Can we talk about the apparent culture of sexual abuse in the american film industry?

[TheVampwizimp_v1legacy]

In a world where the word "ill" can mean "taken with a sickness" for centuries and then, for no discernable reason suddenly come to mean "awesome," and then 5 years later drop that new meaning almost entirely, yes we fucking can make up new terms and apply them to a society that is changing so rapidly none of us can keep up with it.

That's not exactly a good example because, while a different group was pushing it, it's another example of a group trying to push a new very different meaning of a word and society rejecting it.

In fact, that's really the root cause of conservatism in general. Technology has made a world wherein society is on a god damn roller coaster, blasting from high to low to high every other minute, and a lot of people just want it to stop. It's why the world is so scary. But freezing the status quo is not a solution. It's stagnation.

I'm not exactly sure what that has to do with any of this, unless you're trying to say we should accept that words can have a small group in society unilaterally decide it has a dramatically different meaning from what the rest of us think it is and then expect us to within 5 minutes accept it.

We're still dealing with the fact that the better part of a decade ago someone decided the word Trans suddenly means something different and much of society still isn't in agreement on what this new meaning even is (with the rest of society not even agreeing that the term has changed from the shorthand it used to be).

I was just musing. Our argument led me to a new thought about conservative politics, so I wrote it down.

Look, this back and forth about what words mean and who decided what is not the important thing. I'm right, but that doesn't matter. What matters is that whatever you call it, we live in a culture where if you are incredibly wealthy you can get away with anything. The fact that some people have *eventually* been caught does not stop many other rich men from doing the same things.

Don't believe me? We elected Donald Trump president. And I know, he's your golden boy, so you really won't believe me, but we elected an admitted sexual predator to be our Commander in Chief. He is on record saying that he assaults women. People like you voted for him anyway. QED, rich men grabbing pussies without permission is not that big a problem.

I don't even know why I'm arguing this anymore, you have your rebuttals already loaded up, I've seen them before. They're nonsense. I've talked this out to my satisfaction for now, until the next time we butt heads over some other issue.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Rape allegations aside, what Whedon did is no different than what Weinstein did: he used his position of power to coerce people into having sex with him in exchange for a career boost.

Apart from Weinstein forcing himself on people, which is sorta a big deal, or should be.

 

[Zontar]

Don't believe me? We elected Donald Trump president. And I know, he's your golden boy, so you really won't believe me, but we elected an admitted sexual predator to be our Commander in Chief. He is on record saying that he assaults women.

The only thing he is on record saying is the infamous "grab em by the pussy" comment, and people seem to forget what he said immediately after that, which for the record was "and they let you do it".

It should be considered telling that the group of people who came out against him, who still haven't gone to the police mind you, decided to all come out right in the final weeks of the election instead of during the year before that, or the years between when they alleged the incidents took place and then.

My doubt doesn't stem from the fact he's someone I support, I make no secret of the fact I think he's a terrible person as a person. He's a decent businessman, he seems to be a good father, but he's not a good person. He's just the best politician the US had in a particularly horrible election cycle, and also one that there is no evidence of any sexual assault on his part.

This isn't a situation comparable to Weinstein who has fled the country (or tried, can't remember which), or where the media has gone out of its way to pretend the issue doesn't exist.

I don't even know why I'm arguing this anymore, you have your rebuttals already loaded up, I've seen them before. They're nonsense.

You know this is why the "smug liberal problem" is a thing. This right here is a perfect example of it.

It's especially funny given the fact that the your own points from where I'm sitting seems "already loaded up" given how predictable they are given the fact that despite how many time they've been show down in the past they keep coming back because ideas, no matter how wrong, don't just simply die (which, on a somewhat related note, is how Marxism and those who advocate it like Corbyn can still be taken seriously despite nearly 100 examples of nations attempting those ideas and so far a 100% rate of failure so bad Marxists have to prevent every other system is under the umbrella of Capitalism to prevent theirs isn't the deadliest ideology ever conceived by man).

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

*snip*

Funny how those accusers waited until the late stage of the election to come out, never went to the police and all shut up the moment the election was over instead of pushing harder given that would almost ensure impeachment and more.

Didn't realize Trump was elected President in 1997. When he settled a business case out of court with the condition that a sexual assault lawsuit was dropped. Or that time he raped his ex-wife, also prosecuted well before Trump was running for President. Almost like he was someone with a constant miasma of allegations following him around for decades that everybody ignored.

