I was darned close to a perfect 0 on the Kinsey scale, exclusively heterosexual. But let’s face it, we’re all able to experience some degree of same-sex attraction — even I could feel a little internal tremor when I saw Jason Mamoa. But no more. I have achieved a perfect 0. You might ask how, how can you too drive yourself to Absolute Heterosexual Manliness? And I will tell you.
I started reading this interview with Matt Damon, who I might once have said was reasonably attractive in the right light. But as I read deeper, I first felt that there was something mildly disturbing here, like, how can he be so self-centered about accusations of harassment? Then when he starts rationalizing about how we ought to forgive Louis CK because he has been punished enough, the self-loathing started to well up. And then by the time he says his response to a hypothetical accusation against himself would be to lawyer up and buy her off, my journey was complete: I now hate all men. Jason, I’m sorry. I couldn’t bear to spend any time with you now.
I thought that was enough. I was now pure. But I didn’t know that Tom Hanks — sweet, avuncular, gentle Tom Hanks — was going to speak up.
He he told the New York Post newspaper’s Page Six column:
If you threw out every film or TV show that was made by an a**hole, Netflix would go out of business. I think you do just have … to wait because this is a long game.
Fuck damn. I’m thoroughly suffused with the spirit of misandry now. All of my Y chromosomes are cowering in a dark corner of my nuclei. This might be sorta like a massive autoimmune reaction, and I might die.
Interesting straw man, Tommy! But I haven’t heard people suggesting that we throw out TV shows and movies; I’ve heard them suggesting that we throw out assholes.
Isn’t it interesting how they think that we exist for their benefit? Go ahead, test that theory. Make my day.
Now, this only works for dudes.
If you’re a woman the recent years have taught you that you are a lot less hetero than you thought.
Seriously. I’m married to a fantastic guy, but should I ever be looking for a partner again, the guys are out.
Giliell:
Same here.
I kinda agree with Hank’s sentiments. Humans, especially men it seems, are imperfect. We shouldn’t throw out (if that is even an argument here) good art, literature, film, television, etc just because some people involved aren’t good people. That’s a version of the ad hominem fallacy. What I think we should do is work diligently towards improving society and recognizing our past mistakes, while keeping the good stuff available. If Van Goh sexually harassed (or even assaulted) someone, we wouldn’t throw his paintings out of museums (I hope..).
lemurcatta @5:
That only works if we assume that 100% of all entertainment is made by people who sexually assault women or children, or whatever else.
But that’s not the case, so we can, in fact, establish criteria for behavior we find utterly intolerable and boycott-worthy without running the risk of running out of art or entertainment.
Yea but not all “entertainment” is of equal value. I happen to think that Van Goh’s work substantially enriches our lives and the world is better off with him having created his works. Same without Shakespeare. These are not the same thing as TMZ’s articles on celebrity gossip. If all the tmz staff were impeccably good human beings (other than of course pumping out mindless garbage), and Shakespeare stood accused based on new findings of harassing a female in his life, I think we rightfully repudiate that whole still admiring Midnight Summers Dream. If we were to take your proposition, I would find the resulting situation untenable.
Please excuse the atrocious spelling and grammar in the above post.
Define “value.”
You know Tom, maybe if your industry had a zero tolerance attitude towards harassment and sexual abuse you wouldn’t be in this position.
lemurcatta @ 5:
Who, exactly, is saying we all must throw out ‘good’ art, literature, film, television, etc.? I keep seeing this testeria used in “arguments’, but no one is saying this, no one is demanding it.* You could have benefited greatly from reading the very first comment, from A Masked Avenger – this is about throwing out the assholes, and not diving headfirst into the straw argument. All this kind of “argument” does is to provide cover for all the assholes and slimy creeps who are busy committing terrible acts against people.
The whole ‘good’ thing is entirely pointless. Good is completely subjective, as is value. It is, as always, up to each individual to decide if they wish to spend money and time on something made by a slimy creep who harmed many people.
*No, PZ does not make that argument. PZ, like most people, makes his own decisions about who and what he can continue supporting, and those he cannot, and makes a case for it. He does not demand all people do exactly what he does. This does not stop thick-headed asses like Chuck Stanley @ 6, who assumes no one is capable of thinking for themselves except for Chuck Stanley.
Caine, I did not say PZ demanded everyone else do it. I said he does it and I don’t. In fact I said most people don’t. He does throw it all out on some people at least to take his own words for it.
Frankly, I’m worried that you might be too optimistic, PZ. The overwhelming majority of this sleazy shit is pulled by men, but I’ve seen a lot of women who are perfectly happy to enable men who sexually assault people as long as it doesn’t affect them personally. See virtually every woman in the Trump administration, or any woman who came to Roy Moore’s defense.
You should have read more of his interview, PZ. You said that your journey was complete when you read that Damon’s response would’ve been to lawyer up and buy off. You seem to have missed that that would have been his response ’10 years ago’ but that today his response would be “I don’t care if it costs me $10 million to fight this in court with you for 10 years ― you’re not taking my name from me.” https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/matt-damon-harvey-weinstein-sexual-misconduct_us_5a33dd1ae4b0ff955ad2369c .
There’s much cluelessness in Damon’s interview but you probably should have read the whole thing rather than some excerpts. (The name of the site you got your info from should have warned you about its veracity.)
@Caine, I didn’t accuse anybody of wanting to throw out everything that comes from men who behave badly. That’s pretty clear from my posts. Instead, I was opining on what Hanks had said. And thinking out loud on how we might seperate the art from the artist.
@ microraptor #10
Define value? Lol. I see a lot of snooty and pseudo intellectual garbage in blog comment sections, but your post is in the running for top 10.
