Are you sure about that?
What if reporting a crime makes her a suspect↗?
It's an important question, with killing power↗.
Not Victim Shaming; An Intellectual Exercise
- Thread starter goofyfish
- Start date
Are you sure about that?
What if reporting a crime makes her a suspect↗?
It's an important question, with killing power↗.
I have no doubt that Weinstein could have adversely affected the careers of actors that may have not been receptive to his demands, but that does not equate to loosing everything. All roads to success in the film industry don’t go through a single producer, and if in some bizarro world they did, it would be prudent to walk those roads at your own risk, or maybe not walk them at all.
Brad Pitt and Gwyneth Vagina Rocks stood up to the guy and managed to stay afloat, you don’t imagine untold others possibly did the same?
Where did I ever say that these actresses had nothing to loose? My point was that a career path involving Weinstein, or acting for that matter, isn’t the only path to a successful career.
In other words, how many workers are pressured to not report abuse and criminal activity by their superiors because it may jeopardize the security of their livelihood? It happens in most occupations, from farm worker to pharmaceutical engineer.
It's spelled "losing", "lose", etc. Please.
Meanwhile, you are quite likely wrong - making an enemy of that guy was so threatening that even adult male actors with established careers were too wary to do it. Not only losing one's career at an early age, but losing one's reputation and other prospects, even making oneself a target for revenge by rich and powerful men, was apparently on the line.
So you accept this as normal - this is what you imagine the employment and career situation is for women in all walks of life in the US: at any given moment, without notice, they may be confronted with a choice of tolerating a sexual assault on their person, or throwing away their career in a given industry and personal reputation in their community - the life and future they had up until then - on an unknown chance that public opinion might hold the perp to account in some way.
And I may looose my life tomorrow if I write a critical post about Trump today. Because powerful people can do terrible thing to those who spite them.
I’m not limiting the scope of abuse and intimidation of workers to just a given category, or directed at a particular gender. And to whatever degree it exists in the wide range of occupations, I don’t believe it should be tolerated. But the fact that these conditions persist beyond the reach of remediation must be acknowledged and dealt with practically by the affected parties. It’s an age old conundrum, does the individual risk their own well being for that of the greater community? It’s a calculation played out every day by people of all walks of life.
Last edited:
Poe's Law.
We cannot tell whether you are sincere or not, there. Seriously.
You are also not limiting the scope to actually comparable abuses and situations. You are lumping serious lifetime risk and abuse of the vulnerable with comparative trivialities having little downside.
Not like this.
Comparing the choice between tolerating sexual assault vs loss of career and reputation for no gain , with whatever risk you face by criticizing Trump or refusing to tolerate criminal behavior by a boss (in those circumstances one can usually quit, at a minimum), reveals a complete lack of comprehension.
Bells
Staff member
Tell that to Alice Evans and her husband, who lost a role after she refused his advances.
And you are talking about one of the biggest producers in Hollywood. He could tank people's careers and the threat of that would have hung over these women. Hell, his contracts protected him to sexually harass.
Brad Pitt's career was already fairly well established. She came from a well known Hollywood family.
And again, this expectation that these young women, all of whom were just starting out, somehow or other be the ones to prevent or stop him. It's absurd.
These women had their career to lose. If you read what these women went through, they detail how they were concerned about how to remove themselves from what he was doing without losing their careers.
He didn't harass women with established careers. He targeted women who were just starting out in the industry. And you think these young women, without the economic means to go against him, were in a position to risk their careers against one of the richest people in Hollywood with so much sway that he was protected and allowed to harass for decades?
You said they didn't have everything to lose. They probably felt that they did.
And when you read their retelling of what happened to them, they actually did feel that way.
While ignoring the fact that he was one of the most powerful people in the industry, who bullied and threatened these women.
This is not normal behaviour. But in that industry, it was protected.
No one expects people in other industries to act against their future prospects in their careers and this expectation that women are expected to either put up with sexual harassment and sexual assault or lose their career prospects is obscene..
With his victims, there is this expectation that they do or should have and worse, they are being held accountable for his abuse and violence, because they failed to meet this unreal expectation. It is absurd.
And many of these women did risk their careers, they told others, they tried lawsuits. To no avail. Instead, we get to read comments about how these women simply did not do enough, how they facilitated it, while no blame is placed on others within the industry, who did absolutely nothing.
I'll ask again, why do people act so surprised when women do not report sexual violence, when we get prime examples like this, of what happens to women when they do report it?
Say what...? I think this pretty well showcases which side of this particular issue you are on, Capracus...
