Good grief. I just read Salma Hayek’s piece in the New York Times. It’s a horror through and through — Harvey Weinstein is a terrible human being. There was the familiar constant pressure for sex, and his anger when denied, but what’s new here is how Weinstein, who had a reputation for sponsoring great art movies, was in active force in compromising the art. What he did to Hayek’s movie, Frida, was unconscionable.
Halfway through shooting, Harvey turned up on set and complained about Frida’s “unibrow.” He insisted that I eliminate the limp and berated my performance. Then he asked everyone in the room to step out except for me. He told me that the only thing I had going for me was my sex appeal and that there was none of that in this movie. So he told me he was going to shut down the film because no one would want to see me in that role.
Frida Kahlo did many self-portraits, and her striking appearance was part of her identity, and Weinstein wanted to reduce her looks to something more conventional? She was afflicted with polio as a child and severely injured in an accident in her teens, and lived her whole life with a disability and chronic pain, and Weinstein wanted to erase that in a biography? How clueless is he, and how many of the good Weinstein-produced movies were made in spite of his interference, and how much better would they have been if he’d never been allowed to say a word?
He offered me one option to continue. He would let me finish the film if I agreed to do a sex scene with another woman. And he demanded full-frontal nudity.
Christ. Hayek gave in on that demand, reluctantly, and with much anguish. But now you’ll need to keep this in mind next time you watch Game of Thrones or some cop show which features a stroll through a strip joint. The nudity isn’t some critical part of the story, or even a part of the atmosphere added for verisimilitude. It’s probably because some guy high up in the production likes the power of being able to compel the women acting in his show to expose themselves. It’s not that nudity and sex can’t be a natural part of a story, but that there’s so much of it, and it’s almost entirely gratuitous.
It sort of turns out well, with regard to the movie, at least…except for the part where Hayek’s success was added to the Weinstein luster, and that he then intentionally stunted her career.
Months later, in October 2002, this film, about my hero and inspiration — this Mexican artist who never truly got acknowledged in her time with her limp and her unibrow, this film that Harvey never wanted to do, gave him a box office success that no one could have predicted, and despite his lack of support, added six Academy Award nominations to his collection, including best actress.
Even though “Frida” eventually won him two Oscars, I still didn’t see any joy. He never offered me a starring role in a movie again. The films that I was obliged to do under my original deal with Miramax were all minor supporting roles.
It seems just to me that Weinstein’s reputation as a patron of the arts is going down in flames, along with his reputation as a decent person.
The Daily Dot:
So, how much money has Weinstein donated or raised for Clinton over the years? According to a tally of political donations maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics, Weinstein directly donated $21,400 to Clinton between 1999 and 2016. Weinstein also donated $33,590.45 to the Hillary Clinton Victory Fund, according to Federal Election Commission filings, and $15,000 to HillPAC, Clinton’s earlier political action committee, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
In total, Weinstein contributions made directly to Clinton and associated non-party political entities is $69,990.45. Note that this does not include donations to other political entities that may have financially supported Clinton.
Between 1999 and 2000, Weinstein donated approximately $1 million to Democratic candidates and $517,882 to Democratic Party organizations, including the Democratic National Committee and other state-level entities.
Through a process called “bundling”—raising funds on behalf of a candidate from friends, family, and associates—Weinstein raised $1,422,683 for federal candidates and political entities between 1990 and last year.
/Daily Dot
The Democratic party has been corrupted by money. Who has that kind of money to donate? Those who have not played by the rules. Please note that it is universally understood that the financial industry is far worse than Hollywood for sexual harassment but because so much more money is involved, everyone keeps quiet.
Add to that Nomiki Konst’s revelation at the Unity Commission that the Democrats spent $700 MILLION on FIVE consultants last year. Yes, Hillary Clinton LITERALLY outsourced Her campaign to people who are only in politics to make money. People who thought that it’s OK to deliberately divide your own party IF they have nowhere else to go in November. People who thought they could blithely write off entire congressional districts without losing the states they’re in.
And to date, every critic of this incompetence has been told to STFU. The DNC just keeps choogling along, sucking up all the money (it’s not infinite, She spent millions that would otherwise have gone to races further down on the ballot, races we lost because there wasn’t enough money) and arrogantly telling others how to run their campaigns without regard to local politics.
Please stop defending a party that is now controlled by the super rich, and which exists solely for their benefit. They refuse to reform themselves and so must be replaced.
You can’t just hate Harvey Weinstein. You have to go after those who toadied up to him for the money. Go to Google Images and search for “Hillary Clinton and Harvey Weinstein.” It’s not just one picture, or just one event. Money is more important than honor, women’s rights, or democracy itself.
It’s always been clear to me just from watching the movies that many or most of them are damaged by money men. I always considered it to be an ego thing, allowing them to say they had creative input. I just never thought about all the base motives that have been involved, as well. I did think about it in regards to nudity, but stopped worrying about evil machinations after I heard that nudity is (sometimes) contracted in extreme detail weeks before shooting.
