Hill Farmstead (2021)

haha well said

 

It is, but just like the beer we all like to discuss, no one at this time can say their thoughts are fact and not opinion. We are talking about second- hand accounts as if they are corroborated. We are also not talking about Deshaun Watson here with over 22 accusers.

So if I have two options for a discussion regarding opinions than I’ll always choose the one focused on beer…. but that’s just my opinion.

 

this take is a larger issue in my opinion. You want to separate the beer and the brewer and look over a larger issue that is a big part of society? Not everyhing is second hand, and for a brewery owner who is constantly out spoken I believe he has put higher expectations on himself from his previous actions...you comparing to Deshaun Watson is for me personally disguisting by both downplaying each and even more looking over all potential victims... shesh

 

It’s not a subject that should just be dropped because fanboys think Hill can do no wrong. He’s a brewer and a human. The human fucked up. So his brewing will end up paying a price.

But he, and only he made those choices. And if Hill made those choices and tried to hide behind (I was impaired) then fuck that pile of garbage of an article where he says “beer needs to be respected and it inhibits blah blah blah” Looks like he doesn’t practice what he preaches. And if he wasn’t impaired then he’s just a willing predator.

So yeah, it will be discussed here

 

If you read that, read the stories of **** and sexual assault reported from victims, and this is your takeaway, then I don’t know man. I don’t work for you. I provided data on sexual assaults, which overwhelmingly indicates that women don’t just make up because it’s so fun.

 

And the reports you are describing are firsthand reports provided from the victim. You can read their direct first person statements yourself. While there is some low end sexist comments and some just bad workplace stuff in there, there are also numerous accounts of sexual assaults, including rapes, that were not reported to the police when these crimes were committed. Much like the 65% of unreported sexual assault crimes that occur as the Sexual Violence Resource Center paper I referenced estimates.

Your point is obviously "these women are liars". It's a huge part of the reason that 65% of sexual assaults are not reported to the police.

 

My overall view is that - unequivocally - what Brienne did is a fantastic thing, and has/will result in long overdue change. I 100% consider myself an ally to women/minorities, and even though I don't work in the industry and even though I generally consider myself an ok human being, it's also resulted in some self reflection for me personally (and I know others on BA who I've texted with).

That said I think it's possible to simultaneously hold that overall viewpoint (with an understanding/acceptance that there may be some collateral damage along the way to get the industry to the place it needs to be), but at the same time be willing/able to discuss each thematic offender (meaning people/places repeatedly mentioned in Brienne's insta stories) on a case by case basis.

This all started because Brienne was dealing with some sexist comments (unclear from who and in what exact context) - "A man is literally talking to me like a dog right now". This led her to pose the question "What sexist comments have you experienced?" And then from there "I'd you'd (sic) like to keep this going feel free to dm me your sexist or racist experiences and I'll keep posting".

So what would we consider the poster child in terms of a) being a repeat offender but also b) having had a desirable outcome? I would say Tired Hands would be one. But in TH's case there were multiple first hand accounts of sexual misconduct in the workplace. And who knows yet the extent to which this was truly employee driven (although some subsequent DM's alluded to it being genuine) vs some sort of optics play, but on the face of it the employees spoke up and took control. There were similar dynamics (on both the reported offenses and ultimate resolution) for Modern Times.

But the Shaun Hill situation - while absolutely raising legitimate questions about him/his character as his name came up repeatedly - is not the same. For me personally:

In his favor

The two most widely-touted stories involved third parties providing their thoughts/perspective; not direct first hand accounts

No employees (past or present) appear to have spoken up yet condemning him or the HF workplace

Against him

No employees (past or present) appear to have spoken up yet supporting him or the HF workplace

The multiple, vacuous, weak AF instagram posts / responses to media

Relationship with Jean of TH

The fact that he's cultivated this sort of ultra-ethical/thoughtful persona over the years, combined with allegations and the weak responses


So personally speaking I think it's pretty pathetic that people aren't willing to discuss this because it's Lord Shaun / just about the beer / that sort of typical bullshit response. But at the same time bulldozing people with stats about the low % of fake reports of sexual assault (while obviously true / incredibly valid overall / relevant in terms of some of the posts Brienne put up where women spoke about firsthand experiences) isn't really applicable here, and - to me - also shows an unwillingness to have a productive discussion. I would add that (and not of course to make me sound like an expert on the subject but just to help provide some context for my viewpoint) my sister is the lead social worker for a UK city for all forms of violence against women and girls. I have heard some horrific things over the years. So while it is 100% my viewpoint that there should be no type of sexual misconduct / sexism in the workplace, period, I think it's also important to view things on a spectrum.

