Well, Terry Crews did, but he didn't name the executive (that I've seen).
That was odd -- he said he'd told everyone who works with the guy, but still wasn't willing to tweet his name.
Also, good lord. Someone who's willing to grope Terry Crews is really, really convinced of his own complete impunity.
Come to think, with both Cosby and Weinstein, people have pulled out public jokes from long before the story really broke: 30 Rock had a Cosby joke (he raped Tracy Jordan's aunt) after one of the first public accusations, but long before people took it all seriously, and also 30 Rock had a Weinstein joke, as did Seth McFarlane at the Oscars.
So, who else in Hollywood are people making sexual harassment jokes about? Or, I guess, just ask Tina Fey?
We had talked about Cosby here before it really broke.
I think I've heard jokes that Mel Gibson might be antisemitic and misogynistic.
But we'll probably never know for certain.
David Letterman? Some of it came out in 2009, I didn't register at the time, but from the way the headlines are written it seems to have been defused in the media by the counteraccusation that he had been the victim of an extortion attempt. Don't know if there was a final reckoning or just a settlement, or what else that might bespeak.
Perfect time for Louis C.K.
I feel like Hugh Hefner objectified women, but perhaps I just don't understand pedestal-putting.
A woman needs a pedestal like a vase needs a bicycle.
I thought the Louis C.K. allegations were pretty well established. It's just that somehow people decided there weren't going to be any consequences for some reason.
Was it Letterman who had the secret sex attic above his studio?
12: It's a lot like the limbo period for Cosby, right? It's well-established for those who care to find out, but no big outlet has treated it as headline news, which is tantamount to, as you say, a no-consequences decision.
Just having an attic for sex isn't necessarily a problem. I don't know how he populated the attic.
An attic isn't morally distinct from a grotto.
Now reading the 2009 Vanity Fair on Letterman and looking for the coded language I now know can pop up when writers don't have proof.
The nut graph at the top says "start by breaking late night's all-male gag order". Reading between the lines there, would anyone be at all surprised at Leno or his ilk?
A grattic is just a nother word for your gritty sex hole.
This thread is on the knife-edge between being morally responsible and being no fun unless you can throw out preposterous unfounded accusations. Maybe we can speculate about specific industries rather than people. Entertainment is obviously structured to reward this behavior hugely. Academia, politics, and religion all provide abusers with great opportunities for public hypocrisy. Where else do sexual predators get to whitewash their reputations so effectively?
I thought Tom Brokaw was kind of notorious back in the day, but Google isn't backing me up on that.
There's a "Greatest Generation" joke in there.
Senior partners at law firms mostly aren't famous enough to warrant media scrutiny. And I'd imagine most of the worst offenders found their way out the door by the late 90s at the latest. Not that there aren't plenty of petty abuses of power, but the kind of serial, dominance-exercise, I've-got-total-immunity kind of thing we see with HW is likely a thing of the past. Lawyers?
Where else do sexual predators get to whitewash their reputations so effectively?
Anywhere.
I'm a little irked that more powerful women didn't say anything until less powerful women had already taken the risk. Paltrow and Jolie weren't big enough for immunity? They couldn't have raised this themselves, before Judd and McGowen did? I guess they didn't have a recent precipitating incident, but speaking up second isn't covering themselves with bravery either.
No one ever says 'I have all the money I'll need for this life, so here goes.'?
?No one ever says 'I have all the money I'll need for this life, so here goes.'?
Gah. I know. What is wrong with people that they apparently think they don't yet have enough money?
There's no amount of money that could really compensate for being that close to the source of so much Coldplay music.
I don't know any Weinstein-type stories from law firms. The misconduct I knew about was all people having affairs who shouldn't have been, rather than serial groping/hassling.
Also, why does Weinstein pronounce his name "Winesteen"? It should be "Winestine", shouldn't it?
Paltrow and Jolie weren't big enough for immunity?
