Tipping Point - Sexual Harassment In America

[mama cass]

on a more serious note though, i think there are huge cultural differences between French feminists and US feminists in this respect, and the balance lies somewhere in the middle

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by mama cass

on a more serious note though, i think there are huge cultural differences between French feminists and US feminists in this respect, and the balance lies somewhere in the middle

Yes. France has its own thing — I remember same-sex marriage had a different argument to make over there due to what were presented to me (in the articles I read) a stronger belief in the essentialism of gender.

[iron yuppie]

Originally Posted by mama cass

i read an article today on the Deneuve (+99 other women) letter, and the author (male) felt that Weinstein etc had suddenly made him personally feel like a monster/predator/pig, etc., and he felt that the #metoo movement was risking becoming like Circe, turning all their enemies into beasts, and he was afraid, to show gallantry, to be complimentary to women...

This is the kind of thinking I can't support. To make the claim that a man might be branded a sexual predator for asking a woman out or holding a door is simply a tactic to delegitimize a very serious and important movement, an effort to depict women who have spoken up as hypersensitive or misandrist. No one is looking to spin awkward flirting into Weinstein-esque predatory behavior.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by iron yuppie

This is the kind of thinking I can't support. To make the claim that a man might be branded a sexual predator for asking a woman out or holding a door is simply a tactic to delegitimize a very serious and important movement, an effort to depict women who have spoken up as hypersensitive or misandrist. No one is looking to spin awkward flirting into Weinstein-esque predatory behavior.

I disagree entirely.

When someone wants an easy way out of an awkward flirt and wants to feel victimized and wants to feel like they're a part of the big movement, they absolutely will make false claims. Same goes to someone with an ego large enough to say "you're not good enough for me."

This type of behavior isn't restricted to women in social-sexual situations. People of all types literally do this all the time. It's this potential type of behavior that threatens the movement.

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by mama cass

but i don't understand, for instance, why Kevin Spacey is being deleted from his films, and his series suspended? were his victims fellow cast/crew members? if not, to me that is some kind of censorship and goes beyond the bounds of sanctions

i don't recall the details exactly but i definitely remember reading an article shortly after the spacey story broke claiming that he had been making cast and crew on house of cards very uncomfortable with his behaviour for years.

and let's be honest, him being deleted from the getty film was purely a business decision and nothing to do with morality or ethics... the movie would have been a guaranteed box office flop and it wouldn't have been given any awards if spacey was still in it, and now it's being talked about for oscar nominations.

Originally Posted by iron yuppie

No one is looking to spin awkward flirting into Weinstein-esque predatory behavior.

the whole business with aziz ansari is pretty much what you're describing here.

[mama cass]

Originally Posted by DaveC

i don't recall the details exactly but i definitely remember reading an article shortly after the spacey story broke claiming that he had been making cast and crew on house of cards very uncomfortable with his behaviour for years.

ah ok thanks, i didn't know that

Originally Posted by DaveC

and let's be honest, him being deleted from the getty film was purely a business decision and nothing to do with morality or ethics... the movie would have been a guaranteed box office flop and it wouldn't have been given any awards if spacey was still in it, and now it's being talked about for oscar nominations.

sure, i hadn't thought about it from the damage-control angle... but i guess it makes sense to avoid the inevitable backlash...

how far do we go though? do we stop listening to the Stones because of Bill Wyman's preferences for underage girls? do we take all the Leonardo de Vincis out of the museums because he was a paedophile? Elvis? the list could go on and on...

[anitram]

This is a very interesting article, some thought provoking excerpts.

https://meanjin.com.au/blog/misogyny...human-pyramid/

At this point, we must resist the temptation to view misogyny as a spectrum. This is the wrong way to measure harm; it gives way to a complacency that says, ‘it’s just a joke, it’s not like I actually touched her’. Misogyny isn’t a sliding scale of harm where jokes are situated at the low end and rape at the other. Rather, it functions like a human pyramid, where minor acts support the major by providing, at best, a foundation of blithe indifference, and at worst an atmosphere of amusement at the denigration of women.

