A reader writes:
Did your first cited reader read Jacobsen's entire account of the meeting? 14 years after the alleged assault in the car, Bialek went up to Cain in a public place surrounded by people and reminded him who she was. Though Jacobsen could not hear Bialek's conversation, nothing implies "speaking closely in his ear." The embrace was described thus: "briefly", "more like she put her arms around him", "boxed him out." Jacobsen also says "there was a smile, and then things got tense," and that Cain was "stone-faced."
Does that sound warm or affectionate? I'm no basketball fan, but even I know that boxing someone out isn't a warm cuddly snuggle, but a tactical move.
And look, I can't speak for every woman out there, but judging by the number of times men I've just met attempt to hug me at work and by their evident surprise when I step away, men hug women socially as some kind of gendered substitute for a business-friendly handshake all the goddamn time. I shouldn't have to say this, but I will: I am neither particularly attractive nor outgoing, and in no case do I initiate co-worker hugs (except when attending one's wedding recently.) There is nothing cute or physically inviting about me: I am not "asking for it" by "the way I dress." I have actively offended men by refusing to be in their arms, even superficially, even momentarily. I work in an industry that wanders between blue- and white-collar. The whiter the collar, the more superficial the hug (though no less unwelcome). Anyone who's ever experienced the discomfort of a business handshake held too long knows the difference between social custom and intimacy. I reject the social custom mainly because of the occasional man who oversteps, since an overly warm hug by a stranger is far creepier than an awkward handshake, and frankly because I resent the custom. But I know the difference.
Tarring Bialek's account based on this "embrace" seems to rely heavily on ignorance of social hugging, as well as on cherry-picking Jacobsen's account.
Another writes:
"You know I have a boyfriend?" This is a standard response by women being "approached" by men who they feel view them as chattel. It's at the level of instinct. Sorry, other reader, if it's not P.C.
Another expands on that point:
I have to write to push back against the reader who wrote about Bialek's response to Cain that she had a boyfriend. In my experience as a woman, this is a very common response to an unwanted advance. It is a way to let that person know that you are unavailable or can be used as a gentle way to let a guy down. It is also a way to deflect the advance without "causing trouble." I say causing trouble, because some people do not take no for answer or they at least do not take it well.
Imagine you are a woman alone with a man who you thought you could trust (especially one who you consider powerful) and he puts his hand up your skirt. You may want to run, scream, even slap him. But he has now shown you that you don't really know the kind of person he is. If you slap him or scream, he could get violent. So, you try to end the incident without increasing the level of risk.
Some readers may think this would require too much thought in the moment, but for many women this response is instinctual. Many of us operate differently in our day to day lives than men do, because we are aware that we are at risk. This doesn't mean we live our lives in fear, but we may choose different jogging routes, we may listen for footsteps behind us, we may be more aware of the way someone is looking at us. Our culture and our personal experiences have taught us ways of trying to manage uncomfortable and potentially dangerous situations. Telling a guy you have a boyfriend is a really basic reaction/strategy.
I have no way of knowing if this woman is telling the truth, but I do not think that this is a "tell" that she is lying.
Another casts more doubt:
You say you find Bialek credible because Jacobson backs up her story. She does not. Jacobson states that she witnessed Bialek interacting with Cain BEFORE he spoke at the Schaumberg event. Bialek states that she met with Cain AFTER he spoke. They can't both be right.
Furthermore, Jacobson's story has changed over time. Initially she described that they hugged like old friends and talked for about two minutes. Later she stated that the meeting was "tense". Two days ago Jacobson said, "They hugged each other backstage in a full embrace like old friends." Yesterday:
Jacobson said Bialek "bum rushed" her to get to Cain while backstage at the event. That led to what she described as an intense encounter that you could "cut with a knife." She said Bialek had Cain’s ear for two to three minutes, and after it was over, Bialek "stormed" off. That has led Jacobsen to conclude that Bialek was, in fact, confronting Cain about the alleged encounter.
So two days ago, according to Jacobson, they were best of friends. Now yesterday, after hearing Bialek dispute her account, suddenly it's a tense encounter you could cut with a knife? She's not describing the same incident. Neither one of the women can get their stories straight.
The Dish 