Reminder: I was talking about Van Goh and Shakespeare, and also TMZ.
Ah, I see. Ten years ago he’d have paid off someone he’d harassed, but today he’d drag her into court and sue her into bankruptcy. Much better, yes.
lemurcatta @17:
Sorry, but if you’re going to hurt my feelings you’re going to have to try a lot harder.
People like to say that Van Goh or Shakespeare are great, but what is it that makes them so great? If you going to claim that there’s some sort of quality to them that makes their potential loss greater than the potential loss of some other art or theater, you should at least be able to define what that quality is.
lemurcatta @ # 5: … If Van Goh sexually harassed (or even assaulted) someone, we wouldn’t throw his paintings out of museums (I hope..).
Dunno about Van Gogh, but we do know a lot about the foremost painter/sculptor of the 20th century’s relations with women: Picasso was a pig. (And it doesn’t seem to have hurt his art rep, or sales, a bit.)
people can be ass holes of the truth of that there can be no argument. Being an ass hole is not confined sex or race , political persuasion or national origin. From what I see as the biggest problem concerning ass hole behavior is secrecy as long as there is no public exposure the behavior continues.
I have no power what so ever over that. I can only state that for me there is no shame thrust upon any victim of ass-hole behavior any more than there would be if while walking down the road someone tripped and fell into the mud.
uncle frogy
Who is Van Goh?
Vincent van Gogh
(They have the Dutch pronunciation, and I learned that the “ogh” is properly a gutteral; IPA:[ˈvɪnsɛnt ˈʋɪləm vɑn ˈɣɔx])
“The two expat bros who terrorized women correspondents in Moscow.”
Matt Damon has a history of helping Weinstein. http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-41581564
SC #23
Thank you for that link.
#10 and #19 are not the posts of someone interested in an honest conversation.
You know what van Gogh is?
Super dead.
You know what his work doesn’t do?
Promote harmful ideas about women (if anything, he’s the least male gaze-y artist among the great ones).
There’s a difference between
-refusing to throw more money into the direction of some rich abuser
And
-keeping art of somebody who is long dead and whose work does not promote horrible ideas.
Now, there’s also a great deal of art that is equally good, by dead people and problematic.
You know what we can do? Be critical. Which is why there is a ton of kick-ass post-colonial Shakespeare adaptations.
Holms @26:
Actually, I’m quite interested in an honest conversation. If someone wants to claim that any artist’s work so important that it should be kept no matter what the artist’s behavior is, it should be possible to actually define what about about that work is so important and what separates it from lesser works that aren’t so worthy.
I have no problem with buying a Van Gogh because he’s dead.
I have no problem with buying a Picasso because he’s dead.
I have no problem with seeing a Shakespeare play because he’s dead.
But I will not pay a fucking penny to see anything by or with Roman Polanski, Woody Allen, Louis CK, Dustin Hoffman, Kevin Spacey, Casey Affleck, Mel Gibson, and so on and so on. I will not help to line their pockets. I will not help to link the pockets of people who think it’s fine to pay them to make art while so many deserving people are shut out of the process. I don’t give a shit how good the art is.
For years I was a fan of Bill Cosby’s stand up. His shows were crap, he was insufferable as a person, but his stand up was brilliant. I had a copy of his album Himself. I have since destroyed it. Damn right I’m throwing out that art.
I’ve purchased and downloaded concerts from Louis CK’s website. Bye, files. I’m throwing out that art.
Unfortunately those two already have my money from those purchases, but there’s no way I’m going to be able to sit back and laugh listening to them, knowing what they’ve done.
Oh, also I’m super bi and yeah, there’s no chance I will ever be with a man again.
You know what the problem actually is? It’s not that you personally decide that you separate art from artist and that you will tune out some things.
That’s ok. That’s something we all do to some extent. It’s ok to like problematic things.
No, the problem is that you demand we do the same and shut up. That you’re treating people deciding that yes, they are no longer consuming certain works like they are between ridiculous and dangerous to free speech.
And also that your artistic tastes and cultural knowledge are so damn narrow that you actually believe that there aren’t and cannot be other works that may be just as great.
@1
What purpose does the website rotten apples serve if not to encourage or facilitate boycotting the works in which sexual abusers were involved?
Anyway, people are free to consume whatever media they wish for whatever reason this wish. As for me I’m going to keep watching Woody Allen films because I like them and I’ve kept most of the Weinstein films that are great. If you don’t want to support abusers, fair enough. Just be consistent about it.
I think Hanks is generally right FWIW. Great art seems to be produced by extreme personalities which naturally seems to lead to a lot of morally awful baggage.
The set of media products in that weren’t made by morally dubious people, or contains objectionable material functionally contains zero items. There’s a reason why Platonic would see poets banished from the Republic.
I’ve never seen a great work of feminist art. The closest I can think of is Slither. Not deny they exist looking for recommendations.
I keep coming back to the 4th* season (2015) of “Project Greenlight” and how it was a perfect distillation of so many problems. Damon’s idiotic comments about diversity and filmmaking; the selection of the utterly mediocre Jason Mann (purely on “merit,” of course); the absurd treatment of Effie Brown, which she withstood with grace and professionalism; Mann’s Great White Male Artist arrogance as he made his pretentious unwatchable self-indulgent movie,… – it was all there, and more.
* And not surprisingly last.
You’re certainly free to do so.
I’m certainly free to judge you for it.
The truth about just how horrifyingly widespread sexual harassment is in our society is truly coming to light. If we are honest with ourselves, we all at least suspected that it was far worse than anyone was prepared to admit openly before now, but the sheer extent of this culture of sexual harassment and assault, and the ever increasing number of people crawling out of the woodwork to actually defend that culture as somehow being a necessary ‘price of doing business’, is truly nauseating.