There is also that wretched From Dusk Till Dawn movie, which appears to have been produced by some filmbros for the purpose of having a striptease scene with Salma Hayek. I bet there are some interesting stories about that.
I’m unsurprised about the interference on the film. He completely fucked with “Snowpiercer” a few years ago. That movie should’ve been a huge global success. It’s amazingly well made, if not exactly fun, movie (“Captain America kills a lot of people with an axe” is a good summary). Weinstein tried to force the director into making cuts. He refused and in retaliation, Weinstein only allowed the movie a limited release for 3 weeks in the US in the summer of 2014 (same summer as “Winter Soldier) despite being a big hit overseas. (Source: https://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/movies/2014/06/28/harvey-weinstein-and-saga-snowpiercer/XOoYjxsOisSUhgut1dSfmJ/story.html )
Weinstein publicly attacked Hayek for writing this. So curious how he only publicly responds to accusations from women who aren’t white…
markgisleson, still running against Hillary?
Also, you quote about tiny little amounts of money as if it was the biggest scandal in politics. I’d like to see a comparison of Weinstein money against Koch or Adelson money. This shit is LEGAL. The Republican SCOTUS made it so.
“people who are only in politics to make money…” You a big trump supporter, then?
Jesus Fucking Christ. Yet another tale about how women are screwed over and humiliated to appease the egos of white men, and where does the discussion go? More “Hilary!” and “Hey, look, he screwed over a white guy, too, but he didn’t make him to a full frontal nude same sex scene, but still, cap’n america!”
5.
And this is why Hillary lost. You’re not disagreeing with me, you’re attacking me personally for pointing out facts that were well known within the industry. I see Her faults, therefore I support Him.
I am a former officer of the Democratic party in Des Moines. I have solid unions credentials and attended COPE conferences back in the day. I have worked for candidates like Roxanne Conlin and Tom Harkin, and spent 2016 in Paul Ryan’s district advising/financing a Democratic campaign on how to get votes in a gerrymandered district.
But I do not believe Hillary Clinton is morally qualified to be POTUS. So I’m evil.
You cannot make me vote for someone I do not respect. I left the top line on my ballot blank, and will continue to do so until the Democrats nominate someone I trust and support. But if this is just ‘whining’ to you, I’d be glad to do a guest post here describing all the things Hillary Clinton did on purpose that resulted in her losing Wisconsin. I was there, I was in the middle of it, and I took notes. Her cutouts were working well into the fall of 2016 to keep Wisconsin divided so as to keep Bernie supporters from winning office. Nothing they did had a positive impact on Wisconsin which does not have a functioning state party thanks to the DNC and the Clintons hoovering up ALL the money.
Cult, not a campaign. But if you’ve never worked on a real campaign (one focused on winning), you might not know the difference.
markgisleson: can we not make a post that is about Salma Hayek and her experienced at the hands of a predator be about Hilary Clinton please?
experiences*
Just when I thought my rage couldn’t get worse, markgisleson steps in.
Drop dead, you evil monster.
@markgisleson: I don’t believe Kid Rock is qualified to be president, and I doubt anyone here thinks less of me for that; but if I tried to make topics like this one about him, people would think there is something wrong with me. “A fanatic is one who can not change their mind, and will not change the subject.” This is about Hayek, and about the damage Weinstein did. You are trivializing it by acting as if it isn’t worth its own discussion.
On topic: this piece leaves me speechless. Just imagine what Hayek and countless other women had to go through year after year after year. Kudos to Hayek for speaking out. This is one of the stories people need to hear to know what was really going on.
9.
Hayek is as much a victim of ‘the way things are’ as she was of Harvey Weinstein. Those who thought to confront Weinstein would have seen his office walls lined with smiling pictures of himself with Hillary, Bill and Chelsea Clinton, Barack and Michele Obama, Chuck Schumer, etc. And yes, I do believe Lena Dunham warned them, but if not her, plenty of others could have and probably did. [Please do a google image search for these names. It wasn’t one photo opp, it was a long series of public embraces.]
That is why this is about the Clintons and the entire Democratic leadership, and not just Harvey. This was never just about Harvey. The new neoliberal Democratic party values money over everything else. Everything else.
Their actions are directly contrary to their words. Accountability starts at the top.
If this seems like rubbing salt in old wounds, well, it’s not my salt, and I didn’t wound anyone.
Holy fucking hell, Mark. This post isn’t about Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or the DNC. Do you think derailing the comments like this is going to help bring people over to your obsession?
I have two mild disagreements with Our Gracious Host’s generally well-considered piece. Neither has anything to do with the arrogant sh*thead above in the comments who is attempting to hijack this topic.
(1) The criticism of film/tv productions depicting lots and lots of less-than-equal-basis sex is somewhat misplaced; in the particular instance of Game of Thrones cited, the tv production is consistent with the source material, which in turn is all too sadly consistent with historical analogs. Overemphasis in pursuit of ratings is one bad thing; depicting at all, though, is a different bad thing. And yes, there are male-domination subtexts in there, too, but “therefore don’t show teh sex at all because dudebros” isn’t an appropriate response.