At the sprawling base of this pyramid are the innumerable silent men: those who stand idly by as sexism and misogyny play out before them. Their silence might be due to ignorance, intimidation or indifference, but its impact is always the same—silence is complicity, and it creates a stable base for other men to stand on without fear of retribution. Standing on the shoulders of the silent are those who laugh along, allowing sexist comments to be treated as lighthearted jokes. The behavior of these men raises the stakes for objecting, falsely conflating the rejection of casual misogyny with ‘not having a sense of humour’. On their shoulders rest those men who take it one step further and join in on the joke. At every level intent is varied, but the impact remains.

Next, ably supported by the more benign behaviours of the men below them, we have apologists. There are a couple of brands—many of whom are predatory themselves—but they all serve to actively protect the interests of abusive men through a systematic minimisation of their crimes. Whether it’s during a private conversation or in a public statement, these are the men who posture this new atmosphere of collective consciousness around sexual predation as a ‘witch hunt’. They’re equipped with euphemisms—bullying is ‘banter’, bragging about sexual assault is ‘locker room talk’, raping an unconscious woman behind a dumpster is ‘20 minutes of action’. These men are skilled at victim posturing—they always think the punishment is too ‘steep’—and even more so at victim blaming. Some are a bit more benign, like the ones who say, ‘sorry about my mate, he’s had too much to drink’ when their friend is harassing you—a great start, but unless they’re taking the time to have an uncomfortable, sober conversation with their friend about how to treat women, the apology is regrettably token.

Then there are the brokers of power—the ones who work quietly and menacingly from the corner office to protect the interests of the broader machine. They’re the ones who quash victims’ allegations with ‘think carefully about pursuing this’: a loaded comment used to convince victims of the superfluity of their claims; a reminder that their status means they can easily be hung out to dry. At the top of this human pyramid stand men like Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey and Australia’s own Don Burke, as well as a variety of other powerful men whose behaviour is vile and, to varying degrees, visible. History is riddled with them: these towering men who cast long shadows, within which they comfortably perpetrate.

...

To claim that misogyny is a pyramid built upon a silent majority might seem like a harsh indictment, but it is also an empowering one. If men can swallow the confronting reality that their silence is foundational to both sexism and sexual violence, then they get to embrace the inverse reality—that their vocal dissent could begin to destabilise these evils at their base. This counts most of all when there are no women around—I have a feeling the most sexist things ever said about me occurred when I wasn’t in earshot, or even in the room. It counts in the all-male text chain. It counts in the locker-room. It counts when there are no women there to pat you on the back. It counts when there’s nothing in it for you.

[corianderstem]

Two things:

1. I don't know if Meryl Streep or Oprah, or other actresses knew about Harvey Weinstein. Probably. But why is no one asking the same question of Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg? Why is this all on Meryl Streep?

2. I have many complicated feelings about the Aziz Ansari thing, but haven't felt like getting into a discussion about it. Which is fine - not every thought needs to be expressed on Twitter or Facebook.

2b. However, I will say this about that - that "move" the woman described as "the claw"? WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK NO NO NO NO NO NO.

[MrsSpringsteen]

I only mentioned Meryl Streep because of the Polanski thing. She gave a speech about Trump at what was it the Oscars? So I think that's one reason she's a target. It's hypocritical to gush all over someone like Polanski.

Trump was photographed with Weinstein too, don't know if they knew each other at all or it was just a one off photo.

[Hewson]

Originally Posted by corianderstem

Two things:



2b. However, I will say this about that - that "move" the woman described as "the claw"? WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK NO NO NO NO NO NO.

Yeah that one is a bit out there. Way out there.

Since they were in the kitchen, he'd have been better off trying the Aunt Jemima treatment.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by anitram

The long history of sexual assault and harassment of women, which goes back to the beginning of time, can be dealt with in some extent by the law but that is really the last step, a blunt tool. What we are talking about now is how to change social attitudes, how to better raise our sons, how to look at structural issues within industries, etc. That should not be conflated with fair trials and criminal justice being doled out.