My current stand on SH - likely gross, likely a dick, likely sexist. Is HF a toxic place for women/minorities to work at? that I don't know. Is he a "predator"? I don't know.

Sorry for the long-winded post! And if someone believes I am being too light on SH please have at it. My view is likely flawed, and like many people I have a lot more to learn. But I think let's be specific/productive.

 

More or less agree. I think the issue, beyond hero worship, is the variable understanding of what this forum should even be about. I think of the competing views of sports fans on how much discussion around everything from sexual assault involving a team's staff/ players/coaches to sweetheart stadium deals belong on website X or forum Y. Some only want "between the lines" sports talk, or in this case, only want to talk about "the beer" in the most narrow way possible. But that narrow view of what should be acceptable discussion always comes from a place of privilege, from those who don't have to worry about or deal with the consequences of the bad behavior. It's nice to see some very reasonable posts like this one discuss the issue, and honestly I haven't seen these magical posts I hear of that have pitchforks out and want SH to lose everything.

I should also say I get the statement that, in this forum post, talk of **** and very serious assault doesn't match the actual allegations, but since the other post went so off the rails I think this and the TH post have taken up larger discussions, which might not be ideal but is not a surprising result.

 

Well put and sums up my feelings on the Hill Farmstead part of the overall situation exactly. I'm not ready to 'cancel' Shaun just yet. We need more information.

You forgot one black mark you could put in your 'Against' column that I think really plays a role here -- that, unfortunately for him, he already had a reputation as being a bit of a dick. I've seen this a few times at beerfest and at the brewery where if you can't talk on his self-perceived high level of thinking, he immediately dismisses you as not worthy of his time. So, just by being associated with this whole Brianne thing, it's easier for people to make the leap that maybe his generally dickish attitude extends to his attitudes toward women as well. That admittedly was my first thought when this all broke.

But ....

Most of the accusations against him could also be just more evidence of him being a regular dick, as opposed to of the sexual predator variety. .... Yes, the AirBnB story is a bad and needs to be further explained. But he didn't appear to act on his words or hit on Brienne. Maybe it was 'locker room' talk between two dudes that was meant to stay private - which of course isn't helpful for the overall culture either. And look, if Shaun sent that brewer over to Brienne to relay that story to her in the hopes she'd be interested, I guess that's a different story, but I'm not sure we've seen clarity on that.

I very much hope that HF employees come out with their perspectives to Brienne. If Shaun has nothing to hide, it would be smart for him to encourage them to do so. Their voices would be quite Enlightening. Are the women that work there feeling harrassed? Have the men seen anything?

So, so far, I'm not quite seeing evidence of him being a real predator just yet, at least in my view, but I'm prepared to write him off if needed as well. The subtle nuances of this story can make or break his perceived guilt or innocence in my mind. It's not nearly as clear cut at the TH or MT situations. So I hope we see more information, because the current evidence feels a bit murky.

 

@rozzom did a really good job mostly echoing my own thoughts on all of this. After first diving into this discussion a week ago, I had to tap out because I've been really disappointed with the direction it has taken. On the one hand, a lot of the people "liking" my posts have also made posts of their own being pretty dismissive of the whole sexism conversation, which I completely and utterly disagree with, and frankly are not people I want on "my side".

On the other hand, it seems that many of you are not looking at the Hill situation on its own merits but rather are conflating his allegations with very different situations, and in one case, suggesting that anyone who sees the Hill situation as nuanced is probably someone that would **** a woman if they could get away with it (I have to admit, that one really floored me).