As for the commentators who are saying that they would never have a relationship with a man again, I can entirely see why you feel that way – it is a wholly reasonable continuation of the principle of Schrodinger’s Rapist. With so many sexual abusers in the world (more and more coming to light each day), and no easy way of telling from outward indications which men are predatory and which are not, why should anyone be expected to take the risk?
As a man myself, it would be easy to be indignant, and cry about how unfair it is, and that I am a good man who would never do such a terrible thing, and why should men like me suffer for the crimes of others? But that is just what a still undiscovered predator would say. And more; the men who prey on others are not the only one’s to blame – they have cover provided to them by a culture that excuses or ignores their behaviour and marginalises the voices of those who tried to warn us all about the poison within our society, and that culture exists because we (and by ‘we’ in this context I mean all of us, but especially men) allowed it to. Every misogynistic ‘joke’ we ignored or chalked up to ‘boys being boys’, every sexually objectifying expression of advertisement or popular culture we normalised as just the way things are now, every aspect of sexual entitlement amongst men we allowed to be conflated with masculinity itself – all of it reinforced in the minds of those actively predatory men that their behaviour was acceptable, or at the least would be relatively easy to get away with. It brought us to this pass, and none of us can claim to be entirely innocent of any and all responsibility.
I could spend all day telling people I am a good guy who would never hurt anyone, that I have gone out of my way to never make anyone else feel threatened or compelled into doing anything they didn’t want to, and who is nauseated by the very notion of laying so much as a finger on another person without a certainty of their crystal clear consent, but all of it would be empty words – mere hot air.
The truth is, knowing what we do about how sick our society is, I wouldn’t date me either, not without the certain knowledge of my character I only possess because I am… well… me.
@ 33:
So, you’re confining this to movies only? My my. I suspect you’ve never seen a “great” work of feminist art because you haven’t been paying attention. Ever.
This response to Morgan Spurlock’s “apology” is quite good. I’m not sure if I’ve said so before, but I’m never angry or disappointed with these apologies because I have no positive expectations for them at all. Perhaps several years later after someone has actually made an effort, confronted what they’ve done, sought help, tried to make a positive difference, etc., they could write something genuine and worthwhile. People can change and grow over time. But these immediate (and in Spurlock’s case preemptive) attempts just put on show all of the same character traits that allowed them to be abusive or destructive throughout their lives. They’re narcissistic, entitled, manipulative, lacking in real empathy, self-pitying, self-justifying, passive-aggressive, preening, and partial. Of course these screeds are going to reveal the same character that was behind all of their other noxious behavior.
It’s long-standing albeit silent (rarely discussed publicly) that people whose left nostril is larger than their right nostril blow bigger gobs of snot into fondues, and do so much more frequently. Lately, to their credit, a few brave people with larger right nostrils have called this out for what it is — gross and disgusting — and some civil and criminal actions started. Some people have also pointed out it’s unhygienic but to-date their voices are largely drowned out by the insistence of some right-nostrilers that left-nostrilers be banned from anything to do with fondue (e.g., making it, serving it, eating it, or even mentioning it). Some of these right-nostrilers have said they will not attend a fondue party if any left-nostrilers are present.
All of this is, of course, completely correct and logical. Some — perhaps most — left-nostrilers are gross and disgusting, therefore, in an world without bias, all left-nostrilers are unhygienic.
Down with bigger left nostrils ! There cannot be a badly-behaved left-nostriler if all are well-behaved — therefore, since there are bad ones, none can be good.
(Tomorrow, disproof of the common claim that black = white. Which does not mean black ≠ white.)
Perhaps we can use older movies and shows as teaching moments. Some 20+ years ago, “Gone With the Wind” was re-released in theaters. I took my then preteen daughter to see it. Before doing so, I made sure to tell her that I thought she should see it as a work of cinematic history, with some of the great actors of that time. I also made sure to tell her that the attitudes expressed toward African-American actors, and the depiction of the KKK as noble protectors of the white Southern woman were absolutely unacceptable by the standards of 1995 (or whatever year it was when I took her), but that she would need to understand that this too is part of America’s past. She got the message loud and clear.
I was 14 when “Star Trek” first aired in 1966. I’m still a huge fan, and plop myself in front of the TV whenever BBCA runs a bunch of old episodes every Friday afternoon. Regardless, I watch it now with a very different viewpoint than I did as a 14 to 17 year-old girl. I see a huge amount of sexism in particular, attitudes that I frankly took for granted at that age. (Want to see a really toxic and abusive relationship? Watch the episode “Space Seed,” the one where Khan first appeared. It was jaw-droppingly sexist even then- and far worse now, but it’s still a fan favorite.)
I won’t patronize or watch any films that Mel Gibson has been in (even “Chicken Run,” which I LOVED), and that’s been a long-standing decision of mine from the day I learned he was an anti-Semite. The same is now true for the others on the list. However, I honestly don’t see the point of throwing out old movies, records, tapes, etc. that you already own. The artist won’t get any more money from your watching or listening to them- and book burning (DVD trashing, record smashing, etc.) is a dangerous thing. These works may have merit on some other level. Progressives (rightfully) ridiculed Sean Hannity’s sleazy followers for smashing up their Keurig coffeemakers. Why should we stoop to their level?
Few people are 100% wonderful. Should we throw out the Declaration of Independence because Jefferson was hypocritical enough to also be a slave owner and raped Sally Hemings repeatedly? Lyndon Johnson was an incredibly low-class boor, but at least on the domestic front (yes, I know all too well about the international mess), passed the first Voting Rights Act, Head Start and the War on Poverty began under him, and the space program’s prominence is in good part due to him.