And this is a matter of opinion on which reasonable minds can (and unreasonable minds will!) disagree. That’s why I label it a “disagreement,” and believe that a proper response is more complicated than a Nancy Reaganesque soundbite.
(2) Remember, villains don’t believe they’re villains. I’m reasonably certain that the particular instance of revisionism of Frida was self-justified by “that’s how we’ll get
dudebrospeople to pay to see it”… and that there was some element of truth, or at least of not-irrational belief, to that self-justification. The means, the particular approach, damned near everything else about the way that investors and s&m (sales and marketing) dorks think they can screw with art and history in order to make it “sell” is morally wrong — but it’s not irrational from the perspective of their tiny little brains and the perspective of what they think they’re supposed to be doing, which is make a profit. The problem — most obvious in the arts, but also apparent in things like environmental impacts and pharmaceutical production — is that the rest of Adam Smith has been thrown out in the name of the “profit” meme, without regard to what even the most ardent Chicago and Austrian economists acknowledge as “negative externalities.”The profit motive isn’t wrong/immoral/unjust except when it’s the only motivation. And if it’s the only motivation, why are you media moguls being so stupid as to monomaniacally focus on the industry grouping — leisure and entertainment — with the lowest overall margin among major industry groups in industrialized nations? Is it just that you think you’re a better Maxwell’s Daemon… or that you’re afraid you’re not and can’t compete in other industries?
So my disagreement here is not with Our Gracious Host’s characterization of what was done on the set in Frida of itself; it’s with the implication that the only motivation was sexual self-aggrandizement. I think it horrible either way, but for entirely different reasons and with different appropriate responses.
@9 markgisleson:
Even if what you had to say on this topic was insightful (it is not) or helpful (certainly not), it is hardly relevant. The only thing I’ll add is that I’m fucking tired of “progressives” that didn’t vote against Trump (because there were only 2 options in the General Election) talking down to me as if I’m unable to understand their ethical qualms. YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKERS. I fucking understand everything you’re saying, but I also understood none of that mattered in the fucking voting booth in November. And now look at us.
This is not the place for wishful thinking. Live in reality.
Let’s return to the OT.
Yep. Back in Game of Thrones season two, the director of the “Blackwater” episode (Neil Marshall) openly said that he had an HBO executive constantly pressuring him to add more nudity to the episode. And that was just the director – we don’t know what the actresses involved thought of it.
Anyone who’s willing to throw millions of people who aren’t insulated by privilege under the bus just so they don’t have to stop masturbating over how much PURER and BETTER they are doesn’t deserve to be called “ethical.”
I fully support Salma Hayek. Not one word I have posted detracts from her story. I follow the issue of sexual harassment closely, and her name has long been known to many as a victim. The stories about her and Ashley Judd and Gwyneth Paltrow have been around for some time, just not in the major media.
Punishing Harvey Weinstein does not fix this problem other than to take an actual monster off the streets (and how much traction does the word “monster” have when you apply to others over differences of opinion?).
Harvey’s enablers must be punished. Executives at Disney, CAA and Miramax should be investigated and charged when appropriate, subpoenaed and deposed if not. And the Democratic party needs to explain why its donors and bundlers are not vetted in any meaningful way. All of this should go without saying.
The original topic is the serial harassment of a woman by a powerful man who was her employer. Salma Hayek is just the latest example of an abused person speaking truth to power. The powerful people who embraced Weinstein and took his money need to stand up and speak some truths of their own. Enablers are accomplices and need to be called out as such.
I actually agree with the vetting of large donors part, markgisleson, but that’s not the point of this post and your attempt at brief half assed engagement with the OP only to drag conversation back to what you really want to talk about is utterly transparent as conversational manipulation tactics go.
This isn’t about you. Let a post about women’s god awful experiences be about what it is about, just this once, oh please.
But you are doing the rubbing. Maybe you should stop. If you want to discuss Clinton, go find a thread for that.
He complained about Salma Hayek limping and having a unibrow when she was playing Frida Kahlo?! That’s like complaining that Ben Kingsley was too skinny and bald to play Gandhi! It couldn’t have been more obvious that he was abusing his influence to perv on her! Gah, the more I find out about this, the more galling it is that he got away with it for so damn long!
@Marcus Ranum #3 What’s with the knocking of From Dusk til Dawn? I actually like that film and I am betting the reason Salma appears in it has more to do with her having worked with its director Robert Rodriguez in the past than anyone wanting to see her do a strip tease.
Apart from that, I do recall it being a somewhat known fact that GOT had a lot of superfluous female nudity in its early seasons largely due to exactly as PZ mentioned: some producer wanting to see more of it. As the show progressed and gained in popularity and prestige, the cast, writers, etc were able to push back, now most of the nudity (especially that of Emilia Clarke) is in for the story and not just so it is on screen.
