40
votes
Terry Crews on why he didn’t use his considerable strength to fight back when he was sexually assaulted
@senfeinstein:
I asked @TerryCrews why he didn't use his considerable strength to fight back when he was sexually assaulted. His answer is a powerful reminder of how victims are too often forced into silence to avoid damaging their careers or reputations. We need to hear the truth. https://t.co/8xSxnhXj91
Video Transcript:
Feinstein: You're a big, powerful man. Why didn't you [gestures pushing motion]?
Crews: Senator, as a black man in America [sigh]...
Feinstein: Say it as it is. I think it's important.
Crews: ...you only have a few shots at success. You only have a few chances to make yourself a viable member of the community. I'm from Flint, Michigan. I have seen many many young black men who were provoked into violence, and they were imprisoned, or they were killed, and they're not here. My wife for years prepared me. She said, "If you ever get goaded, if you ever get prodded, if you ever have anyone try to push you into any kind of situation, don't do it. Don't be violent." And she trained me. I'll be honest with you it was the strength of my wife who trained me and told me, "If this situation happens, let's leave." And the training worked because I did not go into my first reaction, I grabbed her hand, we left, but the next day I went right to the agency. I have texts, I have phone conversations, and I said, "This is unacceptable!" And I told them how -you know- I almost got violent, but I didn't. And I said, "What are you going to do about this predator that you have roaming your hallways?" And -you know- I was told, "We are going to do everything in our power. We are going to handle this Terry. You're right. It is unacceptable." And then they disappeared. Nothing happened.
Thanks for the transcript!
This makes me want to cry. I so feel for his predicament, though I can't share in it (small woman). He is such a treasure.
Super torn on the appropriateness of that question. It gave him the chance to counter the nationally insinuated question, but damn, it's so sad that he has to address that.
Considering her wording "Say it as it is, I think it's important", it seems that she indeed wanted to give him the chance to share that information
Ordinarily the question is asked with the intent to discredit a small woman. This is Terry motherfucking Crews. The guy is absolutely enormous and could break you in half by merely blinking in your direction if he really wanted to. If his answer to that question amounts to "I couldn't", then it becomes clear to anyone paying attention that you can't expect a small woman to fight back.
It was absolutely an intentional question in order to challenge the idea of the question itself.
I mean judging by the way he answered—a difficult answer to give to a difficult question, but an answer nonetheless—I feel like he probably was told beforehand this question was coming. And I'm glad for it, I hate celebrity culture and whatever, but the fact remains that this person has a voice, and people look up to him.
I have seen him give similar answers to the same question, posed several times. He may not have planned this response this time, but he is definitely practiced in it.
It was actually a part of his coming forward as well. Links taken from here, I've edited it into paragraphs:
This was absolutely planned, probably by both parties, and we're all the better that it was.
I think this is part of why Terry's coming forward with this was such a shock: all the usual retorts don't work, you can't accuse him on manipulating the man, attempting to use this to further his career, or having dressed too provocatively.
I think its better that it was asked publicly so he could address it, otherwise it would be asked privately by those watching. This is a hearing on capital hill, not a casual conversation between friends. The question is asked by a senator and in front of cameras, because the answer isn't just about Terry Crews. If he wasn't ready for these questions, he wouldn't be there.
I think that the senator would have already read the papers so she knew the answer was going to just give his case more weight.
With cases like that it's best to have everything said and recorded. Insinuations or assumptions aren't as strong.
I certainly wasn't expecting so much buffering on a video on twitter. I wonder if there's unprecedented traffic or if there's something else going on?
I didn't have any buffering issues personally, but the video was so low-resolution it felt like the camera was crying...
it's weird, I've never seen this issue on twitter before... internet is fine, getting 1gbps on speed tests and all other sites responding normally.