Harvey Weinstein Is My Monster Too(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Harvey Weinstein Is My Monster Too
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/13/opinion/contributors/salma-hayek-harvey-weinstein.html?_r=0
41 comments
What is the reason for this to be flagged ?
Since not everyone regularly submits to HN, I think reposting the link from the footer is relevant:
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"Hacker News Guidelines
What to Submit
On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Ideological or political battle or talking points. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic."
This isn't anything groundbreaking as Harvey was already exposed, this is just another data point.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"Hacker News Guidelines
What to Submit
On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Ideological or political battle or talking points. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic."
This isn't anything groundbreaking as Harvey was already exposed, this is just another data point.
So much damage done to so many people in so many ways... ugh.
Wow. An incredibly frank and honest article from Salma.
It underscores that the problem in these situations for women isn’t just assault - it’s a sexualized power that has expectations.
It’s disgusting and Weinstein should be rightly vilified for what he has done; let’s not forget that he’s a symptom of a larger societal problem however.
It underscores that the problem in these situations for women isn’t just assault - it’s a sexualized power that has expectations.
It’s disgusting and Weinstein should be rightly vilified for what he has done; let’s not forget that he’s a symptom of a larger societal problem however.
We do forget it. Half of Alabama voted for a Weinstein as a Senator the other day.
So did half a country https://m.imgur.com/gallery/5kcWk
What larger societal problem is that?
I think if you took 10 random people, they'd give you 10 different answers.
I think if you took 10 random people, they'd give you 10 different answers.
The societal problem that men with power feel that it's acceptable to use that power to pressure women to give them what they want sexually.
(And the related problem of bystanders witnessing this behavior and failing to push back hard against it.)
(And the related problem of bystanders witnessing this behavior and failing to push back hard against it.)
Alright. Another person comes to you and says, the larger societal problem is that ambitious people will ignore or put up with a world of shit as long as they get what they are after.
Who's right?
To elaborate - Salma's ambition was to make the movie, she could've quit 100 times, but instead she put up with 100 cases of sexual harassment (100 being an artbirary large number here)
Harvey's ambition was to have sexual relations with every woman that needed him to do something for her, that he found attractive. He ignored everyone else's needs but his own in the process of fulfilling his ambition.
Seeing it from the angle of ambition, both people could've done things differently but didn't, because they were preoccupied with achieving their goals, more than achieving let's say... harmony in themselves and the world... Is that the larger societal problem? That our ambitions are small and selfish?
Who's right?
To elaborate - Salma's ambition was to make the movie, she could've quit 100 times, but instead she put up with 100 cases of sexual harassment (100 being an artbirary large number here)
Harvey's ambition was to have sexual relations with every woman that needed him to do something for her, that he found attractive. He ignored everyone else's needs but his own in the process of fulfilling his ambition.
Seeing it from the angle of ambition, both people could've done things differently but didn't, because they were preoccupied with achieving their goals, more than achieving let's say... harmony in themselves and the world... Is that the larger societal problem? That our ambitions are small and selfish?
Equating Salma's ambition here (make a movie about an important minority historical figure) with Harvey's and then calling it small and selfish? Seriously?
You're trying to make it A vs B issue, black and white. This worldview causes outrage, which's incredibly unhelpful and destructive.
The whole point is to see the greys.
Salma was after breaking out of the Mexican soap opera market, into Hollywood. That was her ambition and she was willing to put up with what she describes as an incredible amount of sexual harassment. Once she had reached fame, she didnt' lead this movement to help other women who are trying to do the same.
When you don't have a lot, you don't know any better - I will look the other way.
When you're already successful, you want MORE success, put up with a mountain of shit along the way - I can safely say you're very driven to accomplish very trivial things, because integrity and mental health are not chips you play with for more fame unless you're incredibly confused.
That's the subtle point that folks who want to paint the world black and white and get outraged by anyone who sees greys keep missing - Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, the list goes on and on, get to be creeps, because people are willing to put up with emotional abuse to 'make it'.
The whole point is to see the greys.