As I said early on, I think some perspective is hugely needed here. If Hill attempted to pressure a black-out drunk woman to have sex with him, that is completely disgusting and fuck him. However, that one allegation came from an anonymous source who was neither the woman in question nor one of her friends. For all I know, that person knew fuck all about what was happening and jumped to a conclusion. This isn't about "believe the victims"--I do believe victims are almost universally telling the truth, but I don't suspend all skepticism when it comes to anonymous reports from third parties who really weren't involved in the situation.

The whole thing about saying he was "going to fuck" Brienne on a couch is crude and gross. While I don't find that as contemptible as some of you (who have compared it to being willing to **** or assault someone, which again is a quantum leap from the claim actually made), I do understand it's not really a cool thing to say. However, we are again not hearing it from Brienne, but rather some other person who told her Hill said it. For all we know, Hill said "I really like Brienne, I'm hoping to hook up with her tonight," not what was reported, and honestly what would be wrong with that. So again, in my view some of you are far too willing to just 100% take all of these claims as absolute fact when they aren't coming from people who were actually involved.

Basically everything else reported was Hill being a condescending prick to random people, not his staff and not really in a way that clearly demonstrates sexism as opposed to generally rudeness. If you want to say the guy is a jerk, fine, but that doesn't make him a sexual predator or worse.

And the stuff about the apology being lame I really couldn't care less about. From what Hill has stated publicly, he categorically denies that he did what has been reported, with the possible exception that he may have unintentionally been rude to some people. But if he denies the couch remark and the attempted sexual assault, then what would you really have him say? Why is he supposed to grovel for forgiveness if those things legitimately never happened? I agree he could have done better if the goal was to appease the people calling for his head, but it's not for me to critique his PR acumen. And frankly, I am confident that nothing he said would be enough for those of you who have decided all of these claims absolutely must be true.

Again, I'm really disappointed in the polarizing, all-or-nothing direction this thread has taken, and I'm sure I'll get crushed as some kind of misogynist victim-blamer for even posting this. I feel strongly that victims of sexism and sexual misconduct/assault (not random bystanders or people who suffered a rude comment) should be listened to and largely believed, but I also feel strongly that people who have generally shown themselves to be thoughtful and decent over many years shouldn't have their reputations dragged through a ditch based on third-hand accounts and in some cases, what are really minor transgressions.

 

Hill is accused of trying to have sex with a blackout, fall-down drunk woman. If true, it’s attempted ****. Folks can choose not to believe the allegation, but those who believe it and are still triggered by the comment that he “sounds like a sexual predator” should reflect on what their standard of sexual predation is. In most instances, it’s probably not going to be like something out of a Saw movie.

 

My point about Deshaun Watson was that he has a high number of first hand accusers which could lead one to believe there is credence to their common accusations vs. a couple of second hand accusations against Shaun Hill. I’m not downplaying anything. I’m merely stating that people need to be very careful about how they “label” someone until they are proven to be guilty. I’m all for the discussions and improvements this will bring in the industry. That doesn’t need to be said by anyone. I just think in this particular case the pitch forks and torches can be left at home for now. Bring them out when it’s proven someone is a monster but not until.

Also, I’m probably the exception in that I can separate the art from the person. I won’t support someone I don’t respect but I won’t deny there is talent in shitbags of society. It’s just a fine line of acknowledging the talent without supporting it if you choose not to.

 

Copying the actual DM that you yourself posted. I don't know whether this is directed at me or someone else, but regardless please let's not try and just score points against each other or tell people they're triggered or that they should self-examine their standard of sexual predation - as if this is some sort of twitter thread - let's discuss what was actually said and by whom. A third party, and not even the woman's friends, submitted the below. And "trying to have sex" wasn't even mentioned. You see how you, as someone posting on the internet, added in an extra something to the story in the process of relaying it? It sort of proves the points about perhaps being skeptical of third party accounts and their representations of intent. I'm sorry but details matter. If the post had been:

"I was blackout drunk and my friends managed to stop Shaun Hill from taking me up to his hotel room where he said he was going to try and have sex with me"

vs

"My friend was blackout drunk and we had to stop SH coercing her into going up to his hotel room"

vs

What was actually posted

vs

Taking it a degree further away - "a friend of mine said she saw a woman and a group of friends....etc etc"

Then for me that would vastly have an impact on my line of thought. Or it's all one and the same to you? Serious question. No sarcasm.