Mark Gisleson: “Salma Hayek is just the latest example of an abused person speaking truth to power.”
Uh, dude. You do realize that her husband is a billionaire, right? The family fortune is worth over $26 billion. Now, granted, she was not married to said billionaire in 2002 when Frida came out.
Also, get some help with your pathetic Hillary obsession. She’s a washed up politician. She’s not going to run again. Feel the pain and let it go.
Actually markgisleson every thing you post detracts from Heyak’s story. Everything.
As far as Dusk to Dawn, it is just a fun and silly violent vampire movie. It is interesting though that both Tarantino and Cloney are significantly involved with that movie and they are both people she refers to as protecting her in her article.
tbtabby @22:
Couldn’t agree more.
Whomever owns the rights to Frida should offer Hayek the option of reediting the film without the sex scene.
This is neither here nor there but I fell Frida is worse of because of the sex scene artistically.
It’s super gross Weinstein made film goers unwittingly parties to his violation of Hayek.
marclesgison
It’s good to be reminded that whatever a man does, there’s a woman to blame..
arids
It’s equally good to be reminded that whatever a woman accomplishes or endures, the most important thing is who she is married to.
Here I was thinking the world was changing…
A Ray:
What in the fuck does that have to do with anything? Why in the fuck was it even necessary to reply to the fucking off topic asshole? Oh, because there’s nothing worth commenting on in the original post, right?
The commentariat here…yeah, fuck it.
I remember the scene with Judd, with actually did work with the story, but I don’t remember any full frontal nudity scene.
which
Caine and Giliel, I was responding to our local Bernie Bro’s line: “Salma Hayek is just the latest example of an abused person speaking truth to power.”
She is NOT speaking truth to power. She IS power. It is not as if she would have suffered for speaking out earlier. Hell, her husband could have bought Weinstein. Ask Nafissatou Diallo how much difference that makes.
@33
Insofar as she is a female actor and he is a male producer, she very much is not powerful in this context. If money was all that mattered, misogyny and rape culture would simply not apply to sufficiently rich women, which is obviously not the fucking case.
Shorter arids: the woman married rich, who cares if she was abused?
I was going to ask what the hell Hayek’s husband had to do with whether or not Hayek using her own voice and her own words to tell her own story to call out someone who abused her in her own industry was her speaking to power, but I see that not only is men’s power transferrable to women if they have the proper certificate, it is transferrable seven years into the past, and consists entirely of cash.
There is more to power than a husband’s money there is more to power than money.
Power is SOCIAL. Power is influence. Power is entitlement. Power is writing the rules other people have to live by. Power is deciding whether or not you will face consequences for your actions. Power is there needing to be decades of complaints with dozens of accusers before anyone on the powerful person’s tier thinks there might be a problem. Power is being able to drag someone from a place they want to be to a place they don’t, and then being able to coerce them into doing something they don’t want to do because they are in fear of their career and wellbeing, and having them feel like there is something wrong with them for being victimized. Power is being able to decide to derail a conversation and having people reflexively go along with the subject change because it feels automatic to focus on what people from your group want to talk about. If you think someone who lacks money can’t do those things to people with less SOCIAL power than them, think again. If you think someone who married money can’t be victimized by someone with power over her career, think again.
And yeah, money helps with the acquisition of power. But so does gender. So do connections. So does being already well established vs. someone just starting out. So does being a citizen vs. being an immigrant. So does being a bully and predator vs. being afraid of someone who could kill your career and who threatened to physically harm you.
Are we seriously going to have to go through the whole what is privilege and intersectionality thing all over again because if I recall it really sucked last time.
Her husband’s money also erased all the trauma, because women are just such shallow creatures, didn’t you know?
adios —
1. Hayek released Frida in 2002. She married into money in 2009.
2. You should know that Hayek wasn’t the power in this story from the fucking story itself.
3. Even now that Hayek has a billionaire husband, how come she isn’t releasing a movie every year exactly how she wants them made?
4. Rich and famous women have been abused. Lana Turner was nearly killed by her gangster husband. Rihanna, Nigella Lawson, Drew Barrymore, Madonna, Pamela Anderson, Fran Drescher, Robin Givens, Nicole Brown Simpson…it’s a long list. And I’m only including those who were already rich when they were abused/murdered. The idea that Salma Hayek opening up about the way Weinstein treated her is somehow disqualified from “speaking truth to power” is really not a hill anyone should want to visit let alone die on.
@Caine – Oh bite me. That is not what I said. I pointed out that Weinstein has a long and documented history of being invasive and dictatorial and punishing people who don’t give in to him, which supports Hayek’s version of events, not detracts from it.
dammit “adios” was autocorrected from me mistyping “arids”
JFC, this is terrible.
Shorter, Giliel: I’ll distort and lie because I’m not smart enough to respond to the points being made.