Salma was after breaking out of the Mexican soap opera market, into Hollywood. That was her ambition and she was willing to put up with what she describes as an incredible amount of sexual harassment. Once she had reached fame, she didnt' lead this movement to help other women who are trying to do the same.
When you don't have a lot, you don't know any better - I will look the other way.
When you're already successful, you want MORE success, put up with a mountain of shit along the way - I can safely say you're very driven to accomplish very trivial things, because integrity and mental health are not chips you play with for more fame unless you're incredibly confused.
That's the subtle point that folks who want to paint the world black and white and get outraged by anyone who sees greys keep missing - Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, the list goes on and on, get to be creeps, because people are willing to put up with emotional abuse to 'make it'.
OK, let's get into the grays then. Did you read the article? She didn't put up with Weinstein to get to the point she was at before making Frida. She wasn't looking for fame with this particular film. She wanted to tell an important story. It was something beyond herself. "I did not care about the money," she says.
That aside, you do have a point. If people like Hayek would "just say no," and give up on their crazy ambitions this wouldn't ever happen. It's really that simple. That's what you are saying, right?
That aside, you do have a point. If people like Hayek would "just say no," and give up on their crazy ambitions this wouldn't ever happen. It's really that simple. That's what you are saying, right?
What is missing from your equation is “power” - Weinstein had all the power.
Same goes for dictators - Saddam Hussein had all the power, until the equation changed.
But a random iraqi soldier in the mid-80s can’t be blamed for having an ambition to not die.
Same goes for dictators - Saddam Hussein had all the power, until the equation changed.
But a random iraqi soldier in the mid-80s can’t be blamed for having an ambition to not die.
Would you encourage every women to complain about sexual harassment before they get the benefits they're looking for? Sexual services are considered crime for a reason, but it's not really enforced.
It can only be enforced if it is reported to the police and they gather evidence in a timely manner. Like any other crime.
If there is no proof or evidence, the trial won't go the way you think it will.
If there is no proof or evidence, the trial won't go the way you think it will.
[deleted]
Your initial counter-argument relies on the existence of the first.
So logically the first is right
So logically the first is right
Weinstein's course of action is a personal choice and responsibility. It is absurd to infer or assert collective guilt, or to ascribe some sort of original/social sin to "society." What he did is his individual vice; it is simply not a "larger social problem." Any other man who raped or otherwise assaulted women is similarly responsible for his own actions, and should be punished accordingly.
His abuse was a personal decision, but it wasn't made in isolation. The behavior that Hayek described doesn't fit into the traditional model of sexual misconduct. He didn't physically force himself on her, instead he used his power to emotionally degrade and control her. And that's the point- the traditional model of abuse utterly fails to protect victims. There's a reason the word "complicit" is so popular right now; abusers rely on a support network to minimize and cover up their actions. This network begins with knowledgable persons who turn a blind eye (like Tarantino) but extends all the way out to those who victim-shame on social media. And the fact that so many women suffer sexual abuse and so few abusers are held accountable shows that it is absolutely a larger social problem. "Isolated incidents" that affect 1/6 of a population must be viewed systemically.
https://www.rainn.org/sites/default/files/Out_Of_1000_Rapes%... http://www.11thprincipleconsent.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/...
https://www.rainn.org/sites/default/files/Out_Of_1000_Rapes%... http://www.11thprincipleconsent.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/...
Yes, absolutely Weinstein made that choice.
That he was comfortable making that choice, that it was seen as normal or just something that happened, that women felt their careers would be in jeopardy if they spoke up, that demanding additional sex scenes at the last minute wasn’t laughed off the lot...
... these are all symptoms of the broader social normalization of his abuse of power.
This year has been a turning point for pointing out it exists and some consequences for the individuals who do it... but it’s barely scratched the surface
That he was comfortable making that choice, that it was seen as normal or just something that happened, that women felt their careers would be in jeopardy if they spoke up, that demanding additional sex scenes at the last minute wasn’t laughed off the lot...
... these are all symptoms of the broader social normalization of his abuse of power.