This. Like I said earlier, I really think that's the big thing a lot of women are trying to do with this social media/discussing it in the open like this sort of situation.

Originally Posted by anitram

Separately I don't understand the constant references to Saint Meryl Streep. I have never written about her to my recollection, I don't watch movies because she is in them, hell I barely watch anything at all and have no idea how suddenly her name is being put forward as some sort of barometer for those of us concerned with sexual harassment. I don't give a flying fuck whom she supports, what she says or anything she thinks really.

Also agreed on this.

That said, while I don't deny that some celebrities are being all holier-than-thou about this situation, and hypocritical to boot, I also hesitate to dismiss all female celebrities who might've worked with shady/skeezy people as hypocrites for doing so. Some of them may well have not known of any allegations towards the men in question. Some of them may have been afraid of harassment and being blacklisted if they refused to work with them (didn't Weinstein try and spread nasty rumors about women who refused his advances or whatever, to try and keep other people from hiring them? If he could do it, I'm pretty sure many other directors/producers/etc. probably did the same). They could've had other reasons for being attached to a project that had nothing to do with supporting the creep in question, and just had to accept or deal with the fact that this creep was going to be there, because hey, it's Hollywood, that's just how people are out there, you just gotta grin and bear it, or whatever reasoning of that sort they hear or have to tell themselves.

If Hollywood does have as big a problem with this issue as people claim, then I think it'd be hard for MANY actors to find a place to work that didn't have at least one creep on staff somewhere along the way, if not more. So I hesitate to assume that by working with them, that's an automatic means of support for them.

Originally Posted by DaveC

i don't recall the details exactly but i definitely remember reading an article shortly after the spacey story broke claiming that he had been making cast and crew on house of cards very uncomfortable with his behaviour for years.

This. Plus, there was that whole thing with the 14 year old.

As noted earlier, the people who've been fired and censored so far are people who've had many accusations made towards them, and serious allegations at that.

That said...

Originally Posted by DaveC

and let's be honest, him being deleted from the getty film was purely a business decision and nothing to do with morality or ethics... the movie would have been a guaranteed box office flop and it wouldn't have been given any awards if spacey was still in it, and now it's being talked about for oscar nominations.

...this is also very much true.

Originally Posted by mama cass

on a more serious note though, i think there are huge cultural differences between French feminists and US feminists in this respect, and the balance lies somewhere in the middle

I do wonder if that's playing a role in some of the attitudes and discussion here, too. I don't know about France, but I've heard many stories and read articles and whatnot about how women here in the States are often raised to believe they must be polite when dealing with men. If a guy touches them in a way they don't like, or makes a joke they're bothered by, or tries to pressure them for a date or sex, they feel they have to be polite in turning the guy down, because they don't want to make him angry, or they don't want to be considered a "bitch", or whatever. I don't know if that's the attitude in France, but that seems to be part of the issue here in the States.

And some people just aren't very good at being confrontational in general. I'm like that myself. Now, if a guy's making advances towards me that I really don't want, I'd like to think I can find it in me to tell him to back the fuck off in no uncertain terms...but sometimes that can be easier said than done, and if some people aren't raised to know how to fight back, that can cause issues, too.

And I think this is also a generational issue in some ways, too. I've noticed that some women who grew up in earlier decades tend to be more "What's the big deal if a guy randomly pinches you?" or "So what if he calls you 'sweetie' or 'honey' at work?" or whatever, because that's what they grew up with, and they may have just been taught that this is how it is, this is how men are, and there's no reason to get all up in arms about it.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by mama cass

how far do we go though? do we stop listening to the Stones because of Bill Wyman's preferences for underage girls? do we take all the Leonardo de Vincis out of the museums because he was a paedophile? Elvis? the list could go on and on...