And just to be clear in case you/someone decides to be disingenuous and explain basics to me - I fully understand why it is a disgusting fucking problem for a man to try and coerce a blackout woman back to his room to have non-consensual sex with her. And that a person who would do such a thing is a clear predator. That is not up for debate here by anyone (I hope).

 

You’ve made a few similar comments, but this is exactly the kind of straw man argument and conflation of issues I was talking about. I haven’t seen a single person say that would be acceptable if true. If they have and I’ve missed it, then I agree that’s a disgusting viewpoint.

What I and some others have said is that this singular account was raised by an anonymous third party who wasn’t involved in the incident, so it’s not necessarily that I know it’s false, but I certainly don’t know it’s true.

Edit: To be clear, I’m not even advocating for some kind of super high “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of proof. If the alleged victim or her friends had posted this, I’d probably believe it. Frankly, if even one other anonymous bystander claimed to have seen this or said, “oh yeah, I’ve seen Shaun do the same in the past,” I’d probably believe that also. But the “evidence” presented so far is as thin as it could possibly be, and I honestly find it a little alarming that that is clearly more than enough for some of you to reach the conclusions you have.

 

I don’t get what you’re saying. You don’t believe the allegation? That’s fine. For those who do believe it, it literally says Hill is “a straight up predator.”

I understand completely that some folks don’t believe the allegations against Hill or want to hear more before deciding whether or not to continue purchasing his beer. My comment was directed against those who believe he tried to **** someone but are uncomfortable with people saying he sounds like a predator. The allegations are serious.

 

I’m saying the exact same as @rightcoast7 - his post was just a lot more clear/concise. So who are the people that unequivocally believe the accusation but don’t believe he is a predator? They posted in this thread? Haven’t seen anything to that effect. If they exist then yeah that is a very odd combination viewpoint.

 

Fair enough. For some reason I thought you believed the allegations against Hill. I was concerned that people were downplaying the allegations themselves as not that serious. I must have misread.

 

Ok so it was directed at me? I mean I had posted a nauseatingly long post fully outlining my thoughts (including expressing myself as a 100% ally to women, as well as a desire for everyone to engage productively in this thread; something that hasn't happened for the most part so far). But I guess a glib tweet is much easier than reading. Score a point and move on.

But if you did want to read it, my post is very clear about where I stand. I haven't seen a single viewpoint (my own or anyone's) that fully believes the quoted DM - takes it as fact - but downplays the allegations themselves. I think this whole exchange represents the major problem in this thread. Condescendingly explaining to me that **** is serious and anyone engaging in it is a sexual predator (and suggesting I re-evaluate the definition). I mean duh. Do even the most reactionary/blinkered/just want to talk about beer people in this thread even disagree with that? If you create false positions for others to then shoot them down, you'll ultimately put people who are 99% on the same page as you into an opposing position. Makes no sense.

 

The same thing that's wrong with the much cruder version - it's unprofessional and reduces Brienne to a sex object. "I like Brienne, she's smart and a talented brewer," or something like that is what you say about her if you actually value her as a peer and as a person. Objectifying her to your employee, especially when you're Shaun Hill and everyone in the industry looks up to you, is unprofessional and sets a bad example for how men in the industry are supposed to view and talk about women who are their peers.

In the grand scheme of things, it's relatively minor, but it's typical of the kind of stuff that you see in toxic workplaces. The owner or head honcho has their circle of friends, and they run the place like their own personal domain instead of like a professional workplace. Among other things, this means that when someone, and especially the owner, makes comments about who he wants to have sex with that are inappropriate for the workplace, you have nowhere to report it and no one to talk to about it. You just have to brush it off, no matter how often it happens and how uncomfortable it makes you.

 

Yours was one of several posts that I thought was discounting the most serious allegation against Hill. Clearly I didn’t read it too carefully. Sorry to offend.