So I suggest that we use these works as a teachable example.Take what is good, and use the rest to teach both our daughters and our sons alike. And if you can’t bring yourself to watch what is a work of art (or pleasure), then put it away for now.
# 19 & 28 microraptor
Van Gogh was great, but what is it that makes himso great?
Colour?
@22 Owlmirror
IPA:[ˈvɪnsɛnt ˈʋɪləm vɑn ˈɣɔx])
Can you actually say that? I’ve been trying for years (former boss was Dutch) but finally gave up.
B-but that means you’re to blame for my involuntary celibacy, and any horrible actions I commit as a result! You’ve turned me into a monster! Why must women be so irresponsible?
@ Mike Smith, #33
I always panic a little bit whenever someone wants examples of anything. My mind goes blank nearly every time. Horror films, though, are right in my wheelhouse, and I’ve long sought films that specifically defy the idea that horror is a uniformly misogynistic genre. If I confine it to that, examples come easily.
Three films pop into my head straight away: The Babadook, Ginger Snaps, and American Mary are all feminist works of art. I think they’re great, but I’m not going to try to make an academic argument for them.
The first two I watch every chance I get. American Mary, on the other hand, I’ve seen once. I’m not sure I could stand to watch it again, because it’s a horror film in which the monster is misogyny. The Soska sisters don’t dress it up in a cheesy rubber suit or slap a mask on it to make it more palatable, either. It is NOT a fun watch, but I do think it’s an important one.
I could make arguments for at least a dozen other horror films I’ve seen (and point you to arguments for some I refuse to watch), but those three are obvious choices. Horror IS a genre full of misogyny, but I would argue that it’s not any more so than any other genre of fiction, and it’s not that hard to find examples of feminist work within it.
Outside of the relatively narrow confines of ‘horror films,’ it gets harder, because I’m rather spoilt for choice. There’s a huge amount of great feminist art out there. Look for it, and you’ll find it.
I think you’re getting confused PZ. These aren’t the sort of arseholes we gay men are interested in…
Oh, ypu don’t understand. It’s not the 4% or so of men who are rapists.
It’s the remaining 95.9% who will spout some sort of bullshit when confronted with sexism and sexual assault.
I’m not going to risk my mental and emotional wellbeing just for the fun a dick provides. My home is my ultimate safe space. I wouldn’t open it to someone where I’d risk being belittled, condescended to and mansplained.
Anton @ 42:
Ah, but we gave men a shot. Now it’s your turn to do the same thing! ;)
Giliell:
Dicks also come in a wide variety of shapes, sizes, colours, and flavours, all conveniently portable, so you don’t even have to give up that part of the fun.
@gil
And I’m free to find your self-satisfied self-righteousness a bore.
The singular accusation against Allen was investigated by two separate units of Govt and they both, independently, concluded there was no there there. There is reasons, unlike most cases, to doubt the primary testimony. More to the point, Allen’s best works were made decades before the alleged incident happened. I shouldn’t deprive myself of Annie Hall’s delightful turn by Keaton even if 20 year later Allen did commit abuse.
@Caine
I should have said films. Because given the context of this conversation–two Hollywood actors commenting on a sexual harassment–my mind did limit it to films. My bad.
Mickey, you are either simply too uneducated to be part of the discussion or al liar.
Here’s what Allen’s victim Dyllan has to say to you:https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-farrow-woody-allen-me-too-20171207-story,amp.html&ved=2ahUKEwjcnO7hvY_YAhUQ16QKHZnKDsIQFjAFegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw26eX-aGO-PLpoAfEgK8WeP&cf=1
Of course you can think me a bore. What a horrible thing to be. A bore.
@Mike Smith #48:
1. Who’s “gil?”
2. Rowan Farrow says otherwise.
Ronan. Dammit.
Mike Smith, #32
He’s arguing against a strawman, so of course he’d be right.
Mike Smith, #32
It’s not exactly encouraging. It’s just putting the information out there for consumers to be aware and make their own decisions. As long as the information is accurate, what’s wrong with that? If you object to a website like that, then you object to people choosing not to watch a movie because its producer raped women.
Agreed.
Your comment about rottenapples together with your approval of Hanks’ viewpoint seems to contradict this.
Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk- @ 45;
Sorry, that was a failure of communication on my part – that was the point I was trying to cover in the next paragraph back in my post @ 36, where I wrote;
My usual problem of too many words, not enough actual communication strikes again. Apologies.
@ gil
One of the most annoying aspects of the left today is the assumption that those that disagree with them, even in a singular case. So shut it about my so called ignorance. I’ve engaged with Dyllan’s testimony.
I, contra most cases, don’t find Dyllan’s testimony credible. I’m of the opinion it is likely a false memory implanted by a vindictive mother and estranged partner. More to the point even if I was inclined to take the standard trust but verify approach there is functionally zero evidence apart from Dyllan’s word. Further most secondary evidence–i.e. Allen’s current marriage–is grossly misinterpreted to cast Allen in an undue disfavorable light.
Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear. When I called you a bore I meant you are waging hypocritical whose selective outrage does damages to an undeserving few. And you further treat sexual victimization with all manners if special pleading and double standards.
@saad
My problem with rotten apples is it, like all sex offenders registration, treats everything with a board brush. Frida is listed on it. To boycott Frida because of Weinstein’s involvement is to victimization Selma Hayek twrice. It punishes her and many Innocents for crimes some one else committed.