I find this somewhat astonishing. Of course they weren't too big to have to worry about what kinds of roles they would get, especially as they've aged.
And they don't just have to worry about whether asshole producers are going to employ them, they have to be concerned, all the time, about their public image. Every day. Whistleblower isn't necessarily the public profile of which dreams are made.
Charley, but surely: they have enough money to retire altogether entirely, right? I suppose if they would not like to retire, but would like to continue acting, they might not wish to do that, but still.
30: I don't have a clear view of the culpability of Platrow or Jolie, but "It would interfere with their ability to be movie stars" is not the most inspiring reason I've ever heard.
I must say it would still look pretty yucky, along the lines of: okay, I kept quiet for decades, but now I've made enough money, I'll mention this thing about Harvey Weinstein.
Well, the burden fell to less powerful women, some of whom stepped up.
Like how Frodo had to walk all the way into Mordor because the Eagles weren't going to help until after the deed was done.
What's his name leaving America's Test Kitchen was certainly weird enough I could see something having happened (though maybe only a new wife - which I thought was Letterman's thing?).
In my part of academia, the sexual and other harassment in Antarctica story (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/disturbing-allegations-sexual-harassment-antarctica-leveled-noted-scientist) just came out and named names. Of course, named person hasn't suffered repercussions thus far and as far as I can tell.
I sincerely doubt that whether they had enough money was any part of their motivation. I don't know these particular women, but based on the many humans I do know, I would guess that their identities are pretty wrapped up in their jobs.
For decades it would have been a kamikaze mission. The wheel has turned enough so right now, it isn't.* I really do not feel competent to judge whether someone who decides to let that cup pass is a coward or too self-centered for words, or whatever. The fact is that all the blame belongs to the perpetrators.
* With this particular particularly egregious guy, at least. Contrary to the OP, offer may not be valid for all customers.
34 Some very brave women, who deserve all the celebration for that bravery that comes their way.
36.2: That story is so hellish. As if being in Ant-frickin-arctica isn't hard enough. Note that one of the accusers explicitly waited until she had tenure, many years later. I don't blame her.
I really do not feel competent to judge whether someone who decides to let that cup pass is a coward or too self-centered for words, or whatever. The fact is that all the blame belongs to the perpetrators.
This seems completely right to me.
And before blame sticks to the other women it sticks to other Weinstein executives, who routinely had to sit on meetings because women refused to be alone with him, and apparently didn't take any effective action.
For what it's worth, it has been pointed out that official, legal remedies regarding sexual harassment, or downright predatory practices, are off the table for independent contractors -- as most actors are. All the more reason to resist the so-called "gig economy" in other realms.
It might be worth it to actually watch next year's Oscar show, just to see how much applause "Harvey Weinstein's Career" gets during the Death Montage.
I hope they do Abe Vigoda again too.
What's his name leaving America's Test Kitchen was certainly weird enough I could see something having happened (though maybe only a new wife - which I thought was Letterman's thing?)
No idea who this is referring to, but something like this would explain the storyline on Master of None this season.
All the more reason to resist the so-called "gig economy" in other realms.
Or to fight for all the normal safety net protections to be extended to all laborers.
24: I think there are a few different scenarios. There are the guys for whom "boys will be boys" is all anyone says to excuse them, and they do their thing. To some extent Trump falls in this category. There are men who point to all their good works and express amazement that these petty, vindictive women would jeopardize their legacy: these are the hypocrites. There's probably an antifeminist-moralism thing that goes in at places like Fox News, where good conservative girls are supposed to put up with anything with grace and not be like those troublemakers across the aisle. Many flavors.
Distrust of powerful women crosses all sorts of lines in society, though, that's for sure.
it sticks to other Weinstein executives
Absolutely.
12, 14: On Weinstein, this podcast says LA reporters have known and been chasing for years, but until now no-one could get people on the record. When someone can intimidate witnesses, and has money to sue, it can't be easy to break a story like this. OTOH, they could be bullshitting; interesting the story was broken by a NY paper.
