Like Button

Friday, October 20, 2017

Weinstein Confusion

There are so many things about the Harvey Weinstein scandal that I don't understand that it's beyond comprehension. You know the scandal, I'm sure. Harvey Weinstein is an American film producer and ex-studio executive. He was rich and paid big bucks to create Miramax, produce films, and support a variety of social issues such as AIDS, juvenile diabetes, and MS. He was a major supporter of campaigns for the Clintons (both of them for multiple presidential runs) and Obama and John Kerry. And then the other shoe dropped. A long list of women headed by many prominent names, among them folks like Ashley Judd, Angelina Jolie and Gwyneth Paltrow, accused him of sexual assault. He was accused, essentially, of being the epitome of the "casting couch" image. The list continues to grow. In the wake of the devastation he has been fired from several jobs, released from several positions, and his wife left him. Politicians who enjoyed his support have distanced themselves, many returning the money he donated to their cause. The headline from the New York Times shouts, "Harvey Winstein's Fall Opens the Floodgates in Hollywood." Alyssa Milano started a campaign labeled "#MeToo" for women who have been sexually harassed or assaulted in some way to simply tweet "#MeToo" as a show of solidarity and support for all women who have experienced the same. It just goes on and on.

It's not like this is new. We've recently heard very similar accusations regarding names like Roger Ailes, Bill O'Reilly, and Bill Cosby. Just the other day the 2012 Olympics women's gymnastics gold medal winner, McKayla Maroney, accused her team doctor of repeatedly molesting her and others have popped up with the same story about him. This isn't new. It's as old as humans have been around. But it is bad. So what's the confusion?

I don't understand the furor over it. No, not that there should be furor; that there should be furor now. Why has this not been addressed loudly and forcefully when it happened? When it happened before? When it happened decades ago? When it was happening 50 years ago or more? Why now?

I don't understand why we as a society that knows about this make it so difficult for these women and girls to be able to come forward with their complaint rather than having to endure years of this kind of abuse. Why did they let that happen? Why did we let that happen? Quentin Tarantino said, "I knew enough to do more than I did." Why did he not do? The feminists with their "rape culture" that turns everything into rape, from the actual rape by the Weinsteins of the world to the consensual relations between a married couple aren't helping1. Why have we so blurred the lines so that "Rape!" may or may not be?

I don't understand why we're surprised. The "casting couch" concept of women getting into movies by way of sex with those who can get them into movies has been around since movies began in the early 20th century. The "Who do I have to sleep with to get this job?" notion has lived for a long time. "Surprise!" -- not really. The idea is so ingrained in the Hollywood image that there has even been a monument near Hollywood and Highland in Hollywood called "The Road to Hollywood" with the subtitle, "How some of us got here" that is ... a couch. (Hollywood woke up and removed it this month.) This is Hollywood. Why are we surprised?

I don't understand why the single largest influence on American morality for the past century has been Hollywood. Oh, not Hollywood literally, but Hollywood as an idea -- movies, television, the entertainment industry. We know that Hollywood is morally bankrupt. We know that they have always pushed the limits of morality. And studies have shown that the entertainment industry from Hollywood movies and popular television to everyday Internet porn have absolutely changed the American moral mind by simply making immoral acceptable. "Show it to them enough and make it seem normal and they'll accept it." It's Hitlerian: "If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed." And we do. We believe it in droves, like mindless sheep. "Oh, oh, I know! Let's take the source known for its sexual abuse of its own people and its loose morality as our trailblazer for our national moral views! Yeah, that's a great idea!" I don't understand that at all.