My statement of “if you don’t want to support…”only seems contradictory because you cut the very next sentence. That being a plead to be consistent about it. Films involve hundreds to thousands of people. If the involvement of A sexual abuser means you should not watch and/or buy a media product than there are zero media products you should buy. There’s a 100% chance the same number of sexual abusers are involved in whatever random Disney film you care to name as a Woody Allen film. It’s sophistry to say otherwise.
After singular case should read that the person is uniformed and/or ignorant.
#30 says
“Oh, also I’m super bi and yeah, there’s no chance I will ever be with a man again.”
I understand the sentiment these days and why it is so often expressed, i really do, but i’m also unsure of how this isn’t unacceptable blanket discrimination.
Not that woman scorning men matters to my personal experience in life given that i’m a gay man. I think it’s likely because i’m gay that i’m also especially resistant to this kind of thing given i’ve frequently been victim to it myself. It’s a new thing for straight guys, but i’m no stranger to being thought of and treated no better than a pervert, harasser, pedophile, etc, simply for existing.
I also understand what goes around comes around and why that’s appealing, but i don’t think i can buy that as justification.
Why, “because shut up, that’s why,” of course.
Same as all the rest of the Pharyngula crowd’s “Feet of Clumping Cat Litter” moments.
B*tches be lying, eh?
It’s of course not only Dylan.
You know more than the DA.
More than the therapist who treated Allen for his obsession and inappropriate behavior towards her.
The house staff who panicked when both of them were gone.
Oh yeah, the tale of the evil woman who makes up stories about child abuse.
It’s not like we hear it in about every case when a mother brings up child abuse during a divorce. No misogyny to see her.
+++
Wow. A gay man is telling women that their decision not to fuck men for some very severe reasons* is unacceptable discrimination.
*I’m currently discriminating against the entire world population of men minus one. I mean, I’m currently married to a cis white het guy, yet mentioning that I would not do so again in case my marriage ended brings out the prosecution complex in some guys.
>Wow. A gay man is telling women that their decision not to fuck men for some very severe reasons* is unacceptable discrimination.
Please don’t straw man me. That’s clearly not what i said.
No, really not what you said.
@59 Gil
No. I didn’t even accuse this particular woman of lying. I’m sure she isn’t wilfully misrepresenting the truth. But I don’t trust that memory of hers.
I’m equally sure the circumstancial evidence is extremely weak. The house staff whose living depended on Farrow’s claims to have been in a panic. Convincing!
If you want to about therapists, how about we talk about the report that cleared Allen?
We might hear stories about mother’s making stuff up, but in this case because of Moses’s position we have (slight) reasons to give the idea credit.
If Allen abused Dyllan it was the most isolated act of sexual abuse ever. There’s been zero claims of even creepiness apart from Allen’s alleged treatment of Dyllan. Sexual predators don’t have a class of prey of one.
I’ll put it to you this way. I believe Cosby is a serial rapist because of the sheer number of women who have come forward. Now I have suspended judgement on a few of the accusations because I haven’t verified the testimony.
The fact is false accusations do happen. They are exceedingly rare. But most of the time I have seen the false positive rate of 1-7% for sexual abuse. There’s been dozens of accusations against men in the entertaining industry. I don’t know the case number but it’s well over 100 because of Cosby and Weinstein alone. We can be certain that the vast majority are true. But we can be equally certain at least one case is false.
I’m inclined to view Allen has the rare false positive.
Now excuse me I’m off to watch Wonder Wheel which I’m sure is delightful little film.
I hope you are consistent and boycott all films and TV shows because we can be certain due to how depressing common sexual abuse is and the sheer number of people (running in the 1000’s at times) involved in film production that every cinematic product had the involvement of sexual predator. Anything less makes you a raging hypocrite.
Because discrimination is acceptable in the private sphere, no? We’re all entitled to equal treatment by the law, government, and arguably schools and businesses, but we aren’t entitled to equal treatment within your personal life. You can reject me as a friend or lover for any reason you like. (Some reasons might not make me like you very much, but that’s not your problem.
And as you say, this particular reason is very understandable.)
It’s…not really a new thing for straight guys either; we’ve been considered barely-controllable engines of indiscriminate lust for most of the Christian era. It’s just that we got applause and pie for heroically limiting our sexual violence to the right targets: namely, women that we had authority over. But now the mean ol’ feminists aren’t even satisfied with that!
Maybe Ronon Dex could go full Chewie on them to smack some sense into them.
My other problem with Rotten Apples is it treats people’s moral standing as static. But people get worse and/or better all the time.
I see no reason to deprive myself of Annie Hall or What’s Up Tiger Lilly? even if yeah I shouldn’t own Midnight in Paris.
Likewise, Gibson clearly harbored anti-Semitic beliefs at one point. It doesn’t follow that he always will. I get why one would boycott the passion of the Christ (it isn’t a good movie anyway) but to deprive yourself if the near platonic form that is Hacksaw Ridge is nonsense on stilts. I guess any sin is unforgivable to the left.
Mickey, that’s such a poorly constructed strawman, it’s pathetic.
Apparently just abusing one kid doesn’t count.
@ 57:
How is a sentiment about a personal relationship blanket discrimination? I’m the one who said “same here”. I’m bi, been married 40 years, and as much as I might love and care for my partner, I would not consider a long-term relationship with another man. My reasons for that are my own. Pardon me asking, but what the fuck is that to you? I did not say one thing about men in general, I did not indulge in any sort of screed against men. None of us did, we simply made a statement of personal choice.
Seems to me that three women expressing a personal choice doesn’t even begin to make a tattered, threadbare blanket, but if you must feel persecuted somehow, feel free.