I think it's a little too easy to talk about how other people should be willing to sacrifice their life's work in a probably futile effort to promote justice.
As the OP suggests, we know there are a ton of abusers out there whose crimes and misdemeanors are widely known. I worked with one myself -- until he fired me. (I'm male and wasn't a victim. I was fired for whistleblowing in a different context.)
His boss was a woman who knew goddam well what was going on -- but she wasn't willing to risk her career to call out a subordinate who had considerable influence with her boss, and purely as a prudential matter, there was a good chance she was right. It probably would have cost her the job, and possibly her career.
She apparently was finally able to bust him, though. He ended up leaving to spend more time with his family, but it took several years of his escalating misbehavior for him to finally make his position untenable.
It's funny how suddenly (and seemingly arbitrarily) our attitudes change about sexual predators. That Bill Cosby had been accused of rape by numerous women was well-known for years, but we kind of just collectively agreed it was okay. Then the Hannibal Buress video came out and suddenly (and to my thinking, unexpectedly) we changed our minds.
Harvey Weinstein's predatory behavior was probably also a well-known fact (although I wasn't personally aware of it, as I was about Bill Cosby). It wasn't predictable that the American public would turn on Harvey Weinstein, just as it wasn't predictable that we would have changed our minds about Bill Cosby after the Hannibal Buress video. We are still mostly okay with Roman Polanski (just the other day I saw an article euphemistically describing his forcible rape of a child as "unlawful sex with a minor"). We're still okay with Louis CK and probably a bunch of other male celebrities. I don't think it's reasonable to expect women to be brave enough to come out and accuse predators of their bad behavior, when the public has such an inconsistent record of believing the accusations or, even if we believe, caring about them.
It's great she was able to bust him for his sexual harassment so the company could get back to doing whatever it was you whistle-blew on them for.
Also, why's it gotta be the women? Why are Paltrow and Jolie supposed to come forward, when I'll bet there are a lot of men who also knew what was happening, and haven't said a peep? Why aren't we bothered that Brad Pitt hasn't come forward with what he knew? I'll bet David Glasser and Bob Weinstein weren't ignorant of what was going on.
I think the Roman Polanski thing, plausibly there are people who don't know the details. I knew 'statutory rape', but until whenever the story came up a few years ago, I assumed that meant 'consensual' sex with a sixteen-year old: the sort of thing that was sort of 'gross, but it was the seventies'. I was shocked by the actual story.
52: It all came out reasonably well for me, by the way. The legal process got me my job back, and when I left seven years later, I left on my own terms.
Although it was technically the harasser that fired me, it was actually his boss -- the woman I'm talking about, the one who eventually ousted the harasser -- who was the real villain in my case.
I worked/work in one of those professions that people sanctimoniously think of as "callings" -- not really analogous to being a movie star; more like being an academic, but probably with less protection. In that kind of environment, it's easy to be frightened, and easy to be convinced of the futility of trying to make anything better. I don't have any real resentment toward all of the people who didn't stand up for me when I got fired.
(I probably wouldn't have bothered writing 50 if I had read Charley first. Charley gets it.)
I'd go so far as to say that it's impossible for these charges to stick *until* we've collectively made the switch from acceptable to unacceptable. No matter who it was, any one person who tried to come forward would be thoroughly ignored. Even multiple people. David Simon tried to show us.
53,54: Yeah. Regulating men's sexual behavior is women's work. The fact that they can't really do it is a feature, not a bug, of this particular social system. I understand making the appeal that, if everything is going to turn out shit no matter what, you might as well go big -- but it really is likely to turn out shit no matter what.
55. But the information is out there -- it's known, it's available, and some media outlets have accurately reported the facts. Yet most people, including reporters, persist in not caring. In 2009, a hundred people working in film signed a petition to free Roman Polanski after his arrest in Switzerland. Presumably at least a few of them bothered to look up what he was accused of before they publicly put their name on this document.
