This is our truth, tell us yours
I don’t know Dr Brooke Magnanti. I use know in a traditional sense.
We talk on Twitter, occasionally. I admire her wit and brains, and delight in her kindness to my fellow author. Her story is one that intrigues and amuses me, and I take great hope in the way she has parlayed the shit that has happened to her into an after-life of some value and influence.
Her current legal troubles say far more about where we live, and what is wrong with this country, than I could.
This post, by Brooke, is revealing and important about where she is right now.
Then read this post, that appeared here today. The methods are similar.
Brooke prizes evidence, and sources, and identifies them. The Daily Mail, and other papers that have reported her ex’s claims, seem less scrupulous. The difference is that one of them is adopting the scientific method, to which the Daily Mail and, to be fair, most British tabloids, is alien.
We have rules here, which are almost cliches. One of them is that the plural of anecdote is not data, and that each individual anecdote is not data either.
Brooke presents evidence. Her ex tells his story, unsupported by evidence. It really is that simple.
However, there is a coda to this story, about why it matters to me.
During my training I spent too much time in the lower courts, watching as husbands tried to use the legal process as an opportunity to attack their ex’s. Quelle surprise. Nothing changes.
When you seek to use the courts to fix your problems in relationships, there are two possibilities. One is that you need a restraining order. The other is that you’re trying to get your problem fixed via the wrong route.
Lots of men do that.
They often call women liars in the process.
No-o e should be surprised by this, but judging by the evidence, no-one should believe it either. On the basis of the evidence, so far, Brooke looks more reliable.
This is no surprise.