|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Harvey Weinstein and Liberal Hyposcrisy
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
... women who engaged in consensual sex, however groomed and coerced ...
If coercion is (per Wikipedia)
"the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of intimidation or threats or some other form of pressure or force"
it hardly seems reasonable to describe such an act as "consensual".
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I am ignorant of what this quote is supposed to mean.
I rest my case.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I am ignorant of what this quote is supposed to mean.
I rest my case.
What case? You haven't made any case that cheesy's comment here settles. I don't get the quote either, unless it's just an exercise in arch sarcasm based on a tired stereotype that has long, long ceased to resemble reality.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I used the word "complicit," in reference to the people who ignored Courtney Love's accusations against Weinstein and went ahead to his party that night.
I confess that I don't follow Courtney Love and am unfamiliar with this incident, but I wonder if it's possible that not every party attendee was aware of Love's accusations. If I were planning to attend a big do at some important producer's behest, I'd probably be getting my hair and nails done or thinking about what to wear.
And people may have heard, but not believed her-- for a a variety of reasons.
Or they showed poor judgment.
The victim in the rape trial I mentioned upthread certainly showed poor judgment. She was upset, so she went off with a stranger, got drunk and high in an alleyway, and started making out. That was very foolish.
Her rapist decided those foolish choices amounted to consent-- even when she said no. Even when he had to use a knife to convince her to comply. At least one of my fellow jurors agreed with him.
Yes, she was foolish. All of us are foolish sometimes. God knows I have made foolish, stupid choices sometimes-- and not all of them when I was young. I was fortunate. She was not.
I don't think that means she is not deserving of sympathy. She suffered greatly for her foolish choices. I doubt very much that she ever went off alone with a stranger again. Quite possibly there were other, more significant limitations on her personal freedom. I can acknowledge that she made foolish choices, while also being sympathetic and hopefully caring about what she suffered. She didn't deserve rape. And i can recognize that my own foolish choices could have led to similar horrible outcomes, had I not been as fortunate.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
The whole "it doesn't count as rape if the victim wasn't physically forced" argument needs to die in a fire. If a rapist beats up their victim as well as raping them by all means add an assault charge, but don't pretend that other victims weren't raped because the force used wasn't physical. That's like saying that armed robbery only counts if you actually shoot someone.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What case? You haven't made any case that cheesy's comment here settles. I don't get the quote either, unless it's just an exercise in arch sarcasm based on a tired stereotype that has long, long ceased to resemble reality.
I did some fact-checking on this.
So it turns out that Susan Sontag had issues with The Nation, a publication she'd written for, when The Nation critics were not overwhelmingly positive about her writing.
So in 1982 it seems that Sontag engaged in a debate with lefty liberals about supporting the Solidarity movement in Poland and she said this quote as part of her trying to claim that certain people in the room could not legitimately criticise the government crackdown in Poland because they'd previously not criticised the Soviets sufficiently, for not simply recognising the reality (as she saw it) that Soviet Communism was the other side of the coin as fascism.
It seems that the debate continued for some time afterwards in The Nation.
--
The Nation article I've linked to above is enlightening as to the context of the Sontag quote, but I'm still not really seeing how this means that liberals are hypocrites. Even the charge she sets implicitly at The Nation seems to be dubious - although to be fair one would have to do a lot more research to uncover exactly who said what to whom and in which publication during the period.
And frankly, I'm not really that interested.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I used the word "complicit," in reference to the people who ignored Courtney Love's accusations against Weinstein and went ahead to his party that night.
I confess that I don't follow Courtney Love and am unfamiliar with this incident, but I wonder if it's possible that not every party attendee was aware of Love's accusations. If I were planning to attend a big do at some important producer's behest, I'd probably be getting my hair and nails done or thinking about what to wear.