i agree. i don' t know how to respond to this. and i think about this myself. we could add JD Salinger, Allen Ginsberg, and i'm sure many others to the list of those who are sexually attracted to teenagers.

i can't say that i'll ever not watch Chinatown or Annie Hall despite what i know about the directors, because they are brilliant, all-time classic films. just because someone is a criminal doesn't mean that the criminal can't make great art. it means that they deserve to be punished for their criminal transgressions. i don't think criminality should be excused, as some do with Polanski, because he's a great artist. but i won't not appreciate his art out of some notion that my refusal to do so is virtue-signaling of a higher order.

i'm also growing increasingly uncomfortable with the public invasion of private matters. the Ansari incident is enough to make me start to backlash, as it's revealing a section of left feminism that's as censorious, anti-sex, and preoccupied with Victorian concerns about private conduct behind closed doors as conservative Christians ever were.

but, on the whole, this is a relatively minor quibble. great good has come from this movement, and to criticize certain excesses is a method of ensuring it continues.

[Nick66]

Originally Posted by corianderstem

Two things:

1. I don't know if Meryl Streep or Oprah, or other actresses knew about Harvey Weinstein. Probably. But why is no one asking the same question of Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg? Why is this all on Meryl Streep?

Absolutely. Anyone who is invested the system as it is should be called out, and none of them should get a free pass.

I think Streep is just getting extra scrutiny because of her close relationship with Weinstein, and the number of movies she did with him. Streep was instrumental in Weinstein building his company. She's also reported to have dismissively called the women rumoured to have been with Weinstein his "girlfriends"...when I think most people would know the nature of those relationships. And let's not forget Rose McGowan went out of her way to call Streep out.

None of that, of course, excuses the male actors who turned a blind eye to what he did. I don't know about Hanks, but Damon and Affleck certainly have questions to answer.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

i i don't think criminality should be excused, as some do with Polanski, because he's a great artist. but i won't not appreciate his art out of some notion that my refusal to do so is virtue-signaling of a higher order.

I think it comes down to a personal choice.

I don't watch any of Polanski's work or Woody Allen's for that matter. It's not posturing or virtue-signaling, I just think that I have very limited hours in a day and a million better ways to spend them than on those two perverts.

Similarly, I have a personal resolve, which I have had since the age I first started traveling, not to go to any country where women have to cover up and be accompanied by a related male. Not because I walk around in a bikini, but because this is a big world with lots to see and I can go to a million other places where I'm not a second-class citizen. As a gay person, I would not accuse you of "virtue-signaling" if you had a similar approach.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by anitram

I think it comes down to a personal choice.

I don't watch any of Polanski's work or Woody Allen's for that matter. It's not posturing or virtue-signaling, I just think that I have very limited hours in a day and a million better ways to spend them than on those two perverts.

Similarly, I have a personal resolve, which I have had since the age I first started traveling, not to go to any country where women have to cover up and be accompanied by a related male. Not because I walk around in a bikini, but because this is a big world with lots to see and I can go to a million other places where I'm not a second-class citizen. As a gay person, I would not accuse you of "virtue-signaling" if you had a similar approach.

well, certainly i have no plans to go to Jamaica anytime soon, but a vacation costing thousands of dollars and a significant chunk of time is quite different from spending 2 hours and maybe $3.99 on a rented movie, especially if movies, really good movies, are important to you.

and they aren't to everyone.

and i will admit to being troubled at the dismissal of two creepy men as nothing more than perverts. perhaps this is the gay PTSD where "pervert" was used as an excuse to lock us up and crack our skulls and write any number of laws. sex panics tend to come crashing down on us, first.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

and i will admit to being troubled at the dismissal of two creepy men as nothing more than perverts. perhaps this is the gay PTSD where "pervert" was used as an excuse to lock us up and crack our skulls and write any number of laws. sex panics tend to come crashing down on us, first.

We all have our backgrounds that influence how we think and why we think the things we think.

I really feel no compulsion whatsoever to delve more deeply into these two or their art. They have enough followers, they hardly rely on me on the success they've had.