Having just looked up the document to write the above, I'm shocked to see that the signatories include Woody Allen, Asia Argento, and Tilda Swinton.
Truly, most of the time, people just don't care about the horrible behavior of celebrities.
I don't know the Polanski details, but I have read the (adult) victim is on record as being at peace and wanting to put the thing behind her permanently. That may color people's perceptions.
Though 60 last is totally true.
and when I left seven years later, I left on my own terms
Two beers and inflate the slide.
"I bounced twice," he added with a faint touch of pride.
60.2: THE HEART, AND THAT OTHER ORGAN, WANT WHAT THEY WANT.
65: Did I ever mention that in the course of the tearful conversation where [John] told me he was leaving me for his business partner, he said "The heart wants what it wants"? I cracked up and told him that he probably didn't remember who he was quoting from. Oddly, he didn't think it was funny even when I told him.
Some people have no sense of humor.
At this point, if you're a male philosopher of language I just assume you're a lecher.
61: Why are you under the impression there is one victim? I am failing utterly at the html for this, but have an ugly link.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-polanski-allegations-20170815-story.html
61. I would bet that many victims of sexual violence would prefer to put the ordeal behind them rather than rehash the incident in the courts and subject themselves to a lot of unfair and unpleasant scrutiny. Especially when the perpetrator is famous and powerful. That's not a good reason to be more forgiving of the perp.
At this point, if you're a male philosopher of language I just assume you're a lecher.
Also, regarding who should have stepped forward: I wonder whether even the women with fuck-you money were worried about costly legal action or had signed paperwork preventing them from speaking out. It looks like Weinstein was pretty careful.
Sharing the love for 66.
70 is right. What's astonishing is that so many men feel absolutely entitled to impose their lechery on any woman who crosses their path, and how difficult it is to change that mindset.
The women staying quiet could also be suffering under (or still feeling implicated in) abuse from powerful men other than Weinstein.
71: Also very real reputational risk. It's awfully easy for even relatively powerful women who challenge powerful men to be written off as nasty slutty sluts trying to extort settlements/advance their careers/cover up for sleeping their way to the top/whatever.
The Polanski situation interacts with some very weird journalistic conventions about how you talk about people accused of crimes. So you get people talking about an "alleged shooter" in situations where there's video of the person shooting just because they're not convicted yet. Newspapers are thus inclined to refer to Polanski as committing the crime that he plead down to, rather than as committing the acts that he actually did.
66: Your life as my art: http://www.technologytell.com/entertainment/58304/girls-many-meanings-heart-wants-wants/
Letterman just slept with staffers, which isn't great, but I don't recall allegations that he pressured them beyond just being the boss. Louis CK is a lot more troubling, and I kind of wonder if people just want him to stick around, and so there hasn't been a critical mass of condemnation. If the stories are true, he surely deserves it, and maybe we'll get it after he releases a few unfunny specials. (Sadly, he's still fucking hilarious.)
Of course I'm not blaming anyone who doesn't speak out, but I would have thought that there are always some people who are on the verge of speaking out about these things, and boy, this would be the time.
What about Corey Feldman's accusations that there's a ring of powerful pedophiles in Hollywood. Man, you want that not to be true, but I also wouldn't be surprised.
79.last: Is that referring to Bryan Singer?
Has there been a direct accusation of CK yet, or is it still just rumors?
There's some stuff coming out about Ben Affleck today.
79.1: I find it pretty unlikely one would find nothing more objectionable than "affairs" (implying fully mutual and consenting, etc.) when in such asymmetric power environments. Not impossible, but outside a court of law, it's not what I'd expect.
70: Some of us just have Resting Lech Face.
83: I'm certainly not saying that what I knew about was all the worst things that happened. Just that I wasn't aware of, e.g., partners who were dangerous to be alone with.
Oh, duh, that wasn't to me talking about law firms. Never mind.
I am by no means an authority, as will become clear, but the comedian who originally described her experience with a person who sounded Louis Ck-like has since said it was not CK, no way, how could anyone think that.