I don't know the particulars of the Courtney Love incident either. On page five Doc Tor described the incident as Courtney warning everyone publicly about Weinstein before the party. I had responded to that when I said it was a shame people hadn't listened to her. Of course those who hadn't heard anything she said were not among those I was referring to when I said those whoignored her accusations were complicit. You do have to hear something before you can ignore it.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I don't know the particulars of the Courtney Love incident either. On page five Doc Tor described the incident as Courtney warning everyone publicly about Weinstein before the party. I had responded to that when I said it was a shame people hadn't listened to her. Of course those who hadn't heard anything she said were not among those I was referring to when I said those whoignored her accusations were complicit. You do have to hear something before you can ignore it.
And it's not beyond the wit of anyone posting here to google it?
You're welcome
The take-home message that actors would have got from Courtney Love's (probably intoxicated) outburst is clearly: be aware that Weinstein isn't the kind of person you want to cross, because she never worked in Hollywood again.
quote:
You do have to hear something before you can ignore it.
They heard. They heard it loud and clear. And they didn't ignore it. It just wasn't the message that Love gave: it was the message that Hollywood gave.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
... women who engaged in consensual sex, however groomed and coerced ...
If coercion is (per Wikipedia)
"the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of intimidation or threats or some other form of pressure or force"
it hardly seems reasonable to describe such an act as "consensual".
I think "forcing" is the key word here. Intimidation and threats can mean a lot of different things. Threatening to kill someone or beat them up if they didn't have sex with them would count as rape to me, but threatening to take an actor off a film would not be rape, in my opinion.
Sexual harassment in the work place usually follows Weinstein's style. Threats of job loss or promises of promotion are all part of it. It's all ugly and should be brought before human resources and possibly taken into court, but I still wouldn't call it rape. I think there needs to be a dividing line somewhere.
I don't think we should take physical force or physical threats out of the definition of rape, otherwise any woman who ever has sex and says later she was "talked into it" or really hadn't wanted to can charge rape in a court of law. I know there are some women who think all man-to-woman sex is a form of rape but I don't agree with that.
The women who had their job's threatened unless they had sex deserve sympathy, of course, no one should be put in that position. But to me, women who were raped, and at least one of Weinstein's victims was, deserves even more sympathy. Everything isn't exactly the same, punching someone isn't the same as knifing them, and our courts of law recognize that. Why do we have to pretend that a woman who agrees to give Harvey Weinstien a massage in exchange for a part in a play is as much a victim of rape as the one who was thrown on the ground after saying no and forced?
The women who I said "made a deal," are women who simply, straightforwardly, decided to trade sex for career advancement. It happens. According to the several autobiographies I've read about Hollywood, it happens fairly frequently, and while it is a free choice it does muddy the waters and make the Weinsteins of the world bolder and makes it harder for the women who don't want to do that.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
The women who I said "made a deal," are women who simply, straightforwardly, decided to trade sex for career advancement. It happens. According to the several autobiographies I've read about Hollywood, it happens fairly frequently, and while it is a free choice it does muddy the waters and make the Weinsteins of the world bolder and makes it harder for the women who don't want to do that.
Most people, when it's pointed out to them that they're standing in a hole they've dug themselves, would stop and look for a way out.
Hoo boy.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I used the word "complicit," in reference to the people who ignored Courtney Love's accusations against Weinstein and went ahead to his party that night.
I confess that I don't follow Courtney Love and am unfamiliar with this incident, but I wonder if it's possible that not every party attendee was aware of Love's accusations. If I were planning to attend a big do at some important producer's behest, I'd probably be getting my hair and nails done or thinking about what to wear.
And people may have heard, but not believed her-- for a a variety of reasons.
Or they showed poor judgment.
The victim in the rape trial I mentioned upthread certainly showed poor judgment. She was upset, so she went off with a stranger, got drunk and high in an alleyway, and started making out. That was very foolish.
Her rapist decided those foolish choices amounted to consent-- even when she said no. Even when he had to use a knife to convince her to comply. At least one of my fellow jurors agreed with him.
Yes, she was foolish. All of us are foolish sometimes. God knows I have made foolish, stupid choices sometimes-- and not all of them when I was young. I was fortunate. She was not.