He could have destroyed their careers, and their personal reputations, and their financial status, and the careers, reputations, and financial status of anyone close to them.
None of the people at issue here were "receptive to his demands". That's why they complained, warned each other, and sued. There is no "may or may not" involved.
Why would you hide the situation behind that kind of language?
I was not direct enough, above.
There is no such "conundrum involved". The moral or ethical situation you describe did not exist. As far as the targeted women were concerned: There was no greater good of the community involved.
There was no evidence of any community good at all being available, greater or otherwise, regardless of what they did.
Only personal loss vs personal cost. Lose/lose.
That's what community complicity and community support for guys like that creates - an inability to act for the common good.
It's a long story↱; to the other, what does that really say to your critique? Nor does the link to my random blog post on the subject happen to explicitly include the bit about why a woman wants to cram her hoohah with a hunk of jade.
Honestly, I'm just looking at the vector suggesting there isn't a bad time to make a joke about cramming hoohahs, and, well, that's the thing; mitigating the immediate expression only sublimates larger framework and effect.
Don't mind me; I just need turd° cover since I'm going to bother mentioning the goopy bits.
____________________
Notes:
° turd — The unfortunate requisite disclaimer.
(bolding mine)
To understand this, one needn't be a student of anthropology/ethology, game theory, or psychoanalysis to have an understanding of the no-win situation, or even the double bind--and in all likelihood, those who do "act" surprised do in fact possess more than just a vague familiarity with these concepts. And that's what always get me--it's not as though being in the position of privilege, not being the "subject," or whatever somehow precludes a person from understanding the implications and consequences, but they certainly "act" as though it does.
Cheerist, you don't even have to have actual empathy to get this, just a functioning brain does suffice. Yet we see it again and again.
You haven't heard of Gwyneth's vagina rocks?
Gwyneth Paltrow’s Goop posted a defense of its jade eggs for vaginas. It’s a mess.
https://www.vox.com/science-and-hea.../goop-gwyneth-paltrow-jade-vagina-egg-defense
How powerful does a contemptible figure have to be to be considered a threat to ones career or life? Authoritarian heads of state such as Kim Jong Un or Putin probably make good on such threats with relative ease. Fortunately our system of government doesn’t currently allow Trump as head of state that same capacity. But Trump the private billionaire could afford some kind of offensive apparatus to punish his perceived adversaries. How many lives has he ruined or extinguished?
Do immigrant laborers, coal miners, lab technicians and any other employees who are coerced to work in unsafe environments have comparable risks?
So when other professionals are compromised by the criminal acts of their superiors, you advise them to just walk away? Couldn’t an actress do the same?
My apologies - I thought it was some kind of attempt at a "hurr durr woman are just for babies" style joke... I think, now that you mention it, I had heard something about the whole "jade egg" thing a while back and my response then was the same as it is now... to slowly lower my head onto my desk and weep at the gullibility of the average consumer.
I think the best way to explain what's wrong with your question is to simply ask you to stop and think about it.
What was the game show? Your hint is, "Crimes against [______]".
• • •
What's sick is that I'm haunted by one of the worst Simpsons jokes I could ever apply; it wasn't a bad joke in its own context, and was in fact rather quite funny. But I can't get the old dinner scene with Chalmers and Skinner out of my head whenever I recall the Goop story.
Doesn't matter. When it's the case, it's the case.
You are now pretending to be in some kind of danger by daring to criticize Trump, and comparing your situation with that faced by those women.
Or maybe you are pointing out, as so many have before, that Trump should be held in in contempt similar to that directed at Weinstein? No argument there.
Sometimes, especially the women.
So?
Why are you posting gibberish and garbage like that, instead of addressing the posts and issues of the thread?
The disadvantaged.
An individual with Trumps resources poses a greater threat to a greater number of people than
someone in Weinstein’s position. Without knowing the actual retaliation history of both of these arrogant asswipes, I have no idea who poses the greater threat to those who cross them. Did Weinstein retaliate against all actresses who spurned him? Has Trump surreptitiously targeted obscure critics such as myself? The Black Helicopter side of me can only wonder.
Especially the women? Men possess some innate immunity to environmental hazards and social intimidation?
It was you who suggested that employees who are dissatisfied with the conduct of their superiors quit their jobs, that self identified gibberish and garbage belongs to you. In case you haven’t realized it, the practicality of that suggestion is a key issue in this thread.
.
So?
They just aren't targeted by rapists as often, as in this thread. It's a feature of reality. The next step is you explaining why you think that's important here.
I did not.
Do you have something you are trying to say, relevant to that key issue in this thread?