The original CK identification was done, second-hand, by some site or other, I want to say Jezebel.
Anyone who steps up now will be accused of taking advantage of Weinstein's fall to get more publicity. Not that those accusations will be anything but reflexive, but it's a risk for anyone in Hollywood*, because loyalty (meaning, "lie down and pretend to enjoy it") is all-important out there. The people who never got another Miramax film due to non-compliance also never got much in the way of films from other producers.
*Not just Hollywood, for that matter.
88.last: Try saying "Jez, a bell" really fast.
CK link
http://www.vulture.com/2017/08/tig-notaro-wants-louis-c-k-to-handle-sex-harassment-rumors.html
Also, Michael Bay, Victor Salva, Bryan Singer...
Maybe it would be easier to make a list of very powerful men who aren't monsters.
this story explains how weinstein would slime his accusers using the media- he likely sent something to the post about who is likely ashley judd right before the nyt story
Why are you under the impression there is one victim?
Because I wasn't paying attention. Which doesn't excuse the people signing the petition.
69: That's not a good reason to be more forgiving of the perp.
Comity; but it is *a* reason.
I don't get it. I mean honestly I would leave anyone for Selena Gomez.
98.1: My point is that it would be more, not less, surprising if there was one victim. My general assumption is that for every sexual assault you hear about perpetrated by a powerful man, there are more you don't.
At least in my case, it was because I wasn't applying assumptions about powerful men who perpetrate sexual assault until after I read that he drugged her. I don't think I ever heard that part until sometime after the Woody Allen thing happened.
Since it popped up in my LJ feed yesterday, here is the story (in comments) about how LJ user clittypatra tracked down a copy of the Ben Affleck video on a couple of celebrity porn sites, based on descriptions of people remembering the show (it had been scrubbed from the show's online archives, apparently, but not before others had copied it years ago). That said, the footage of the groping incident goes by so fast that I couldn't tell that anything untoward had happened (which is, I guess, the point of how guys can get away with this on camera); it's the subsequent footage of Hilarie Burton talking later about what he did to her that provides the context.
I am by no means an authority, as will become clear, but the comedian who originally described her experience with a person who sounded Louis Ck-like has since said it was not CK, no way, how could anyone think that.
Unless we're talking about different comedians, because multiple have talked about him, directly and indirectly, that's not quite it. Kirkman's stance is that she was talking about CK, but only about rumours about him, not something he had inflicted upon her.
There was a famous reality game show host last year and like 50 women accused him of various types of sexual assault and harassment. The E! Network even had audio tape of the guy bragging about it.
It was all over the news for a while but all that happened to him was that he got a promotion.
WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON
Maybe not such a great pseud for the "who are the powerful sex perverts?" thread.
Maybe not such a great pseud for the "who are the powerful sex perverts?" thread.
Louis CK sure seems to get Weinstein-level protection, at least.
Here's an example of the dynamic ogged was looking for in the OP.
The lead pastor of the SF Unitarian Universalist Congregation ca. 2013. White, straight, male, Boomer. Complaints from multiple women, both staff and congregants. Placed on leave during third party investigation. Board feared he'd sue if they fired him, so they welcomed back. Congregation applauded.
Wow. I was worried I was acquainted with the guy in 111, but on research I'm not.
Man. You'd think you could trust Unitarians.
That's more or less what I meant in 20.last. How much self-deception is involved in the moral bookkeeping varies
UUs have a culture that I would think would affirmatively celebrate speaking up about sexual harassment. Maybe the problem is that institutions suck.
There seemed to be an authoritarian follower dynamic going on. Protect the institution against any threat, and if women are speaking out against the leader, they are a threat. Response: tell a female staff member she "reacted poorly" and dismiss a female congregant as pretty much off her rocker. UUs do a good job of talking the talk, but the walk reflects the interests of who holds the power -- well-off older whites.
Unity is important to them, is what you're saying?