Azkyroth @ 58:
You can take your generalized and incorrect comment and shove it. I responded, and if you don’t like the response, fine, but I did not say “because shut up, that’s why” and neither did Giliell. Your need to get little inappropriate digs in don’t help anyone.
I got attacked by a pack of 3 dogs when I was 7; they weren’t trying to really harm me just drive me off. Got a single puncture and a LOT of bruises from a combined 200lbs of dog. People are understanding why, to this day and as a vet tech, I cannot handle aggressive/fractious german shepherds and rottweilers.
But having a teacher take many opportunities to put his hands on my shoulders and look down my shirt at age 11 (he was well known amongst the students for this so I can’t believe the higher ups didn’t know…), having been stalked at 17 where the guy tried to break into my house, having a cop tell me that totes didn’t happen because I hid for 3 hours so he wasn’t going to do anything, having a ‘friend’ in college who would run his hands up and down my back whenever he’d hug me to see if I was wearing a bra at the time, having a different ‘friend’ french me without my permission and become an emotionally abuse asshole and stalker who once had a screaming fit in my face while hitting things in my vicinity because I spent more time with a different male friend, having been followed through downtown after escorting a disable friend to the lightrail to keep *her* safe, having had a client kiss me on the lips without permission, having my brother out himself as an incredibly jealous/possessive/vindictive person after he decided he wanted to divorce his wife, said things that completely ended it for her, and then he went ‘oh, I may have made a mistake.’, and having my ex-fiance punch walls whenever he got angry…. None of that is an okay reason for having the stance that if I ever break up with my current fiance, I am never dating a man again. Fancy that.
It’s amazing, ennit, that everything always ends up being about the poor, poor menz.
batflipenthusiast @ 57;
Anton Mates makes a good point about this @ 63 – making a personal choice to not associate with a particular type of person is not discrimination in the same way as a lack of equal treatment before the law is discrimination. Not all such personal choices may be made for the most pleasant of reasons, but the qualitative difference between the two phenomena is clear.
Also, and before we start using charged language like ‘discrimination’ over much, I think we need to bear in mind what has actually been said on this topic on the thread. Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk- said @ 3;
Caine concurred @ 4, and @ 30 Tabby Lavalamp said;
And that is pretty much it. Three people saying ‘I think I’ll pass on teh menz from now on’ doesn’t seem to rise to the level of meaningful discrimination to me. Their bodies, their lives, their choice – no one is entitled to anyone else’s time, affection or flesh. It really isn’t anyone else’s business who they choose to view as acceptable potential partners, should the situation when they are looking for such arise in the future. Now, if anyone were on the thread advocating for something truly extreme, like the de-linking of notion of the absence of consent from the crime of rape and the criminalisation of heterosexual sex such that every man who has such a relationship would be imprisoned for life as a rapist irrespective of what his partner says (an argument I have actually seen being attempted, though admittedly very incompetently, on one memorable occasion), or the creation of gendered ghettos to separate men from the rest of the population (I’ve seen someone argue for this one too), or the notion that semen should be harvested from adolescent boys and frozen for later use before they are ceremonially castrated for the ‘good of society’ (some people out there are just very, very weird) then there might be a case to be made that potentially dangerously discriminatory attitudes are at play, but no one on the thread has said anything remotely like that, or even in the general ball park of being vaguely comparable.
If the worse that befalls the majority of men as a result of this epidemic of sexual assault rampaging through our society is that a proportion of women give up on relationships with blokes as a bad lot, then we will still be vastly, almost obscenely, better off than basically everyone else involved.
I have sneaking suspicion on this one, my fellow fellas – this might (whisper it) not actually be about us, what our penises like, or our egos. Crazy, I know, but I have these strange thoughts from time to time…
Gregory:
Yay! Pats on the back for Anton and Gregory, who get it. Thanks, fellas.
Mike Smith, #55
You’re having trouble placing blame where it belongs. The blame for that goes entirely on Weinstein.
Any boycott will harm people who don’t deserve it. Boycotting Hobby Lobby can harm innocent workers. The blame is on Hobby Lobby.
Mike Smith,
So your position is there shouldn’t be a completely voluntary website that (accurately) keeps tabs on which media has significant involvement of a rapist/sexual assaulter? It’s optional. It’s not even intrusive. You’d only go there if you’ve already decided you want to avoid movies that involve rapists. It’s not like Regal Cinemas force you to sign a form saying you acknowledge the director raped a girl before they sell you a ticket.
batflipenthusiast, #57
How is it “unacceptable blanket discrimination” for someone to decide they don’t want a relationship with men or women? That’s personal. It’s not like she’s opening a cake shop and then denying service to all men.
By your definition, virtually everyone is doing this then. I, for example, had my mind made up that I wasn’t going to have a relationship with a man. How’s that unacceptable discrimination? Your sexual orientation doesn’t mean you’re now a public service and people of your compatible sexual orientation now have a right to you.
Saad:
Well, that says bad things about men. Yep.
I think all this nonsense was a roundabout way of trying to say that [all] women are painting [all] men in such a bad light, that it’s discriminatory in the sense that no one will want anything to do with men because all men are _____.
That’s absolute nonsense, of course. All women, all over the world are not going to decide that “yep, no more relationships with men. Ever.” Personal relationships have nothing to do with institutional discrimination, which of course, you well know.
Gregory
Maybe they’ll listen to you, being a man…
Especially with at least two of those three actually being very involved with a man right now. But I guess that’s OK because it means there’s still a man to lay claims on me.
Men will often respect another man’s “rights” to a woman’s body, but not her own decisions.
When I was three, I was raped by a man.* This man assaulted a girl, also three, at the same time.
When I was 18, I was raped and tortured by two men, while three other men from the same group did even worse things to a friend of mine.