Only he got more powerful, the opposite of Weinstein's situation.

But hey, I'm sure that these allegations about a powerful white businessman are without merit, unlike those allegations made about the powerful white businessman you don't like.

The Progressive Conservative party you joined up with was textbook neo-liberal.

I actually didn't join any because the federal conservatives make no claim of being the defunct federal Progressive Conservative party and my local right wing party is the Coalition for Quebec's Future.[/quote]

Then I grew up, realized that under scrutiny socialism doesn't hold up, and Canadian progressive conservatism does, so I did the only rational thing and switched.

I mean, I realize that's in the Wild West, but "progressive conservatism" is neo-liberalism without the Spooky Scary name.

Tories are neo-liberal. The Conservative Party of Canada is neo-liberal. And the Coalition for Quebec's Futue is neo-liberal.

Have fun with that.

 

[Zontar]

[Didn't realize Trump was elected President in 1997. When he settled a business case out of court with the condition that a sexual assault lawsuit was dropped.

And I bet you also believe that Michael Jackson raped children too given he also settled out of court in the 90s when he was alleged to have done so.

But hey, I'm sure that these allegations about a powerful white businessman are without merit, unlike those allegations made about the powerful white businessman you don't like.

People don't settle out of court to right a wrong, and people don't flee the country when they're innocent. Like many progressives what you're demanding is a witchhunt where the accusation is the evidence and that's the beginning and end of it.

I mean, I realize that's in the Wild West, but "progressive conservatism" is neo-liberalism without the Spooky Scary name.

Neo-liberalism didn't even exist as a concept when progressive conservatism was formed, it was old enough to legally sleep with when neo-liberalism was created.

Tories are neo-liberal. The Conservative Party of Canada is neo-liberal. And the Coalition for Quebec's Futue is neo-liberal.

Can't speak for the Tories in the UK since I've not looked into which specific wing is in power, but here it's actually a balancing act between the social conservatives and the libertarians, and the Coalition is outright libertarian in its outlook.

You're literally the democratic equivalent of republicans who call Obama a socialist.

 

[Kenbo Slice]

white knight SJW cuck.

How anybody can take you seriously if you use terms like that is beyond me.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

[Didn't realize Trump was elected President in 1997. When he settled a business case out of court with the condition that a sexual assault lawsuit was dropped.

And I bet you also believe that Michael Jackson raped children too given he also settled out of court in the 90s when he was alleged to have done so.

Raped? Maybe not. Crawled into bed with? He admitted it. And that's super-inappropriate.

But hey, I'm sure that these allegations about a powerful white businessman are without merit, unlike those allegations made about the powerful white businessman you don't like.

People don't settle out of court to right a wrong, and people don't flee the country when they're innocent. Like many progressives what you're demanding is a witchhunt where the accusation is the evidence and that's the beginning and end of it.

So, who wants to tell Zontar that Weinstein hasn't faced any sort of criminal charges yet? And that Trump settled out of court, same as Weinstein, Cosby, and Jackson.

Welcome to the witch hunt, buddy.

EDIT: And to put that whole "and the accusations stopped after he became president" argument to bed: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/summer-zervos-subpoena-donald-trump-sexual-assault_us_59e3a30de4b03a7be5816360?ncid=edlinkushpmg00000313

Team Trump tried getting it dismissed in March, because under most circumstances you can't sue the President, but apparently this isn't yet one of those times.

Can't speak for the Tories in the UK since I've not looked into which specific wing is in power, but here it's actually a balancing act between the social conservatives and the libertarians, and the Coalition is outright libertarian in its outlook.

You're literally the democratic equivalent of republicans who call Obama a socialist.

It's cute how you think I'm a democrat.

But it you're talking smaller government, lower taxes, privatizing formerly public utilities for better market competition, deregulation, etc...congratulations, you're a Reagan-era Neo-Liberal.

 

[CheetoDust_v1legacy]

.

Someone I do like is exposed for sexually assault and potentially rape: "w-w-w-well I can't just bring him up, it's a New Yorker thing" -Literally the reason SNL didn't touch this issue, not even an exaggeration.

