|
precision posted:Nobody is discounting that there are more men in power in certain fields, especially Hollywood. To me that's justification enough to make a post where I specify that "men" should do something without having to get into a semantic argument about it. Really though, it'd be great to turn the entire thing around and make it so women were equally paid for their work and had many more powerful positions in all of these industries, but I thought maybe at least for now we could settle for just not sexually harassing and assaulting them. Basebf555 fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Nov 22, 2017 |
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 22:06 |
|
|
The argument only started when your response was to say men are the primary issue. They're just the issue people are more comfortable speaking about. But I'm sorry for the derail.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:To me that's justification enough to make a post where I specify that "men" should do something without having to get into a semantic argument about it. I wasn't taking issue with your points, but to Timeless Appeal seemingly saying that sexual misconduct is, not only gendered by nature, but specifically gendered to be a male issue, and then going on to imply that we don't know if women in power would do the same things, when they provably can and have done.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
Women obviously have sexually abused men (and children and other women) and we do have a lot of improving to do as a society. But along with the fact that men are more likely to be in positions of power, I do think that men are more likely to be taught that sex is in itself an "accomplishment" or even a "conquest". Women who have a lot of sex are often shamed for lacking self-control or "giving it up", men who have a lot of sex are often seen as better and more desirable accomplished men (ie the dumb slut/stud or lock/key dichotomy). It's all over Hollywood/media in particular and society in general, including this forum. Its why men are so much more likely to buy into PUA garbage. Not that women are better people (not remotely), but men are more likely to be fed and internalize a specifically warped attitude towards sex/power. ime.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
precision posted:I wasn't taking issue with your points, but to Timeless Appeal seemingly saying that sexual misconduct is, not only gendered by nature, but specifically gendered to be a male issue, and then going on to imply that we don't know if women in power would do the same things, when they provably can and have done. I thank you for being frank about your own experiences, and I get how it can feel that your experience is being discounted. But I'm sorry, individual stories of what is statistically outlier behavior is not enough to make the claim that women in power abuse equally to men. Honestly, I think there is a bigger misunderstanding about the problem in Hollywood and in general. I think we're drawing this parallel between power corrupting and being responsible for what these men did, and I don't think that's true either. Speaking as a dude sexually harassed working for a TV show, the harassment I received came from people in lower ranks. I don't think the belief that we have a society that has made many, many men dangerously predisposed to sexually harassing, assaulting, and humiliating others is naive or sexist nor does it discount the fact that yes, some women do abuse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:I thank you for being frank about your own experiences, and I get how it can feel that your experience is being discounted. But I'm sorry, individual stories of what is statistically outlier behavior is not enough to make the claim that women in power abuse equally to men. If you discount "individual stories of what is statistically outlier behavior" then we're not left with any evidence that men in power are abusive either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:If you discount "individual stories of what is statistically outlier behavior" then we're not left with any evidence that men in power are abusive either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
This is a complex problem with many contributing factors. Sexism and institutional misogyny are absolutely factors, and so is power. So it's mostly powerful men but some lower down the pole also get away with bad behavior, and it's mostly men but some women engage in this as well. And there's also often a racial angle, vis how Terry Crews was grabbed in public but couldn't react because of his being a muscular black man.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I think what people more react to is that the offenses are wildly disproportionate. The reaction is. Women have grabbed my rear end, dick, and lifted up my shirt to see my body in public; I get inappropriately grabbed and hugged or kissed once a week, at least, etc...but I don't care because I've been socialized not to care. Whoever the sexual aggressor.is, in any given instance, is normally really bad at doing it - its just that sexism socializes differently, so more men are in the position to do it and men brush it iff easier on average from women than vice versa. For the wide conversation, I don't talk about the hundreds of times a woman has grabbed me because I have been socialized to view it as a compliment, and have the power and socialized agency to stop it. That's really what the difference is. Darko fucked around with this message at 03:06 on Nov 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
I have been harassed, but I have never felt in danger for my safety, which I think is a big difference between sexual harassment by men and sexual harassment by women. I am sure that there are cases when men are in danger from women, but I would never argue that it happens to men as often as it does to women.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:I have been harassed, but I have never felt in danger for my safety, which I think is a big difference between sexual harassment by men and sexual harassment by women. That's what I was alluding to as well in the general statement. I'm 6 feet and in decent to good shape for a man; I only feel in danger of a woman lying on me and getting men after me. Same with business; even if I lose a job for harassment, as a man, I feel confident that I can equal out elsewhere. Two advantages women don't have, outside of being socialized to be more than sex objects, which is why it is different. But both sexes do often do that "front end" harassment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 03:05
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:I have been harassed, but I have never felt in danger for my safety, which I think is a big difference between sexual harassment by men and sexual harassment by women.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