Here are the facts:
1) Hayek had already had a successful career and was quite well respected in 2002, with several awards and successful roles to her credit. She was and is a damn good actress. She could have easily walked away from Frida with little harm to her career or fortune.
2) She did not walk away because she loved the role, and wanted to shine light on the life of Frida Kahlo, whom she felt had not gotten the credit she deserved as an artist (certainly true). It was THIS, Weinstein exploited, not her lack of power. That doesn’t make Weinstein’s actions any less reprehensible.
3) The movie that resulted, Frida, is actually pretty good, and it certainly succeeded in calling people’s attention to Kahlo as well as to Diego Rivera. Also, Hayek is good in the movie. You can tell it was a labor of love for her.
4) Hayek could have called out Weinstein any time after that. Certainly, once she had her billionaire husband, she had no need to fear Weinstein. As I said, she could have bought him many times over. (Guys like Weinstein are always for sale.) So, my only criticism of Hayek is that she’s a little late to the party.
5) I worry that all we are going to accomplish in this moment of confronting patriarchs is to bring down a few very bad actors like Weinstein, while women who are poor will simply be forgotten. I’ll feel better when we start hearing about a manager of a Denny’s in Peoria who gets fired for grabbing a waitress.
Now please feel free to go fuck yourself.
INTERSECTIONALITY WHAT EVEN ARE YOU
@43: Mexican immigrant actress early in her success and first time producer working her face off for years on a labor of love vs. the much older and well established white male citizen media mogul insider who can make or break not only her current movie but also her entire career, since she’s locked into a multi-picture contact with his studio over which he has near total control.
Did you miss the part where Hayek got only bit parts after Frida, because even though she degraded herself to get her movie made, she’d pissed Weinstein off by having her own ideas and not being immediately compliant, and he had the power to punish her? Did you even read the article?
Who had the power here? Note that I did not ask who could theoretically buy whom with whose money.
In what way does marrying someone from a different industry seven years after being abused transfer their social and professional power to stand up to abuse in her industry to Hayek? The last Miramax movie she made was in 2015. Now her contract is done, now she can speak, and now she doesn’t have to speak alone. Thank goodness.
It seems like your hate-on for rich people is clouding your ability to understand the other aspects here. There’s all kinds of rich. There’s all kinds of power. You seem to think being/having a man with a lot of money is the only kind of power there is and that it’s transferrable to women under all circumstances, or that money can buy healing and justice, can relieve one of fear, undo trauma based patterns. You are mistaken.
@42 SC:
I always wondered how Sorvino could win an Oscar and then almost immediately drop off the face of the earth considering 1) Oscar winners usually see a career boost for a while 2) she grew up in an entertainment family and had to have some connections.
Jennifer Esposito is in the comments on that post saying it happened to her, too, with a different power-broker. Women’s careers getting tanked right and left by the machinations of sleezy men.
Why does it not surprise me to see misogynists in so-called “progressive” spaces? (E.g., this Mark fellow, or ARIDS.)
Perhaps because I remember the 1960’s and 1970’s, and the “progressive” (male) activists of the time had pretty much the same attitude towards women as a lot of “progressive” men today — women exist for men’s pleasure and tittilation, and any woman who isn’t willing to keep her mouth shut about it, or acts above her station is a b**** or worse. Rather like Harvey Weinstein. Or Trump.
Plus ça change ….
And, much like in the 1960’s and the 1970’s, women are having to help themselves, because they can’t rely on solidarity from “progressive” groups. (And women of color are having to do for themselves, because — well, you know the drill.)
@43:
“as well as to Diego Rivera” Because a man has to be mentioned. Not Trotsky too?
“Now please feel free to go fuck yourself.” Back at ya.
What did Peter Jackson say with respect to the tweets?
Also, at this point the only thing I am looking forward to is for Harvey fuckface to rot in jail, but it won’t happen. He will die comfortably and rich like all the other rich fuckers who can get away with these kinds of crimes. He might be America’s worst serial rapist but he won’t even be called that, because he was rich and successful.
More women have come forward with accusations against Dustin Hoffman, including a high school classmate of his daughter Karina. A commenter on another website said that Hoffman’s career is ruined Fat chance. A bunch of people will wave off the allegations and cast him if he wants a role. Even if he never does another film he’s exceedingly unlikely to face any sort of hit on his income or his freedom.
lotharloo:
I don’t understand the question.
A Ray @ 43:
I’ve enjoyed reading you and exchanging comments with you for years, and I’ve respected you. Guess how I’m feeling now? You are wrong, and instead of doubling down, and tripling down, you could have just said “yep, I was wrong, I’m sorry.” But no.
So all you have for the women who have been telling you that “hey, kinda fucked up there” is to for us to go fuck ourselves?
Right. Fucking. Back. Atcha.
With a belly full of acrid disappointment,
Caine.
Here’s Jackson’s response to Weinstein’s statement about his interview.
@SC:
Yes thanks, that what I was wondering about.
There is a curious pattern here:
When rich and successful men abuse women, we need to be forgiving, look at the good they’ve done, discuss whether it was really that bad.