I’m also a man who identifies as queer. What I mean by ‘queer’ is that gender doesn’t have much bearing on who I am attracted to- I am attracted to many people, including many men. And yet… the thought of dating a man terrifies me, so I don’t do it.
I wonder what it is about me, that no one ever questions me (or accuses me of discrimination) when I say I’ve pretty much given up on men? Maybe it’s the way I part my hair?
Yeah, that must be it.
*I don’t think this guy made any movies, Mike Smith, so you needn’t fall all over yourself defending him.
Every time I see some dude whining about how it’s so unfair that a woman might not even consider sleeping with him, or other men, or whoever — that’s discrimination! — I can’t understand why the man making the complaint doesn’t follow his own principles and submit himself for sexual penetration by people he can’t stand. Until he does that regularly, he’s got no grounds for complaint, because he’s a hypocrite.
Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk- @ 77;
I have never understood the impulse to link the worth of an argument to a characteristic of the person putting it forward. A strong argument is a strong argument, even if Elmer Fudd is the one advocating for it. Birth sex and gender identity are neither here nor there, and yet some men do seem to find it much easier to accept an argument coming from another man, and it is by far the most common in cis men. I just don’t think this curious worm like organ of mine should be seen as indicative of anything much beyond its actual biological functions. I sure as heck don’t think with it…
One of the very first times I can remember totally despairing for humanity was the first time I heard that, historically, the rape of a woman was treated not so much as an assault upon the person and autonomy of that woman as it was a property crime against her male relatives (usually father) or husband (what made it even worse was that the rape of a man was considered an assault against that man, and a very serious crime. The double standard was open and unambiguous). I was only a child at the time, but I can still remember thinking how that just didn’t compute at all. Who cares if some bloke’s nose is put out of joint – the person you need to worry about is the person who was attacked. I just couldn’t understand how anyone could view it differently, and even less so that anyone in the modern age could think that way, though now I am a little older and (I hope) a little wiser, I understand just fine. It is not that no one could view rape as a property crime, just that no halfway decent human being could. Sadly, the world has more than its fair share of human monsters who view women as nothing so much as a collection of useful orifices, potentially bearing an owner’s brand. Once you accept that terrifying truth, it all starts to make a sick sort of sense. If you honestly don’t consider women to be people, and they are just status symbols/sex toys/ambulatory incubators to you, then you would view them as property, and misappropriation of that property as akin to theft.
Spending even a moment in the head space of someone who thinks like that immediately leaves me feeling soiled.
Vucodlak:
You might be onto something, side or center?
Seems like as good a place as any: Arthur Koestler was a serial rapist and if there’s still a bust of him or chair named for him at Edinburgh University that should end.
Gregory Greenwood, #80
Oh, it gets worse! We have a courtroom speech from Athens in the 4th century BC (Lysias 1, the defense of one Euphiletus on murder charges), which argues that seducing another man’s wife and having an affair with her is actually a far worse crime than mere rape. In the latter case one is merely using the wife against her will, in the former he is actively provoking disobedience in her and conspiring to turn her affections away from her legitimate master (kyrios in Greek).
It has been argued that this particular speech might not be an authentic piece of courtroom oration (it’s rather short and lacking in witness statements), but a model speech advertising Lysias’s services to potential clients. Which isn’t much better, quite frankly.
Gregory Greenwood:
I recommend Miranda Fricker’s Epistemic Injustice (even though I now recognize my own, the book’s, and Fricker’s speciesism, which actually supports her arguments).
@ Caine, #81
Either/or. I brush it back and bind it up in a ponytail most of the time, moving the part around on a whim. Sometimes it doesn’t have a discernible part at all, thin as it’s getting up front. As long as there aren’t any wild tufts sticking out when I leave the house, I call it good.
Vucodlak @ 85: hmmm, that’s not it then. Gosh, it’s a mystery, why men aren’t questioned over their choices…we may never figure this one out.*
*Please, for the sake of my sanity, don’t anyone take this seriously.
SC (Salty Current) @ 84;
Thanks – I’ll be sure to read that. From your description in the link, it sounds fascinating.
cartomancer @ 83;
These attitudes go all the way back to the ancient world. Depressing, but sadly not surprising.
Ah, there’s that familiar sense of despairing for humanity again. It takes me back…
Vucodlak, maybe you could check with PZ, because somehow his original statement, that men’s behaviour cured all the same-sex attraction he may have had didn’t catch any flak either.
Just me echoing the sentiment and pointing out that it doesn’t purge but reinforce The Gay in my case did.
batflipenthusiast @57
You know, if you’re going to throw that sort of thing out there in reply to me the least you could have done is use my name.
Also, fuck you. You don’t know my life experiences that chipped away at this over the years.
I’m not denying men work. I’m not denying men housing. I’m denying men my body for fuck’s sake. Whining about “blanket discrimination” when it comes to a personal choice as to who I give access to my body to is a mind-blowingly bad take.
Giliell,
It’s fun balancing on the corner of Madonna St. and Trampington Way, isn’t it? Generously invite too many men into your love life, and you become That Kind Of Woman; invite too few men, even in your love life’s hypothetical future, and you become a bigoted misandrist.
Thankfully our top scientists have computed your optimal behavior pattern for you: Be owned by exactly one man, with a marriage license to prove it, at any given time of your life between “uncomfortably young” and “over the hill.”* You’re welcome!
*both age bounds are to be determined by a panel of your nearby male peers. Try to make sure they reach a quorum before Roy Moore shows up.
Caine,
And even if they did make that decision, I’m pretty sure the majority of the world’s women don’t actually have the personal freedom to carry it out. Phew! Humanity is saved.