Michael Che literally said Weinstein should be in jail after he and Jost did a 5 minute segment about him on Weekend update. Why do you tell so many lies?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Incidently, for the "But why would they meet in a hotel room" crowd: https://twitter.com/jenniferemorrow/status/918890308762554368

Apparently, hotel rooms being converted into impromptu meeting places is standard practice in many fields, because getting conference rooms or office space on the fly is stupid hard. Plus, it helps keep things like casting calls for big projects secret because Todd McEveryman wasn't seen walking into Summer Blockbuster Studios Headquarters. They'll have staff, tables and AV equipment, all that stuff. Or, parties on hotel rooms are just that: room parties. Granted, I live in Montana, so I'm not correctly thinking how big these rooms are, but if there's supposedly some party to network at that's supposed to have 40 people there, I'd probably think it's on the up-and-up. Until it isn't.

Weinstein occasionally exploited that, which is super shitty, and fuck that guy.

 

[Erttheking]

Its called the Filing Cabinet Problem. We only hear about the bad people, so it looks like they make up the majority. The reality is that the vast majority of Hollywood people live normal lives and don't try to hurt anybody. But we would never hear about those people because they don't make good news.

How many of these "normal" people knew about this, were in a position to do something about it, but chose not to? Too fucking many. Being a good person requires more than just not actively hurting anyone yourself.

EDIT: Well, it didn't take long for this thread to be infested with victim blaming and "this is a big and serious problem but it can't be called a term I don't like that implies a big and serious problem I don't like."

Next time someone says rape culture isn't a thing, I'm showing them this thread.

 

[EscapistAccount]

Rape allegations aside, what Whedon did is no different than what Weinstein did: he used his position of power to coerce people into having sex with him in exchange for a career boost. It's nothing new, big shots have been banging hungry starlets since Hollywood was called Tinseltown and James Ellroy has been writing noir. The difference here is that Weinstein is being accused by his victims, while Whedon isn't (Mrs. Whedon notwithsanding).

The last time I heard those (probably true) rumours about Whedon there wasn't a coercive element to them, which is the reason I draw a distinction. From what I heard about him it was mostly starlet driven rather than Whedon driven, though that might all change in the next few days.

 

[Jamcie Kerbizz]

This has nothing to do with 'culture and sexual abuse'.
This is acceptance for corruption and coterie issue. Corporationism and building informal ingroups. If you accept getting the job/contract/deal/positive review based on that you know someone who works already in place you want to work in etc. You're part of the problem.
The moment you accept and perpetuate unprofessional forms of hiring and evaluating persona on 'grape vine' basis instead of their actions and achievements, you expose yourself and others to informal and often times deviant evaluation criteria.

If individual in power is fixated on sex you end up in Weinstein-esque situation or Quinn-esque situation. Dependent if it's someone forcing themselves on others or others abusing it to bribe their way in. It's lack of principles and glorification of nepotism known us various iterations of LinkedIn, GoldenLine, word of mouth backing etc. That is the problem. Predators forcing themselves on others, expecting sexual favours, degrading people to point of nervous breakdown or suicide are symptoms not a cause. If the water wasn't mudded in the first place they wouldn't have an environment to thrive in.

 

[stroopwafel]

Fact is Wiener has been a sleezeball for decades and the timing of the 'harassment' allegations is, how coincidential, right after the media crash and burned his career. That is some display of courage and sincerity. It's like, being fucked twice. First literally and then figuratively. That's probably too much though even for Wiener.

Fucking hell dude. Way to show your true colours.

They're coming forward now because he no longer has the power to damage their careers in retaliation. It's not fucking complicated.

People with attitudes like yours contribute to making these situations possible. People who will dismiss accusers as being self-serving.

You must be brainwashed by ultra feminist propaganda to the point you think women can no longer think for themselves. Give women some credit will you? Apparently Wiener has been going at this for decades yet did any of his 'victims' press charges of harrasment or worse? No, they didn't. Now don't give me this paranoid bullshit of Hollywood keeping everything under wraps as people get accused all the time, even powerful people. The sleezeball casting director and beautiful woman fucking her way to the top is the cliche of fucking cliches. Look at Wiener then look at his wife. If you think that is 'sincere' I have some snake oil I would like to sell you. Thing is Wiener used people, people used Wiener. In an industry all based on looks and sex-appeal things like these are to be expected. Any behavior crossing the line there is a justice system waiting for you to press charges. Did any of these women do that? No they did not. All they can muster is to throw rocks at him years(or even decades) after the fact and only after he has been crucified by the media. Hell even his own wife left him the moment Wiener's career went up in flames.