Steve Yun posted:I have been harassed, but I have never felt in danger for my safety, which I think is a big difference between sexual harassment by men and sexual harassment by women. While that's true I think that's not within the scope of what this thread is about, is it? Do you think the women involved with CK felt in danger? Framing sexual harassment or assault as a problem with "danger" attached ignores a vast swath of inappropriate behavior, and I know that's not what you intended.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
I would argue that a lot of sexual harassment that doesn't directly involve physical violence or even touching still comes with an implied threat of power. What CK did serves to make his victims feel powerless. He is turning them into objects for him to jerk off to and they cannot stop it which welcomes the question of what else is he willing to do and can you stop him from doing that. The dehumanization of others always carries a certain level of threat with it. \Maxwell Lord posted:This is a complex problem with many contributing factors. Sexism and institutional misogyny are absolutely factors, and so is power. So it's mostly powerful men but some lower down the pole also get away with bad behavior, and it's mostly men but some women engage in this as well. And there's also often a racial angle, vis how Terry Crews was grabbed in public but couldn't react because of his being a muscular black man. While it might sound naive to say this, we do have to acknowledge that there legitimately are people in power who live everyday not trying to sexually humiliate or intimidate others. Power enables monsters more than it creates them. Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Nov 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
I'm not entirely sure you're seeing the issue with power. The issue with CK is not his kink in itself, it's that his relative power due to being more far more famous/ingrained than the comedians that he asked consent from - removed their consent. A "yes" with a possibility of someone's life being affected by saying "no" is not necessarily a yes, and that's where the problem/power comes into play. It wouldn't matter if CK asked to have sex with them or masturbate them or whatever - the offense would be the same. This is a rather universal problem in that plenty of guys try to hook up with juniors in every possible field - and they STILL don't see the issue because people are focusing mainly on kink-shaming in that case as opposed to literally what Louis CK spelled out in his statement. Men are more likely to be more successful than women in general in any particular field, and with that success comes a degree of implied financial/life control over less successful women in specific circumstances. That's where the implied power difference lies. The reverse is far more rarely the case. Just by numbers, there are just less numbers of female supervisors/bosses/seniors/mentors trying to hook up with male juniors than the reverse, since there are just less numbers of women in those positions. That's not even getting into the issue of physical power/strength/intimidation that also comes into play.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:I would argue that a lot of sexual harassment that doesn't directly involve physical violence or even touching still comes with an implied threat of power. What CK did serves to make his victims feel powerless. He is turning them into objects for him to jerk off to and they cannot stop it which welcomes the question of what else is he willing to do and can you stop him from doing that. The dehumanization of others always carries a certain level of threat with it. I absolutely agree, I was just asking about the threat of actual physical danger (eg being beat up or killed). I'm not trying to get into whether one thing is worse than another, just saying that even in cases where there is no physical danger, the implications can be just as bad if not moreso. When I've been sexually abused/assaulted, I never felt remotely in physical danger, whether it was a woman or a man; that doesn't mean I didn't feel in other kinds of "danger". Sorry for splitting hairs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 05:47
|
|
|
Not that anyone cares, but Ryan Seacrest is the latest (?) person to have been accused, although he denies it: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ryan-seacrest-sexual-harassment-allegations-denial-statement_uk_5a100516e4b045cf4371991a
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 11:02
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:2002 Louis CK was an average comedian who made jokes about having dreams in Spanish with only a middle school understanding of the language. When we talk about CK we have to remember that this is a dude who apparently did this well before being a household name. Louis didn't get away with it because he was a big deal in 2002. He got away with it because he was well ingrained in a community. He wasn't well known to public but he was a huge deal already in the comedy world. In 2002 Louis had already spent a decade writing for Conan O'Brien, Letterman and Chris Rock. He was super well-connected and, at that time, the careers of two of his discoveries Steven Colbert and Steven Carell were taking off fast. He had a reputation of making stars even then.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 14:14
|
|
|
Macdeo Lurjtux posted:He wasn't well known to public but he was a huge deal already in the comedy world. In 2002 Louis had already spent a decade writing for Conan O'Brien, Letterman and Chris Rock. He was super well-connected and, at that time, the careers of two of his discoveries Steven Colbert and Steven Carell were taking off fast. He had a reputation of making stars even then. I suspect what will happen is Louis will probably get a job as a script doctor, since those are almost always gigs that are uncredited, and a lot of comedian types do it for a living when not on the road (Patton Oswalt, for instance). Regarding the "CC guy who blocked Guy Barnum from appearing" I suspect it's Jon since he and Louis were pretty tight. Goddammit, I really admired both guys, too; especially Jon. I guess it could be Maher, but he's been off CC for a while now. That actually makes me wanna bring up something else: Is it wrong that sometimes my reaction is "No! Can't be them!"? Like, I'm very left leaning guy who graduated a social work program, I believe you always give the accuser a forum at the very least. I guess I just don't want it to be true. It obviously is, with Louis. gently caress. El Gallinero Gros fucked around with this message at 02:06 on Nov 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