Not sure if this is about the same interview, but Matt Damon thinks we’re not talking enough about the men who don’t harass.
@Gil
You only consider it a strawman because you are unaware of how deeply intertwined all film production is. From Weinstein alone you probably lose a quarter of the industry. Film and TV production is one of the most consolidated sectors of the economy (there’s like 4 companies in the end) and because of the sheer amount money involved any person who spearheaded 4 Best picture winners and dozens of Oscars nominees is going to have his hand in a lot of films.
Professor Myers saw the most recent star wars film. I don’t know if he is taking the line you should boycott works that had significant involvement by sexual predator/harassers. If he is taking that line he has zero business watching star wars because the last Jedi wouldn’t exist in its current form and probably wouldn’t exist at all without John Lasseter and Weinstein.
I’ll start with Lasseter. He’s the founder of the animation division of Pixar. He’s got a director credit on Toy Story, Cars and I think a Bug’s Life. He has several writing credits in the various Pixar films and in any case he has a producer and/or executive producer credit on every Pixar film. Pixar products were among Disney’s most reliable revenue streams since 97′. (When Toy Story hit) Cars alone provided something like 10 billion in gross from all the tie-ins. The development of the new star wars films began with the price tag of 4 billion as that was Lucas’s asking price for the rights. Without Pixar Disney almost certainly wouldn’t have had the capital to purchase Star Wars. It should be noted that Pixar and Disney animation merged about 10 years ago and Lasseter took a fairly high position within the resulting unit. His involvement in Coco is probably substantially similar to his involvement in Frozen. Now Lasseter has been accused of groping several female animators. He’s currently on paid adminstrative leave. But in any case he’s set to get money from Disney/Pixar for the rest of his life. At a bare minimum you should be boycott Pixar. This is depriving yourself of some of the most consistently excellent American films. Go check your shelves. But honestly Cars funded The Force Awakens/The Last Jedi and you should take that into account.
Moving on to Weinstein.
One of Weinstein’s biggest projects was the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Miramax funded it for the first 3 years of its existence. (Weinstein’s involvement in Jackson’s Heavenly Creatures also indirectly lead to several people being sold on Rings as well as Jackson’s professional connects to new line). While Miramax ultimately allowed Jackson to secure additional funding Weinstein ended up with executive producer credit on the trilogy and there’s no way New Line picks the project up from the start. Rings influence is all over The Last Jedi. Snoke is neither played by Andy Serkis nor is he a CGI character without rings. I’ll skip details but various digital techniques developed on Rings are now standard practice and yeah used in Star Wars. Oh, and Weta Digital completed some work on the Last Jedi (through the bulk of the effects are ILM). Weta Digital does not exist, literally, without Weinstein. Miramax funded Weta Digital’s first computers on Heavenly Creatures. Disney was also more comfortable doing an extended universe for Star Wars because of Marvel which was softly influenced by Rings being filmed as a single production but a planned 3 film release. And having that work.
And speaking of funding, Miramax, Weinstein’s original company, had a multi year release package with… Disney. There’s zero chance the higher ups at Disney didn’t know of Weinstein’s abuse. More to the point Disney is still making a nontrivial amount of money off the Miramax back catalog. (Some of which is funding current productions)
(The Weinstein Company had similar release contracts with Fox, Paramount and WB. Weinstein was forced out of Miramax by Disney about 2006).
If you are keeping track, Disney shielded two sexual harrassers/predators. But wait there’s more. ABC is also Disney. Via Parks and Rec they employed Louis CK and via That 70’s Show they employed Danny Masterson. If you are unaware Masterson has been accursed of raping 5 women. The show runner of Parks knew about CK. I haven’t heard about Masterson and the Producer’s knowledge. Regardless with almost zero effort I have connected 4 men who sexually abused women to Disney. Oh wait make that 5 because of Depp and Pirates of the Caribbean.
Disney is clearly a company that will turn a blind eye if the dude’s profitable enough. So maybe, maybe, I was being hyperbolic before but if you are serious about not supporting sexual predators you have zero excuse for watching a Disney production. Which means stars wars. And MCU. And ABC. and ESPN. And Fox. And Touchstone. And Miramax. And God knows what else.
There’s no ethical production under capital.
I haven’t bothered looking into all the various men accused and thier professional connections. But it’s dozens. Not all of them are going to be as influential as Lasseter or Weinstein. But they don’t need to be. From what’s currently public we could probably cover 75+% of film products.
(I also clearly meant Allen being innocent is easier to accept because of it being one alleged incident. Not that one incident of child abuse is ok)
@Saad
It’s for that reason above I greatly oppose. Film credits are dense and multifaceted. It’s virtually impossible to know at times the level of involvement from them alone. Even if one is to boycott over this stuff, a dubious proposition for other reasons, secondary victims are a huge concern.
More to the point whoever is running Rotten Apples isn’t bothering to verify testimony and relaying solely on reported accounts. Last I looked they are not even bothering linking to denials. Even in the court of public opinion you should listen to both sides before action. The probability of Rotten Apples branding someone with scarlet letter who shouldn’t be approaches one.
Furthermore, a lot of the victims might not even want people to boycott the resulting films. Because the film’s Weinstein made often resulted in, painfully, career highlights. What Weinstein did to Hayek to get Frida made was horrible. If someone asked Hayek if she wanted people to never watch Frida again I’m fairly confident the answer would be a resounding no. (Through she might want the sex scene removed in either case). I don’t see what duty there is to boycott if the even the victims object to the idea.
There’s other consequences including I don’t know stripping Weinstein’s name off films.
@Mik
What if he died in a fire?