This year has been a turning point for pointing out it exists and some consequences for the individuals who do it... but it’s barely scratched the surface
Curious about why this article went missing from the first few pages in a few minutes it took me to read it. Is it by design or intervention and if intervention then the rationale for it.
I found the article to be underscoring in detail the modus operandi of sexual harassment in the film industry (and workspaces in general) and adds a fair amount of interesting thoughts to my mind about the functioning of society and inherent oppression within.
I found the article to be underscoring in detail the modus operandi of sexual harassment in the film industry (and workspaces in general) and adds a fair amount of interesting thoughts to my mind about the functioning of society and inherent oppression within.
I noticed the same thing. Right now it's near the top of the second page. But at 90 upvotes in less than an hour, it appears it should be solidly on the front page.
My educated guess: lots of downvotes pushing it down, a fact (more cruel perhaps than ironic) consistent with the points Salma Hayek is making in her article.
My educated guess: lots of downvotes pushing it down, a fact (more cruel perhaps than ironic) consistent with the points Salma Hayek is making in her article.
>My educated guess: lots of downvotes pushing it down, a fact (more cruel perhaps than ironic) consistent with the points Salma Hayek is making in her article.
You cannot downvote a submission, just comments.
You cannot downvote a submission, just comments.
IIRC, submission flags act like downvotes before reaching the threshold where the entry is killed, so this is essentially a distinction without a difference.
It's now flagged as "[flagged]", so I guess we know the answer to this question.
Sigh. HN is so disappointing sometimes.
Sigh. HN is so disappointing sometimes.
Yet incredibly predictable. I mean... are you surprised?
[deleted]
Anything "controversial" (even when something like this really shouldn't be thought of that way) gets flagged/pushed down the rankings extremely quickly, especially if it doesn't have a strong tech connection so it's reasonably justifiable to consider it "off topic".
HN is great for a narrow set of topics and types of articles, but anything outside that set usually either doesn't do well here in the first place, or gets forced down even if it does.
HN is great for a narrow set of topics and types of articles, but anything outside that set usually either doesn't do well here in the first place, or gets forced down even if it does.
Anyone who thinks, "a little nudity in a movie is harmless" needs to read this.
So, I read it, and it doesn't say anything to indicate that nudity (whether a little or a lot) in a movie is harmful, but that the particular nudity in this particular movie wasn't the product of the creators artistic vision but power plays by a funder, and that the harmful stemmed explocitly from the manipulative personal power dynamics, not the nudity.
Yes, this was probably a very isolated incident. Keep telling yourself that.
> Yes, this was probably a very isolated incident.
That's not the issue; the harm—and the article explicitly says this—wasn’t the “nudity in a movie”. I’m sure this isn't an isolated incident, either for Wienstein or more generally.
But Hayek has done a fair amount of nude work for a mainstream actress, so when she explicitly points to the source of the problem and says it's not the fact of doing nude work for a film, I wonder why your so desperate to recast it as being about nudity in film.
That's not the issue; the harm—and the article explicitly says this—wasn’t the “nudity in a movie”. I’m sure this isn't an isolated incident, either for Wienstein or more generally.
But Hayek has done a fair amount of nude work for a mainstream actress, so when she explicitly points to the source of the problem and says it's not the fact of doing nude work for a film, I wonder why your so desperate to recast it as being about nudity in film.
We are talking about sexual harassment here. How could nudity not be the problem? The fact that nudity in film is common allowed Harvey the pretense to demand full-frontal nudity, "the senseless scene," as Hayek described it.
The point I'm trying to make, apparently too subtly, is, how many nude scenes were coerced just like Hayek describes the one in Frida in order to satisfy the lusts of the male director/producer/writer just like this? It doesn't seem far-fetched, with all the revelations of sexual harassment coming out, that it's a lot of them.
Maybe it's so many that we should simply not tolerate nudity in films. If there was some way to certify that the nude scene wasn't "forced" then it would be OK, but if we accept that this was an act of force on Weinstein's part (Salma could have chosen not to do the movie, yet we all seem to agree this was still evil on the part of Weinstein), then how could that certification ever be done?