I don't think that means she is not deserving of sympathy. She suffered greatly for her foolish choices. I doubt very much that she ever went off alone with a stranger again. Quite possibly there were other, more significant limitations on her personal freedom. I can acknowledge that she made foolish choices, while also being sympathetic and hopefully caring about what she suffered. She didn't deserve rape. And i can recognize that my own foolish choices could have led to similar horrible outcomes, had I not been as fortunate.
Of course it was still rape and of course he deserved to go to jail and of course she deserves sympathy.
I really wish people would stop addressing rape cases to me as if they were refuting something I said. Where on earth did I say or imply that a woman's bad choices mean she can not be a victim of rape deserving of sympathy and the full force of the law?
I expressed sympathy for Courtney Love and sorrow that more people didn't heed her warning because it might have saved some of the women we are hearing about today from being hurt? How in the world is that such a mean thing to say that I have to listen to you and others repeat rape case stories as though they are all my fault?
When your rape case doesn't seem to relate to anything I've said, it begins to seem like deliberate misunderstanding of my posts for the sake of being able to imply that I would have been sitting on that jury saying rape hadn't really taken place because she made bad choices. Next someone will say she was wearing a short skirt and I thought she was asking for it.
That's some twisted, sick manipulation even for you, Cliffdweller.
I want out of here, please ban me.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
Twilight, here's a list of the women making accusations against Weinstein. Assuming the accounts are accurate, I think it's totally wrong to describe them as people "who simply, straightforwardly, decided to trade sex for career advancement". Weinstein may or may not be guilty of rape, but he was heavily coercive. If the women had made a straightforward decision to sleep with him, him wouldn't have had to ambush them in that loathsome and predatory way.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
A wise friend of mine reflects on this, and points out that it's not that women don't testify, or even that they are not believed. It's that women matter less than men.
That's why the =number= of women in the post just above this one is held to be important. One woman, three women, five -- not enough. You need a lot of them, to counterbalance the word of a powerful and rich man.
There are at least ten women who have accused Lyin' Donald of assault. I am sure we could none of us name one of them, and none of the cases have gone to court. I am willing to bet that they never will.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
Responding to Hiro:
Where did I say all women? Where did I say I was talking about women in the Harvey Weinstein case?
I was clearly talking about the differences in rape definitions and the history of the casting couch in Hollywood. Hence the mention of Hollywood autobiographies written by women who were there and gone before Harvey Weinstein was born.
Is there no limit to this deliberate misreading of my posts?
Do you honestly believe no woman in Hollywood ever exchanged sexual favors for other favors? Do you not know that there are women in this world who are self-determining and have made a conscious decision to use sex, when needed, to get what they want out of life? It may not be everyone's choice, it may fit with Christian morality, but it is some women's choice and they own that. I think they would be shocked to learn that you called them all victims of sexual assault.
Are there any types of sex you don't see as rape? Are prostitutes all rape victims, coerced with money?
This third wave feminism that poses every woman as a helpless victim of big bad men is so offensive to my second wave feminism that poses women as men's equals in all areas -- including some areas that aren't always nice.
[ 19. October 2017, 13:50: Message edited by: Twilight ]
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
... I don't think we should take physical force or physical threats out of the definition of rape, otherwise any woman who ever has sex and says later she was "talked into it" or really hadn't wanted to can charge rape in a court of law. ...
Aaaaaand ... we're back to "legitimate rape". And duplicitous or malicious or ashamed women who change their minds after sex. Classic rape culture clichés.
The NYPD had an audio recording of Weinstein admitting a prior assault. No charges were laid. Can we please dispense with the "oh, she should have stood up for herself" crap? One woman did. The New York legal system said, yeah, whatever, go away, sure, we can prove he did it but we'll never get a conviction.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A wise friend of mine reflects on this, and points out that it's not that women don't testify, or even that they are not believed. It's that women matter less than men.
Except male victims are disbelieved every bit as badly, and female perpetrators get the benefit of the doubt at least as much as male ones.
I find this all confusing. I was thinking that male victims were not disbelieved, they just didn't enter the frame of reference. I mean, the idea that men could be victims of domestic violence, sexual harassment, enforced sex, and so on, was beyond many people's credulity. Well, this is changing now, I think. I just noticed Sir Tom Jones' comments about the sexual abuse of men.