If you think that is all 'sincere' it makes me doubt your mental capacities.

 

[Casual Shinji]

white knight SJW cuck.

How anybody can take you seriously if you use terms like that is beyond me.

He mentioned brainwashing by ultra feminist propaganda as well. So yeah... Always figured the dude was reasonably okay, but this thread was a major eye-opener.

 

[Fox12]

Dear Escapist Friends,

those who've been watching the news lately have probably noticed that there are a number of worrying revelations about Hollywood and the american movie industry as a whole. A lot of Hollywood insiders, among them producer Harvey Weinstein, who has been accused of sexual abuse by multiple women, Oliver Stone, who has a reputation of touching female coworker inappropriately, Roman Polanski, who has another investigation for the sexual abuse of a minor on his hands and Woody Allen who... hoo boy, where do I start? Either way, there does seem to be a systemic problem institutionalized sexual abuse and, quite possibly, even institutionalized sexual child abuse in Hollywood.

Now, I think this deserves to be talked about because I find it very troubling to think that in a western country, among wealthy, mostly well educated people something like this could take hold to the extent it seems to have done. Of course I have no doubt that the film industry is a cutthroat business that does have its share of crooks but this sort of behaviour seems to indicate a problem that goes deeper. It doesn't surprise me that there is a general "grab 'em by the pussy" mentality among America's rich but that behaviour like this could exist for so long without being challenged puts the inner workings of the film industry into question.

So, friends, let's talk about this. Where do you see the reasons for this type of institutionalized mysoginy in Hollywood? Is there any merit to rumor about systemic child abuse or are Polanski and Allen isolated incidents that are by no means representative?

Alfred Hitchcock famously tied his lead starlet to a flock of birds, which chased her down the street. Then he later ruined her career when she wouldn't fuck him.

So no, I see no problem.

Edit: Ah shit, I didn't realize Harvey Weinstein was the same guy Miyazaki sent a threatening letter to, attached to a Katana lol. That guys always had a reputation as a monster. News of sexua assault doesn't surprise me in the least.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Although, the flip side of this is that if you work in a field with technical language and someone outside your field asks you a question/needs to be told something, you should be translating your thoughts into muggle before sharing them.

Absolutely, as a health care professional that isn't a MD, one of my everyday tasks is helping patients understand what the Doctor just told them. The problem with Gender studies in particular is that its' detractors has a tendency to jump on any new terminology to misrepresent it and then spread their nonsense, in order to discredit valid terminology and make Gender studies seem stupid and insane. The academics in the field could absolutely do with being better at explaining their terminology and methodology though.

Rape allegations aside, what Whedon did is no different than what Weinstein did: he used his position of power to coerce people into having sex with him in exchange for a career boost.

Apart from Weinstein forcing himself on people, which is sorta a big deal, or should be.

If the allegations of Whedon employing the casting couch are true (and the jury is still out on that one), then there isn't any real difference between him and Weinstein. If he was 'just' having affairs on the side that makes him a shitty husband, but it doesn't put him anywhere near Weinstein's douchebaggery levels and it doesn't really make him a bad feminist.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Provided it can be discussed within the context of the film industry without attempts being made to use this shitty occurrence as an excuse to burn some heretics, hunt some witches, or make some reds dead in others?

Sure!

Bit too late though.

Blood in the water and the sharks are circling.

 

[Zhukov]

Always figured the dude was reasonably okay, but this thread was a major eye-opener.

Ayup. Likewise.

 

[Zontar]

.

Someone I do like is exposed for sexually assault and potentially rape: "w-w-w-well I can't just bring him up, it's a New Yorker thing" -Literally the reason SNL didn't touch this issue, not even an exaggeration.

Michael Che literally said Weinstein should be in jail after he and Jost did a 5 minute segment about him on Weekend update. Why do you tell so many lies?

Oh my lying eyes.

Must be a progressive thing.

 

[09philj]

It's worth considering that if somebody rich and powerful is getting away with sexual harassment or assault, and has any imagination at all, there'll probably be plenty of other things they've done that they've covered up.