety and this is an assumption.
2nd line is about Quigley as well? That sounds weird since Lizzo isn’t exactly a Christian virture bastion and her videos and songs can be quite sex-positive. But even if so, that’s tangentially only a problem with Lizzo for employing her.
These accusations seem oddly non-specific for sexual harassment.