When women are the victims of the abuse, there’s only contempt. People like arids seem to believe that women don’t actually suffer trauma and the like, because after she was rich, she could have spoken, because obviously the only thing that matters to us is money.
OK, Caine, educate me. Please point out one thing I said that
1) was misogynistic
2) minimized the trauma Ms. Hayek suffered
3) questioned Ms. Hayek’s account or her motives
4) attempted to excuse or minimize the actions of the vile Mr. Weinstein
I did say that Ms. Hayek’s motives were not driven by need but rather by her love and dedication to the project and its subject. Far from excusing Mr. Weinstein, in my opinion, that makes him even more vile, and it points out that economic power is not the only power a man can hold over a woman.
And I am completely perplexed at the statement I was responding to–that Ms. Hayek was “speaking truth to power. Truth it certainly is, and important. But, pray, to what power is she speaking truth. Weinstein is thoroughly discredited. Provided we drive the stake in properly and nail down the coffin lid, he should be neutralized. Ms. Hayek names no new names of anyone still wielding power.
I am replying to you because I respect your contributions to this blog. I at least hold out a hope that you might be able to respond and teach me something–unlike others responding who are either illiterate or at least unable to read past the first line of what I wrote.
Speaking truth to the power he had over her when he abused her.
Speaking truth to the power men have over women in her industry.
Speaking truth to the expectation that women take what men dish out.
Speaking truth to the expectation that what men say is accepted and what women say is mistaken or lies.
Speaking truth to the assumption that when women have emotions about the abuse they endure they’re being difficult, but when men have emotions about their entitlement they’re being authoritative and/or artistic geniuses.
Speaking truth to the assumption that women’s value lies in the objectification of their bodies for men’s titillation and not the work they do.
Speaking truth to the expectation that women will smooth over their own difficulties for the benefit of men.
Speaking truth to the expectation that women are responsible for what men do to them.
Speaking truth to the assumption that no matter what a woman goes through she’s supposed to either smile along or stop it singlehandedly.
Speaking truth to the fact that men don’t listen to women but they do cover for each other, and the institutions those acts create and uphold are almost impossible for one person to take on alone.
See the bigger picture.
Onamission,
I don’t see a single person or class of persons existing in the present tense in your list that is addressed specifically by Hayek’s article.
Here is a recent article that discusses my concerns:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-metoo-moment-hasnt-reached-women-in-low-wage-jobs-will-it/
a_ray_in_dilbert_space @55:
Furthermore.
Speaking truth to the fact than when men don’t like what women have to say about our own experiences, they do things like–
–ignore us
–call us ignorant
–accuse us of misrepresenting them
–pick out one women to listen to, demand she personally educate him, and shun the rest
–get angry
–tell us to go fuck ourselves
–position themselves as the victim of the horribly insistent lady-bullies
–because we’re tying to get you to understand the implications of your arguments.
FWIW, which is apparently not much since per your behavior I’m an invisible illiterate who should go probably fuck herself, I have been that waitress harassed by her boss who you’re so concerned about that you’re using her as a shield to deflect criticism. Twice. I know some of what Hayek was going through on a psychological level, but apparently knowing that when it’s inconvenient to your control of the narrative makes me an illiterate who can be dismissed out of hand.
@55
The direct logical conclusion of “Hayek was not in a position of lesser power compared to Weinstein” (which I can see you backpedaled on, after it was shown that she was neither married rich nor impervious to hollywood blacklisting at the time this occurred) is that she could have just no-selled Weinstein’s harassment and walked away from the project without consequence.
It’s the exact same logic as some douchebro at a party going “Well if she doesn’t want me grabbing her ass, why didn’t she tell me to stop?”
It’s tacit victim blaming bullshit that blatantly ignores the fact that the very existence of this case disproves the idea that Weinstein had no power over Hayek at the time it occurred.
@57
Harvey Weinstein? You?
Like, I’m not sure if you’re playing stupid or what, but roughly half of those were specifically tailored to describe Weinstein, and the others describing your misogynist victim-blaming bullshit.
Vivek and Onamission, are you even bothering to read the words I am writing?
Pray, where did I blame Hayek? Cite the words.
Did you even bother to read the article I linked to?
I specifically said that Weinstein’s power over Hayek was not financial, but as an obstacle to her realizing her creative and artistic vision, and that that is no less reprehensible. Pray, how is that victim blaming. I have read what you wrote and find in it no reflection of the actual words I wrote. I would ask you to have the courtesy to read the actual words I wrote, cite what you find objectionable and why? Really, is that too much to ask?
Here’s my question: How does Salma Hayek (who is part of a family having a net worth approaching that of Donald Trump’s cabinet) calling out Harvey Weinstein (who already has all the desirability of radioactive waste) help you as a waitress facing harassment from your boss?
@60
It was, before you backpedaled and changed your opinion after people proved that she was neither married rich nor professionally assailable when it took place. Chickenshit retconning earns you no points.