As to female perpetrators, has anyone researched this? I would think that schools and prisons have been looked at, but elsewhere, dunno. And then to speak of the woe that is in marriage, eh?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
Twilight, here's a list of the women making accusations against Weinstein.
Here's a quote from myself , from my first post on this thread, talking to L'Organist who thought Weinstein was being lynched:
quote:
Twilight: I'm not worried about Weinstein being lynched. I've never believed we need to think someone is innocent until proved guilty -- that's for juries. The rest of us don't need to shut our brains in a box until the trial is over. If even one of the stories about Weinstein is true he's a first degree slime ball and I hope his career is over.
Now you and apparently Brenda have set me up as his defender based on what?
Look, I know it's fun to have someone to push back against on a thread like this where we all despise Weinstein, but he's not here to take the flack. Only I didn't volunteer to represent him, so stop it.
I know for some people everything has to be black or white with no confusing gray areas, so for them if one accuser against Weinstein has a good case then every single other person who comes forward has to be telling the absolute truth and be equally victimized. I don't have to see things that way. I read the posts and I saw some women as rape victims, some of them as sexual assault victims, some of them as sexual harassment victims, and one or two who didn't really have much of a point, but wanted to be part of the group. That's human nature and it's nice that they want to lend sisterly support. It doesn't make them all rape victims.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
... I don't think we should take physical force or physical threats out of the definition of rape, otherwise any woman who ever has sex and says later she was "talked into it" or really hadn't wanted to can charge rape in a court of law. ...
Aaaaaand ... we're back to "legitimate rape". And duplicitous or malicious or ashamed women who change their minds after sex. Classic rape culture clichés.
The NYPD had an audio recording of Weinstein admitting a prior assault. No charges were laid. Can we please dispense with the "oh, she should have stood up for herself" crap? One woman did. The New York legal system said, yeah, whatever, go away, sure, we can prove he did it but we'll never get a conviction.
I was talking rape defintions nothing about Weinstein. Don't put shit in quotes that I didn't say, you fucking moron.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
... I don't think we should take physical force or physical threats out of the definition of rape, otherwise any woman who ever has sex and says later she was "talked into it" or really hadn't wanted to can charge rape in a court of law. ...
Aaaaaand ... we're back to "legitimate rape". And duplicitous or malicious or ashamed women who change their minds after sex. Classic rape culture clichés.
The NYPD had an audio recording of Weinstein admitting a prior assault. No charges were laid. Can we please dispense with the "oh, she should have stood up for herself" crap? One woman did. The New York legal system said, yeah, whatever, go away, sure, we can prove he did it but we'll never get a conviction.
I think the legal definitions of rape have been expanding way beyond the idea of physical force. For example, impersonating someone else can be classed as rape; ditto, refusing to withdraw during intercourse, where this has been agreed; and of course, women who are very drunk or otherwise out of it, cannot give consent. I think in some countries abuse of power can indicate that rape has been committed, and there are also emotional threats here.
Also, I think this is how rape of men is being construed, in part, that coercion need not be physical, but no doubt there is a whole area to do with persuasion that is grey.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I used the word "complicit," in reference to the people who ignored Courtney Love's accusations against Weinstein and went ahead to his party that night.
Or they showed poor judgment.
The victim in the rape trial I mentioned upthread certainly showed poor judgment...
I don't think that means she is not deserving of sympathy. She suffered greatly for her foolish choices. I doubt very much that she ever went off alone with a stranger again. Quite possibly there were other, more significant limitations on her personal freedom. I can acknowledge that she made foolish choices, while also being sympathetic and hopefully caring about what she suffered. She didn't deserve rape. And i can recognize that my own foolish choices could have led to similar horrible outcomes, had I not been as fortunate.
Of course it was still rape and of course he deserved to go to jail and of course she deserves sympathy.
I really wish people would stop addressing rape cases to me as if they were refuting something I said. Where on earth did I say or imply that a woman's bad choices mean she can not be a victim of rape deserving of sympathy and the full force of the law?