Macdeo Lurjtux posted:He wasn't well known to public but he was a huge deal already in the comedy world. In 2002 Louis had already spent a decade writing for Conan O'Brien, Letterman and Chris Rock. He was super well-connected and, at that time, the careers of two of his discoveries Steven Colbert and Steven Carell were taking off fast. He had a reputation of making stars even then. I believe he wrote a lot for Sarah Silverman? Helped launch her career. And everyone should watch her video reaction to the Louis debacle, she's clearly crushed by this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
I wouldn't take what Branum says to be gospel, the guy has some persecution issues. He wrote an article publishing Chelsea Clinton's dorm hall and room and called for the Berkeley student body to show their pride and March to the stadium over her broken and bloody corpse. He then acts like he's the aggrieved party in the situation when the Secret Service showed up at his front door with a warrant. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/12/01/time/notebook.html If he did get booted off a show (and it would be the Daily Show, Politically Incorrect moved to ABC in '98) it's probably due more to his bridge burning when he got fired from Chelsea Handler's show.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:I believe he wrote a lot for Sarah Silverman? Helped launch her career. And everyone should watch her video reaction to the Louis debacle, she's clearly crushed by this. He helped launch her career but it was Jimmy Kimmel, and later Brian Posehn and Steve Agee who helped her write material, I think. There's a couple guys who I'm mostly sure will be unscathed by this whole thing. Although Uncle Nick is kinda creepy (that said, playing creepy people doesn't inherently make you creepy). Also https://twitter.com/thebrianposehn/status/931278609989251073 El Gallinero Gros fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Nov 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:If you discount "individual stories of what is statistically outlier behavior" then we're not left with any evidence that men in power are abusive either. Actually we're left with massive piles of statistics and in-depth quantitative and qualitative analysis about the problem going back decades but okay sure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 04:02
|
|
|
Jon Stewart and Howard Stern talk about Louis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJGk9-rix9s
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
House of Cards to Resume Filming without Kevin Spacey How the hell are they going to do that? President Underwood would get assassinated off-screen, his vice president takes over, and suddenly this isn't House of Cards anymore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
I hope he dies off-screen in an excessively comical manner, like he gets hooked to a hot air balloon on accident and then falls into a bubble gum factory.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
Replace him with Christopher Plummer
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:House of Cards to Resume Filming without Kevin Spacey Worth noting a couple of things: 1) House of Cards is a really bad show anyway 2) Frank Underwood isn't president in the show anymore, so he's easily written out
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:House of Cards to Resume Filming without Kevin Spacey His wife became president last season.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 23:13
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:House of Cards to Resume Filming without Kevin Spacey So I guess with Spacey not having a morality clause in his contract, this means he's still going to get his full seasonal payout? That kind of sucks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
Replace Kevin Spacey with Kevin James with no explanation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:House of Cards to Resume Filming without Kevin Spacey Kevin Spacey's character could get assassinated on-screen. He'd only need to be in the studio for a few minutes and you wouldn't need to pay him afterwards. It'd be the most talked-about instance of method acting in history!
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
I already suggested car bomb. Certainly they already shot a scene of him walking into a car. If not they could always use stock footage. Or even a behind the head shots of a double.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
Detective No. 27 posted:I already suggested car bomb. Certainly they already shot a scene of him walking into a car. If not they could always use stock footage. Or even a behind the head shots of a double. Bob Mortimer looks remarkably like Kevin Spacey from behind.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 04:07
|
|
|
sethsez posted:His wife became president last season. Ahahah holy poo poo I'm glad I only watched season one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:House of Cards to Resume Filming without Kevin Spacey Toplowtech fucked around with this message at 10:52 on Nov 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 07:16
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:House of Cards to Resume Filming without Kevin Spacey No, House of Cards suddenly switching focus to the people who, I don't know, design the clothes for the Underwoods wouldn't be House of Cards anymore. House of Cards is a show about the political sabotage, corruption, and crime perpetrated by the Underwoods in their pursuit of power. You could even write both Underwoods out of the show and have it solely be about the aftermath of their actions and it would still be HoC. Or another example: you could kill off all of the leads (Daenerys, Jon Snow, Cercei) on Game of Thrones, as long as someone's trying to get total control of Westeros and claim the Iron Throne it'll still be GoT. And TBH the show might even be better for it. asecondduck fucked around with this message at 16:33 on Nov 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
With Robin Wright still on board they could just continue on with her and it would still mostly feel like House of Cards. Without her though it's a complete waste of time(and might be anyway considering the recent quality of the show). I wonder what her current contract situation is. If she's in any position of leverage she could probably ask for a ton of money.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
I believe she just renegotiated a year or two ago. There were a couple of 'leaked' stories about her audaciously asking for the same money as Spacey that backfired on the studio and got public opinion on her side.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 22:06 |
|
|
I really enjoy her character and I’m hoping they focus on her more. The last season already slowly transitioned her into a more prominent role, even given her some monologues to the audience so it seems natural that next season and onward should focus on her. Francis was already moving towards being in the shadows as a power player before all this poo poo so wether he dies or gets written off his character was pretty much done
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 17:23
|
|