The things that Weinstein is accused of are horrible. The things that so many names in America are accused of are horrible. The things that far too many unaccused have done are horrible. There ought to be better laws. There ought to be harsher punishments. More ought to be done. That is all true. I'm just afraid that, by making Hollywood our moral compass, we've undercut our societal ability to really address the problem by both being rightly outraged at it and considering it normal and expected. You know, like sinners do (Jer 17:9; 2 Cor 4:4; Eph 2:1-3; Rom 1:32).
________
1 I recently saw a drawing that showed a glass half-filled with liquid and half-filled with air. It gave three perspectives: 1) The optimist: "The glass is half-full." 2) The pessimist: "The glass is half empty." 3) The feminist: "The glass is being raped." It would be funny if it weren't so close to the reality of the problem. You can't call everything rape and then expect people to understand rape.

17 comments:

Craig said...

I find it hard to reconcile the adulation poured out on Hugh Hefner, with this situation. Is seems reasonable to suggest that Hefner open the door to how our current culture sees and treats women. Not that there wasn’t sexual abuse before Hefner, but he and Hollywood have done their share to exploit women and contribute to where things are now.

It’s interesting to me that there is such a focus on the sexual exploits of presidents, because they have “power”. Yet, the same folks are willing to come up with all sorts of reasons to excuse the entertainment industry for their contributions to the culture. I don’t think it’s wrong to say that Weinstein has had more influence on the culture than virtually any president you could name. I aslo don’t think it’s s coincidence that Cosby was pursued, given his outspokenness on race issues that doesn’t fit the narrative. Not to say that he should get a pass, just that he was a more attractive target because of his views.

Stan said...

Yes, what about Hefner and the objectification of women? Why is he getting a "pass"?

(On a sidenote, I thought it was ironic that in the latest Playboy issue that mourns his passing they have the first transgender playmate. Two irrational ideas at once -- that Hefner was a heroic pioneer and that a guy is a girl.)

Craig said...

I just saw a special edition of Time magazine that was touting the wonderful contributions of Hefner. That’s what really hit me.

Stan said...

Do you suppose there is something in the minds of the Time-crowd thinking that would argue that Hefner did not epitomize "sexual harassment"?

Craig said...

I’m sure they’d argue that women were being empowered or something.

Stan said...

Another example of insanity.

David said...

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, our culture is schizophrenic. Women are free to objectify and sexualize themselves, but heaven help anyone that objectifies or sexualizes them.

Craig said...

I love Tarantino coming out and saying that he’s known about this for some time, but now feels bad because he didn’t say or do anything. Just absurd.

Stan said...

David,

And men they like who objectify women are not objectifying women while men they don't like cannot help but be sexist.

Stan said...

Craig,

I thought it was absurd, too.

Marshal Art said...

Your reference to "the casting couch" says it all...it's been happening for pretty much the entire history of cinema. Yet no one said anything substantive about it (except Corey Feldstein and a few others...there must have been a few others). And Craig's statement about Weinstein's influence on the culture is spot on...indeed Hollywood in total has had an indelible impact on the culture. Would we have the type of Christianity espoused by a certain blogger from Kentucky most of us know? I don't think so. It's been an infection. It has aroused the culture's prurient interest.

But we don't need any new laws, unless you wish to charge people who should know better, who should have the intestinal fortitude to risk their careers, with turning a blind eye. We could remove one law for starters...that being any law that denies schools, public or otherwise, from mentioning Christianity in positive ways, from allowing prayer in schools and such. That might help.

Craig said...

Of course the recently revealed tweet from Ellen D, gets a pass. Again, talk about the double standard.

Craig said...

Art,

I don’t think anyone is calling for new laws so much as pointing out the hypocrisy and double standards of those on the left.

Stan said...

I looked. I didn't find the DeGeneres tweet. Pretty sure I'm not missing anything.

Craig said...

She tweeted a picture of her “leering” at Katy Perry’s chest with a comment about big balloons or something similar. I think Matt Walsh has it from earlier today. “Lesbian privilege” maybe?

Stan said...

She claims she is not a gender (yes, that's her claim), so it can't be sexual harassment ... right?

Craig said...

Seems like if you’d have a problem with a heterosexual guy doing something....

Sauce for the goose, and all that.

Like I said “lesbian privilege”.