The point I'm trying to make, apparently too subtly, is, how many nude scenes were coerced just like Hayek describes the one in Frida in order to satisfy the lusts of the male director/producer/writer just like this? It doesn't seem far-fetched, with all the revelations of sexual harassment coming out, that it's a lot of them.
Maybe it's so many that we should simply not tolerate nudity in films. If there was some way to certify that the nude scene wasn't "forced" then it would be OK, but if we accept that this was an act of force on Weinstein's part (Salma could have chosen not to do the movie, yet we all seem to agree this was still evil on the part of Weinstein), then how could that certification ever be done?
> We are talking about sexual harassment here. How could nudity not be the problem?
It was in large part retaliation for Hayek not acceding to Weinstein's demands for sexual favors offscreen. If nudity were categorically prohibited or simply commercially unviable in film, and instead of a “do this scene or no movie” threat Weinstein had simply canned the film in retaliation, or demanded some distasteful (whether or not itself sexual) offscreen favor to avoid such cancellation in retaliation, it would have been just as much of an act of sexual harassment.
The problem here has nothing to.do with nudity.
It was in large part retaliation for Hayek not acceding to Weinstein's demands for sexual favors offscreen. If nudity were categorically prohibited or simply commercially unviable in film, and instead of a “do this scene or no movie” threat Weinstein had simply canned the film in retaliation, or demanded some distasteful (whether or not itself sexual) offscreen favor to avoid such cancellation in retaliation, it would have been just as much of an act of sexual harassment.
The problem here has nothing to.do with nudity.
A little nudity in a movie is harmless. A little nudity being forced into a movie as a sexual power play isn't. The problem isn't the nudity, it's why it's there. If people are naked due to an act of symbolic rape in the real world and not as a device to enhance the story, that's a problem. However, if no one forces anyone else to do something that they don't want to, I have difficulty seeing that as a problem.
The nudity isn't the harm. Being forced into it is.
The nudity isn't the harm. Being forced into it is.
So define "forced" here. She could have said no and not made the film. Does that mean this was OK?
> "I had to say yes" and "I had convinced so many talented people to participate" and "How could I let their magnificent work go to waste?" and " and "I wanted him to see me as an artist [not only as a prop for sex appeal]"
as a Dad with daughters I am horrified by this evil. Coercion and oppression to obtain debasing sexual content makes me sick: "There was no room for negotiation. I had to say yes."
Why do people go to such great lengths, even to compromise their personal ethics, to please others peoples imagined sensibilities or expectations?
as a Dad with daughters I am horrified by this evil. Coercion and oppression to obtain debasing sexual content makes me sick: "There was no room for negotiation. I had to say yes."
Why do people go to such great lengths, even to compromise their personal ethics, to please others peoples imagined sensibilities or expectations?
Forced. Compelled. Persuaded by threats and/or violence. The consequence of the film not being made was just as unnatural an imposition as the nude scene would've been in the first place.
> She could have said no and not made the film. Does that mean this was OK?
I think you know my answer to that, and I don't think you're making an argument in good faith. How about you just come out and say directly what you'd like to say?
Weinstein imposed a "choice". But it wasn't a real choice. It was a threat. An ultimatum. Visiting violence upon others is not OK.
I expect that you're going to take the least-charitable possible interpretation of what I've said. That seems to be your MO, reading the rest of the thread. You're angry, and I get it, but I think that your anger is misdirected.
> She could have said no and not made the film. Does that mean this was OK?
I think you know my answer to that, and I don't think you're making an argument in good faith. How about you just come out and say directly what you'd like to say?
Weinstein imposed a "choice". But it wasn't a real choice. It was a threat. An ultimatum. Visiting violence upon others is not OK.
I expect that you're going to take the least-charitable possible interpretation of what I've said. That seems to be your MO, reading the rest of the thread. You're angry, and I get it, but I think that your anger is misdirected.
Guy seems to fit every characteristic of a psychopath. Glad he's finally been taken out of power and society.