And I beg to differ that Polanski is just creepy. Convicted of sex with a 13 year old child, others who have come forward who were 10 & 15 from what I recall. Give me a break. Maybe having my own children has made me think differently, but this is a line I'm drawing and calling him a pervert without a moment's hesitation.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by anitram

We all have our backgrounds that influence how we think and why we think the things we think.



I really feel no compulsion whatsoever to delve more deeply into these two or their art. They have enough followers, they hardly rely on me on the success they've had.



And I beg to differ that Polanski is just creepy. Convicted of sex with a 13 year old child, others who have come forward who were 10 & 15 from what I recall. Give me a break. Maybe having my own children has made me think differently, but this is a line I'm drawing and calling him a pervert without a moment's hesitation.

I’m happy to call him a criminal and believe he should have gone to jail.

[mama cass]

Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel

I do wonder if that's playing a role in some of the attitudes and discussion here, too. I don't know about France, but I've heard many stories and read articles and whatnot about how women here in the States are often raised to believe they must be polite when dealing with men. If a guy touches them in a way they don't like, or makes a joke they're bothered by, or tries to pressure them for a date or sex, they feel they have to be polite in turning the guy down, because they don't want to make him angry, or they don't want to be considered a "bitch", or whatever. I don't know if that's the attitude in France, but that seems to be part of the issue here in the States.

that's definitely not the case in France - in terms of citizenship, we have very strong views on "liberte, egalite, fraternite" - equality between men and women is seen as paramount, and a foundation of French society, we have equal rights on every level, the right to education, the right to work, etc. and definitely no concept of systemic "submission" (interestingly though, i have seen that taught in the UK, in a church setting, disturbingly - my friend was told by her evangelical mother that she should never say "no" to a man - horrid)

from experience, the French women i know are pretty strong women, they teach their daughters to be in control of their bodies, for instance, many mums automatically put their teenage daughters on the pill as they know they're likely to have sex, but want to avoid unwanted pregnancies, instead of, say, being in denial about these things... so from an early age, girls are taught to be in control of their own bodies and feel empowered...

we have a history of awesome feminists, like Simone Veil, who fought for legal abortion in the 1970s, Olympe de Gouges who wrote the rights of citizenship for women after 1789 revolution (although was later executed!) - there is a history of strong feisty French women... strong women are celebrated in paintings, Delacroix's Liberty Guiding the People comes to mind, and Marianne, a symbol of the French revolution, is the emblem of the French Republic... and of course we created the statue of liberty who is a woman! so it kind of feels like you're allowed and encouraged to be a strong woman in France...

as far as i can see it, unwelcome attention is brutally rebuffed - i think the French can be pretty blunt and upfront about these things, well, about everything really haha which is probably why other countries think we're rude maybe, and we're generally not afraid to speak our minds, and are encouraged to do so... philosophy, civic education, etc. are compulsory subjects in school up to the Bac (18 years) and kids have to debate and argue and discuss all kinds of issues... sex is seen as a fantastic thing, and love is valued highly - i remember when my daughter was younger, and suddenly got a boyfriend, and i was talking to a French friend, saying i was a bit worried as her exams were coming up and i was worried he would be a distraction, and, this is coming from a super strict mum, she said "noooo, it will do her good to be in love, she will be happy and feel complete and that will help her in her studies" - i'd never thought of it like that before, but found it really refreshing... i have fallen in love with this country and the people over the years, i love what it stands for - liberty (to be, to do, but not to hurt others), equality (in every way), and fraternity (socialism, universal healthcare, social protection, etc.)... really love discussing the differences in our cultures - i do appreciate seeing different angles on things...