By bringing attention to the fact that sexual harrassment is common, cannot be prevented by wealth or fame, and happens in unlikely places, as well as demonstrating that men with power will abuse it whenever they get the chance, rather than just once or twice.
Compare @33
to @60
Hollywood is built on a foundation of abuse, particularly toward women. Any woman with the strength to take it on helps all others who are dealing with abuse. The strength to deal with your own situation can come from many different sources, and this constant ‘waitress in Peoria’ crap is a Dear Muslima.
I’ve been a waitress. I’ve dealt with sexual harassment, many times, many different situations. It’s long been a don’t talk about it thing. That is changing. Ms. Hayek is part of making that change happen. She has willingly written about, and relived her own abuse and humiliation, because she knows that will help other people.
There are not enough words for the sheer amount of fucked uppedness you brought to this thread, A Ray. Your voice is one of the millions which make people stay silent. You should be ashamed.
YES. What Vivec and Caine said.
For why I agree with them, read all of the prior words that I wrote. Providing those words can be understood as they are the writings of an illiterate– or, as I’d put it, someone who understands that income inequality isn’t the only problem in the entire world, and thus isn’t the sole answer to life, the universe, and everything.
Or I can put it this way: If someone like Hayek isn’t taken seriously, if she gets blamed for not speaking up sooner or for riding other women’s coattails or for not fixing an entire system, what hope is there for someone like me? She can’t singlehandedly fix what men do to women, but she can use her platform to describe, in detail, the dynamics of what men think they have the right to do to women and the effects that has on us career wise, psychologically, long term.
Yeah, the boss who fired me wasn’t Weinstein, and I wasn’t Hayek. He was a restaurant owner and I was a single parent with a baby trying to make rent. But the dynamics? Those transfer down the class gradient just fine. The fear. The humiliation. The feelings of powerlessness in the face of punishment for speaking in defense of oneself. You know what else transfers? The blame from outsiders for not martyring oneself, for not being strong enough, for not saving everyone who came after, for speaking up too soon, for not speaking, for doing literally any thing in relation to one’s abuse imperfectly. In my case I actually went to a lawyer and was told not to bother. A few years later when his wife found out what he’d done– not just to me but to dozens of women and girls– I was asked to testify as to his business practices in the divorce. The judge alternately slept and read a book through all our testimony and ruled in favor of the husband, as if he’d planned to do that all along– allowing him to keep his restaurant without any conditions and granting him shared custody of their daughters despite a half dozen accounts of abuse towards female people, one of whom was 13 when it began and who knew of other classmates he’d abused. Know what happened the next time a boss grabbed me? Nothing. I told him he was bad and laughed it off because I didn’t want to lose my job, and I raged quietly to myself later. See any similarities between my account and those of the multiple women from film, including Hayek?
This is what women who are more powerful than I am are doing for me when they tell what even more powerful men have done to them: they are giving my own story legitimacy. They are saying this is what happens to us no matter where we are in life, no matter our financial resources, no matter our industry, no matter how well insulated or vulnerable to other abuse, we are never free from the machinations of men more powerful (remember, being believed is a form of power, all other things being equal) than ourselves. Hayek’s account is a snapshot of what women and other victims of arrogantly entitled people are put through in a system which doesn’t believe us, doesn’t value our work, doesn’t see us except as targets and receptacles.
Onamission5:
Quoted For Fucking Truth. There’s also the social element, where you often end up with a scarlet letter from people you thought were friends, or were on your side. You have people who don’t believe you, or think you must have done something provocative. Then there are people who will blame you for losing your job, because it really wasn’t a big deal, why didn’t you just go along with it and keep your mouth shut? And so on.
You get slammed and assaulted from all sides, no matter what you do or don’t do. How many threads have taken place here, where there are piles of people saying “if they didn’t go to the cops, didn’t happen”? How often have we seen people repeatedly badgered for not going to the cops? Do those same people care if you do go to the cops and get dismissed out of hand? No.
And on and on and on it goes, and this crap is so damn common, happens every minute of every damn day.
No further comment needed.
Onamission
*raises hand*
Well, it was some of the guests, not my boss, who was a nice couple.
And, of course, some dozens of men in other situations.
Maybe, just maybe, when quite some women who are neither rich, nor famous, nor married rich, are supporting Hayek, some dudes would do well to listen to us instead of telling us that we (who all have experienced sexual harassment and assault to some degree or other) are doing our feminism wrong.
A question mainly for men:
USA is an obscenely plutocratic place. We are talking about a star actress/producer married to a billionaire for the last eight years, so a person supposedly hugely powerful. She is ready to tell about her experiences after many others have done so, after 8 years of not having to rely on her own income and wealth.
Could there also be obscenely sexist power structures, as powerful as the monied interests? Could her actions serve as evidence on the existence of those power structures in Hollywood. Could personal experiences of women in this thread exist as evidence for those power structures extending all through the society around the world? Could it be so? Is it possible that I am and you are part of those structures? Are the sexist power structures chains that pull most of us down, especially women, but also men? How do we smash the chains and enable others to do the same?