I expressed sympathy for Courtney Love and sorrow that more people didn't heed her warning because it might have saved some of the women we are hearing about today from being hurt? How in the world is that such a mean thing to say that I have to listen to you and others repeat rape case stories as though they are all my fault?
Clearly several of us heard the word "complicit" below as blaming.
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
[qb]
I used the word "complicit," in reference to the people who ignored Courtney Love's accusations against Weinstein and went ahead to his party that night.
Webster's defines "complicit": "helping to commit a crime or do wrong in some way He was complicit in the cover-up." So you can see why it felt like blaming. Given that you're talking about women who ended up getting either harassed, threatened, abused, or raped, you can see I hope why so many of us heard your use of the word "complicit" as unsympathetic to victims. My story about the rape trial was to illustrate the point you appear now to be trying to make-- that one can assess someone's behavior as foolish or even irresponsible, while still having sympathy for them. That assessment was not immediately apparent in your original posts, not just to me but apparently to several other posters as well.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I really wish people would stop addressing rape cases to me as if they were refuting something I said...
When your rape case doesn't seem to relate to anything I've said, it begins to seem like deliberate misunderstanding of my posts for the sake of being able to imply that I would have been sitting on that jury saying rape hadn't really taken place because she made bad choices. Next someone will say she was wearing a short skirt and I thought she was asking for it.
That's some twisted, sick manipulation even for you, Cliffdweller.
I want out of here, please ban me.
Well, clearly it's not just me as there were several posts in a row forming a similar interpretation of your use of "complicit", as your earlier remark indicates.
So are we ALL "deliberately" misunderstanding? For what goal? Are we ALL guilty of "twisted, sick manipulation"?
Or is it at least possible that not just I but several posters heard your use of "complicit" as blaming the victims (again, see definition of "complicit" upthread) not out of some hostile agenda to you personally but simply because that's the way the words read? It is at least possible that you were a tad sloppy in your writing, leading to that faulty interpretation. Dare I say... you were "complicit" in that misunderstanding?
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Just because not all coercive sex is necessarily rape doesn't mean coercive sex never meets the criteria for rape. It is by far the common form of rape. Grooming quite frequently means some people do not realise it was rape until long after.
ALL rape is violent. It is sexual violence by definition. The violence is the violation of the person. Most rapes are perpetrated by partners or family members, not a stranger in a dark alley. 'Only "violent rape" is real rape' is extremely damaging, particularly when grooming takes place over a long period of time.
I'm not a woman, and being transgender means that many prominent radical feminists aren't exactly very fond of me - saying that all rape is 'real rape' is not remotely suggesting that all PIV [penis in vagina] sex is rape (which is actually what is sometimes argued). I don't think that all sex workers are raped at work, but choosing between having sex with someone you're not attracted to and paying the bills blurs the consent lines to a huge degree. I am a big supporter of sex workers and their rights, but that doesn't mean not acknowledging the complexities of how consensual sex is if it becomes your job. It is really not OK to suggest that thinking that sexual exploitation of workers is bad somehow equals thinking women are weak - not least because of the subtext of equating experiencing abuse and exploitation with being weak and helpless.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
ALL rape is violent. It is sexual violence by definition. The violence is the violation of the person. Most rapes are perpetrated by partners or family members, not a stranger in a dark alley. 'Only "violent rape" is real rape' is extremely damaging, particularly when grooming takes place over a long period of time.
I'm not a woman, and being transgender means that many prominent radical feminists aren't exactly very fond of me - saying that all rape is 'real rape' is not remotely suggesting that all PIV [penis in vagina] sex is rape (which is actually what is sometimes argued). I don't think that all sex workers are raped at work, but choosing between having sex with someone you're not attracted to and paying the bills blurs the consent lines to a huge degree. I am a big supporter of sex workers and their rights, but that doesn't mean not acknowledging the complexities of how consensual sex is if it becomes your job. It is really not OK to suggest that thinking that sexual exploitation of workers is bad somehow equals thinking women are weak - not least because of the subtext of equating experiencing abuse and exploitation with being weak and helpless.
Really thoughtful & helpful distinctions.