[Nick66]

Originally Posted by mama cass

that's definitely not the case in France - in terms of citizenship, we have very strong views on "liberte, egalite, fraternite" - equality between men and women is seen as paramount, and a foundation of French society, we have equal rights on every level, the right to education, the right to work, etc. and definitely no concept of systemic "submission" (interestingly though, i have seen that taught in the UK, in a church setting, disturbingly - my friend was told by her evangelical mother that she should never say "no" to a man - horrid)

from experience, the French women i know are pretty strong women, they teach their daughters to be in control of their bodies, for instance, many mums automatically put their teenage daughters on the pill as they know they're likely to have sex, but want to avoid unwanted pregnancies, instead of, say, being in denial about these things... so from an early age, girls are taught to be in control of their own bodies and feel empowered...

we have a history of awesome feminists, like Simone Veil, who fought for abortion in the 1970s, Olympe de Gouges who wrote the rights of citizenship for women after 1789 revolution (although was later executed!) - there is a history of strong feisty French women... strong women are celebrated in paintings, Delacroix's Liberty Guiding the People comes to mind, and Marianne, an icon from the French revolution, is the emblem of the French Republic... and of course we created the statue of liberty who is a woman! so it kind of feels like you're allowed and encouraged to be a strong woman in France...

as far as i can see it, unwelcome attention is brutally rebuffed - i think the French can be pretty blunt and upfront about these things, well, about everything really haha which is probably why other countries think we're rude maybe, and we're generally not afraid to speak our minds, and are encouraged to do so... philosophy, civic education, etc. are compulsory subjects in school up to the Bac (18 years) and kids have to debate and argue and discuss all kinds of issues... sex is seen as a fantastic thing, and love is valued highly - i remember when my daughter was younger, and suddenly got a boyfriend, and i was talking to a French friend, saying i was a bit worried as her exams were coming up and i was worried he would be a distraction, and, this is coming from a super strict mum, she said "noooo, it will do her good to be in love, she will be happy and feel complete and that will help her in her studies" - i'd never thought of it like that before, but found it really refreshing... i have fallen in love with this country and the people over the years, i love what it stands for - liberty (to be, to do, but not to hurt others), equality (in every way), and fraternity (socialism, universal healthcare, social protection, etc.)... really love discussing the differences in our cultures - i do appreciate seeing different angles on things...

Outstanding post. I've really enjoyed your (and Irvine's) posts in this thread, probably more than I've enjoyed any other comments I've seen in FYM.

There was an interesting article I read recently about the differences between American and French feminism (including Americans relative tolerance for women in some countries being forced cover themselves, and the French disdain for it). Anyway, your comments reflect much of what I read in that article, and reflect my own observations from the brief period I lived in Toulouse.

Anyway, I know this is as hot a topic in France as it is anywhere else right now, and it's clear there are range of views on how to deal with this problem.

[mama cass]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

i agree. i don' t know how to respond to this. and i think about this myself. we could add JD Salinger, Allen Ginsberg, and i'm sure many others to the list of those who are sexually attracted to teenagers.

i can't say that i'll ever not watch Chinatown or Annie Hall despite what i know about the directors, because they are brilliant, all-time classic films. just because someone is a criminal doesn't mean that the criminal can't make great art. it means that they deserve to be punished for their criminal transgressions. i don't think criminality should be excused, as some do with Polanski, because he's a great artist. but i won't not appreciate his art out of some notion that my refusal to do so is virtue-signaling of a higher order.

i'm also growing increasingly uncomfortable with the public invasion of private matters. the Ansari incident is enough to make me start to backlash, as it's revealing a section of left feminism that's as censorious, anti-sex, and preoccupied with Victorian concerns about private conduct behind closed doors as conservative Christians ever were.

but, on the whole, this is a relatively minor quibble. great good has come from this movement, and to criticize certain excesses is a method of ensuring it continues.

i think it could open up a great discussion on the separation of art and the artist... guess it's a very complex issue really...

i totally agree with the public invasion into people's private lives as well - it makes me so uncomfortable seeing intricate details of people's private lives put out there for all to see, warranted or unwarranted... whatever happened to sayings such as "don't air your dirty laundry in public" etc. etc. jeesus, there is so much i don't want to know right now...