Ice Swimmer, being a man, I’m happy to respond.
I think your questions relate to second and third-order effects, and so become moot if the first-order is not a given.
(or: This is not a case of the exception that proves the rule)
—
re
However you meant that, I would not be surprised to read the very same thing from a certain demographic. cf. “poisoning the well”.
PS I should add I think you meant it in a good way. But, still
PPS, not in any way trying to police language, but I prefer ‘actor’ to ‘actress’.
(also, I prefer ‘driver’ to ‘driveress’, but (strangely?) I never encounter that usage ;) )
John:
Yeah. I don’t think Ice Swimmer meant it in a bad way, but I don’t my annoyance meter can go any higher with the continued focus on how much money Ms. Hayek’s partner has. It’s not fucking relevant.
I’m taking Hayek seriously and my point was that because she only now feels it’s safe to speak up implies just how deep the rape culture runs in the society. I was trying to bolster my point by speculating that financial retaliation (in a society in which almost everything can be bought, if you’re rich) against her may not have been an issue for her for a while, she must have feared other kinds of repercussions from the kyriarchy.
I also thought, but didn’t say that if I’m wrong, I’ll hear about it and may stop being wrong.
I agree that gendered terms shouldn’t be used unless specifically needed (and they aren’t usually). I wasn’t thinking about my word choice. The English as a second language argument doesn’t apply in this case.
Ice Swimmer
This is how I understood you, but I share Caine’s annoyance.
Why, because if you read Hayek’s piece, you can feel the pain in it.
Because of trauma.
How can people simply not get that?
To Weinstein’s and others’ victims, this whole thing must have been incredibly painful. It’s like a shard buried in your leg, that you decided to ignore, even though you still felt the pain occasionally. And now it’s like every day people are punching that place in purging their own shards. Until she decides to rip it out. And then people have nothing better to do than to keep talking about her husband’s money. Just simply stop it, for goodness sake. Forget who her husband is for a week or so, will you*?
*I’m currently wondering who of you even knew who he was before it was brought up here. Think about the effect that it had on the whole conversation.
Also, those declaring that her career was already well established when she made Frida are deliberately ignoring the fact that Weinstein killed the careers of women, including those who won Oscars and that the Miramax roles she had to do were subsequently reduced to small scale shit.
Giliell @ 74, Caine @ 68, John Morales @ 69
I see. It was easy to fall into the trap of ignoring the full significance of psychological effects of abuse, the crux of the matter.
I enjoyed her film Frida very much, though the story clearly suffered some butchering in the editing process. It is dismaying that anyone thought her husbands net worth was somehow relevant. How many men have acted and directed a biographical film, but had a Weinstein force them to star in some full-frontal same sex scenes mid-way through filming in order to keep factual details like her mustache in the film?
How disgusting do a rich mans actions have to be before other men understand that he is literally making her film some sex tapes as the price to make her film? Even with the crappy editing it won all sorts of awards, so clearly merit is not the yardstick by which women are judged. Hayek’s talent, art and psyche were brutalized because she wouldn’t fuck him in the first place.
OK, looking back at what I posted, I can see that it could be taken as underplaying the trauma Ms. Hayek suffered. That was not it’s intent. I was posting with a blown irony meter from our resident Bernie Bro having claimed his attack on Hillary Clinton (arguably the woman most vilified by the patriarchy) was justified as “speaking truth to power.” My indignation at the cluelessness of this contention blinded me to the cluelessness in my own response.
So my apologies to Caine, Giliell, Vivek, Ms. Hayek, women in general and anyone else I offended. I mean this. I am sorry and will endeavor to think a bit more before posting in the future.
That said, I am concerned about whether our current national moment will extend beyond Hollywood, where women in low-wage jobs are victimized daily. Prominent actresses are to the general class of women as pandas are to the class of endangered animals–charismatic, sympathetic and on a different plane than the rest. These characteristics can draw people to the cause, but we have to also consider the women who do jobs that are not so glamorous–just as we have to consider amphibians (which in my point are every bit as cool as pandas) as well as pandas. So, please look over the five-thirty-eight link I posted. I’ll leave it there, as this thread should be about Ms. Hayek’s reclamation of her rightful dignity. Again, sorry to have been a distraction from that.
@arids:
You should see what’s happening in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. I’m frankly appalled at the behavior of Sirica, but hopeful that the strong cases against Kozinski lead the US federal judiciary to think about cleaning up its act.
I know it won’t lead to actually cleaning up its act, but thinking about it would be a huge start.
CD,
Yeah, I read about that on Ed Brayton’s blog (and links). Kozinski sounds like he’d be at home sitting next to Clarence the Mute on the SCOTUS. I really don’t understand behavior like that. It is as if some folks think you have to act like an asshole to command respect, when in reality all you can get by command is deference and submission. Respect has to be earned.