[ 19. October 2017, 15:52: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Age tends to come with a degree of authority and can accentuate a power imbalance, and there is the question of likelihood of reciprocal attraction as opposed to simple ogling.
We are all familiar with couples with an old, rich man married to a much younger, attractive woman. We tend to suspect that many of these relationships are often not exactly the marriage of true minds, but a quid pro quo arrangement: he spends lots of quid and gets access to her quo.
But if there's no coercion involved, how much should I care? Two adults making free choices should be nobody else's business. But if the financial situation makes those choices not entirely free? For every empowered woman choosing high-class prostitution as a rational way of making money, there are a hundred women with few choices and few options who are being exploited. And sure - many of those who are being exploited are still making rational choices given their circumstances.
Exploitation is a continuum. Some of the allegations against Weinstein are rape. Most of them are an abuse of power that would get me summarily dismissed were I to do anything like that at work, but don't rise to the level of criminality. But when we're talking about rich men who are their own boss, is there an ethical difference between offering someone work for sex and acquiring an attractive young wife / girlfriend with your money?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Indeed, the first lady has implied in an interview that their marriage is based on precisely that quid-pro-quo.
The continuum observation is spot on. It runs from behaviors we might deem "objectionable" or "immoral" but are more or less freely chosen and therefore legal (quid-pro-quo arrangements) to those that are, in fact, illegal because of the level of force involved.
It should be noted, though, that when it comes to quid-pro-quo workplace arrangements such as Weinstein entered into, the problem is not just one of consent-- it's rather the unethical and illegal discrimination that causes for those who don't chose to enter into those arrangements. If Weinstein rewards his quid-pro-quo partners, even if these are fully consensual, with plum roles in his productions, that means some other actor somewhere who was unwilling to enter into those quid-pro-quo arrangements did not get the role. That is discriminatory, and is and should be illegal.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
And the fact remains that actors are not prostitutes. If they are expected to have to prostitute themselves in order to gain work in their chosen profession, then that is wrong, in the same way it would be wrong for someone to have to prostitute themselves in order to work as a doctor, a lawyer, as serving staff at a restaurant, or as a police officer, or to access education, healthcare, government services as a member of the public.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Do you honestly believe no woman in Hollywood ever exchanged sexual favors for other favors? Do you not know that there are women in this world who are self-determining and have made a conscious decision to use sex, when needed, to get what they want out of life?
Do you see no difference between an actor voluntarily saying to a producer, "If you cast me as X in your upcoming movie, I'll sleep with you" and a producer saying to an actor, "Sleep with me if you expect to work in my movie?"
[ 19. October 2017, 16:49: Message edited by: Ohher ]
--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free
Posts: 374 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
Do you see no difference between an actor voluntarily saying to a producer, "If you cast me as X in your upcoming movie, I'll sleep with you" and a producer saying to an actor, "Sleep with me if you expect to work in my movie?"
In the first case, do actors who do not "voluntarily" offer to sleep with the producer get parts? Because if all the best parts are getting traded in a part-for-sex deal, I'm not sure it makes too much difference who initiated the trade.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607
|
Posted
My personal knowledge of the film industry's mores is minimal, but I have friends in the TV branch. According to them, an actor's volunteering to sleep with a powerful producer to get a role would generate a gigantic horse-laugh.
--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free
Posts: 374 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Do you honestly believe no woman in Hollywood ever exchanged sexual favors for other favors? Do you not know that there are women in this world who are self-determining and have made a conscious decision to use sex, when needed, to get what they want out of life?
Nearly as rare as unicorns, IME. And bullshit anyway, bringing it up in this discussion as Weinstein is clearly a predator.¹
[/QB][/QUOTE]
Are there any types of sex you don't see as rape? Are prostitutes all rape victims, coerced with money?[/QB][/QUOTE]Look around the world. Whilst you might find the few exceptions, most prostitutes are not people who've decided to use their love of sex to make money.
quote:
This third wave feminism that poses every woman as a helpless victim of big bad men is so offensive to my second wave feminism that poses women as men's equals in all areas -- including some areas that aren't always nice.
Rubbish. Modern feminism poses that women should be treated as equal but still are not. It is called reality.
¹He's admitted so, just not to all the charges.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
Do you see no difference between an actor voluntarily saying to a producer, "If you cast me as X in your upcoming movie, I'll sleep with you" and a producer saying to an actor, "Sleep with me if you expect to work in my movie?"
Except in this case, the producer is saying to the actor "Sleep with me if you expect to work ever again."
If it was one shitty part in one shitty movie with one shitty producer, the problem would be magnitudes smaller. It wasn't, and it isn't.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
But when we're talking about rich men who are their own boss, is there an ethical difference between offering someone work for sex and acquiring an attractive young wife / girlfriend with your money?
Yes. Jesus Christ on a fucking pogo stick, you cannot see this?
A woman isn't ruined as a potential wife for everyone else if she doesn't accept the old man's ring.¹
The May-December agreement, tacit or direct, is just that; an agreement. Victims of the casting couch are given promises that do not always materialise.² Any complaints, career over.
One is an agreement AND ONE IS FUCKING COERCION!
¹Or whatever gender mix.
²More often than not, they don't.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A wise friend of mine reflects on this, and points out that it's not that women don't testify, or even that they are not believed. It's that women matter less than men.
Except male victims are disbelieved every bit as badly, and female perpetrators get the benefit of the doubt at least as much as male ones.
Yeah, much of that is also part of patriarchy. Men are treated as less than men (i.e. women) if they have been victims.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Host
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Don't put shit in quotes that I didn't say, you fucking moron.
Twilight, if you need to take a break from this thread, then take a break.
If you want to stop posting on this forum altogether, then I for one will regret it, but that's your choice.
While you are still here, though, please respect the rules. Personal attacks are not allowed outside Hell.
Eliab
Purgatory host
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Don't put shit in quotes that I didn't say, you fucking moron.
She didn't. Those were what are called scare quotes or sneer quotes. They are used to add question to the validity of the terms so enclosed.
This is a practice that is exceedingly common on SOF.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yeah, much of that is also part of patriarchy. Men are treated as less than men (i.e. women) if they have been victims.
I partly agree, although I'd add that male victims can be seen as failing both gender roles. But that discussion would probably pull us too far from Weinstein and his victims.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607
|
Posted
Sadly, we seem to live in a culture which assigns people to strict categories. Women can only be virgins or whores, and men can only be heroes, but never victims. I'm reminded of a book I read back in the 70s or 80s -- The Hazards of Being Male.
--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free
Posts: 374 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
That's some twisted, sick manipulation
Eh, I'm with ya here Twilight. I've been staying out of this discussion in spite of having a bunch of stuff to say in response to various posts precisely because I had a pretty good idea how the discussion was going to go and because seemingly deliberate misreadings of things I've said have had such a severe impact on my real life that it hasn't seem worth worth banging my head against the same brick wall again.
But maybe I'll post more a bit later when time/Internet connection aren't factors.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't get the quote either
It was a response to your pathetic, snobby, virtue-signalling jibe at the Reader's Digest.
No, the RD is not The New York Review of Books, but when it came to communism, it displayed far greater insight than some more sophisticated publications.
It is like deriding an ordinary anti-fascist because they did not carry the same cultural clout as high-profile compromisers with Nazism such as Herbert von Karajan or Martin Heidegger.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And frankly, I'm not really that interested.
Only enough to keep it running, do research into it, and run a solid post on it.
"Frankly"?
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't get the quote either
It was a response to your pathetic, snobby, virtue-signalling jibe at the Reader's Digest.
1. Take it up with Douglas Adams, it's his quote.
2. It's not a snobby, virtue-signalling jibe at the Reader's Digest. It's a jibe at people who speak in aphorisms. Maybe you don't know anything about the RD. That seems likely from what you've posted about it. I do because I read it for decades. There is a section for witty but ultimately aphorisms. Arthur Dent was saying that Ford Prefect's witty aphorism ("Time is an illusion; lunchtime doubly so") is fodder for that sort of collection that's in the RD. The point is not to attack the RD, but to use the RD as an example of a ...
Oh fuck it. Why do I even bother?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It was a response to your pathetic, snobby, virtue-signalling jibe at the Reader's Digest.
Oh I see. What you mean is that you used google and ripped a line from a debate out of context and thought to yourself "oh, I'll just that" without understanding what it was actually about. And then you somehow think this is a slam-dunk for your argument.
quote:
No, the RD is not The New York Review of Books, but when it came to communism, it displayed far greater insight than some more sophisticated publications.
If you read the link I provided above, you'll see that this was what the whole debate was about - and it is in no way a proven truth.
In contrast the Douglas Adams quote is clearly a joke and the context of the comment is a ridiculous novel where one of the characters tortures another with terrible poetry.
quote:
It is like deriding an ordinary anti-fascist because they did not carry the same cultural clout as high-profile compromisers with Nazism such as Herbert von Karajan or Martin Heidegger.
Why would one deride someone because they were not a famous Nazi compromiser? That sentence makes no sense. What actually are you on about?
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And frankly, I'm not really that interested.
Only enough to keep it running, do research into it, and run a solid post on it.
Only interested to the extent of doing the minimum one might expect someone else to do if they're introducing something said by someone into a discussion that is supposed to be a slam-dunk for their argument.
quote:
"Frankly"?
Yeah, because to be absolutely frank, it appears to be a long and complicated discussion touching on various issues, including the egos of various high-profile writers, 30-plus years ago.
I can't be bothered to try to untangle who said what to whom, which would obviously take more effort than finding a single article explaining the context of your quote.
But then I suppose at least I'll have the comfort of knowing that you definitely can't be bothered to do this either and that you've only used this quote as a quick-fire response without having the foggiest clue what it is about.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Maybe you don't know anything about the RD. That seems likely from what you've posted about it. I do because I read it for decades.
Go and teach your grandmother to suck eggs.
I grew up on the Reader's Digest.
It was a lowbrow, popular magazine, and because of this (and because of its anti-communism, which was unfashionable amongst the bien pensant) it was ridiculed by intellectually pretentious pseuds.
Hence the point of Sontag's comment (which Mr Cheesy still doesn't get).
quote:
Why do I even bother?
Good question.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
ripped a line from a debate out of context and thought to yourself "oh, I'll just that" without understanding what it was actually about.
you've only used this quote as a quick-fire response without having the foggiest clue what it is about.
I can't be bothered to try to untangle who said what to whom
That last comment says it all.
This is possibly the most puerile and transparent defence mechanism I have ever encountered:-
"Someone has mentioned an event about which I know nothing, so in order to cover up my ignorance I will respond with a meaningless, knee-jerk tu quoque".
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Maybe you don't know anything about the RD. That seems likely from what you've posted about it. I do because I read it for decades.
Go and teach your grandmother to suck eggs.
My grandmother's as dead as your brain.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
There's a great public radio show called "The World". Helps us ignorant Americans keep in touch with what's going on elsewhere. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Friday, they did something special, and devoted the whole hour to:
"Sexual harassment at work is a global problem. Now, the world is finally talking about it." (PRI)
It was mostly women, talking to women from all over, about how pervasive and devastating the problem is. Marco, the main host, was there, but he took a back seat for this one.
I highly recommend this. The page has both audio and text summary for each segment.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Host
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
My grandmother's as dead as your brain.
What is it with this thread that it keeps on drawing personal attacks from people who should know better?
Take it to Hell, or don't post it.
I'm beginning to think that this thread has reached the end of its useful life and is now more trouble than it's worth. If people want to resume semi-civilised discussion, then feel free, otherwise this thread will be closed.
Eliab
Purgatory host
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Eliab--
Respectfully, the thread deals with a new-to-the-news situation, with frequent breaking news. It's a really important topic--basically, social justice.
Please keep the thread open.
Thx. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[ 22. October 2017, 02:31: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ohher
Shipmate
# 18607
|
Posted
I can't speak to the issue of personal attacks, but hope the thread can stay open.
--------------------
From the Land of the Native American Brave and the Home of the Buy-One-Get-One-Free
Posts: 374 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
