The Me Too Movement: The Sexual Harassment and Assault Thread

Donner said:
Okay, abusing women is much more acceptable than fetishizing cannibalism.

Better?
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
Donner said:
Charisma Carpenter laid down the truth regarding Joss Whedon

Click to expand...


Most of that reads like she assumed the worst possible intention and motivation behind everything and every situation.
 
It's a tangentially related topic, but let's consider Ray Fischer. So who is he? A complete unknown. A stage actor who got an opportunity to feature in a big tentpole movie that was widely scorned, whom since speaking out against the production of said movie has been "removed" from an upcoming DC flick. This is not a man that can be accused of doing it for "publicity", the laziest, hackiest attack on people that choose to come forward. It quite literally cost him a job. This is not a big star we're talking about here. This is a talented guy with a rocky start and some big opportunities who decided to throw it all away because of what he felt was the right thing to do.

And it's just one voice among several that have come out against Joss Whedon. As the saying goes, "where there's smoke, there's fire." There's smoke here. If at this point you haven't at the very least taken a moment of pause to consider that it might be legit, then you need to take a good long look in the mirror and ponder if you may have swallowed some red-pills lately.
 
And Ray Fischer spoke out first. Charisma Carpenter only said her bit after he did. And yet people are questioning her credibility and wondering if she's exaggerating, but are strangely silent about Ray.

Thinly veiled misogyny is still misogyny.
 
Just so I know, is it Ray Fisher or Ray Fischer? I thought it was the former, but I have seen multiple people spelling it with the E, so I want to be sure.
 
henzINNIT said:
Yeah I'm on a similar train. Is it really beneficial to draw no distinction between Pratt's prank and cases of serious abuse? It is just the kind of labeling that galvanizes people against progress. I think most people understand it's not the right thing to do, but there is nuance to this.
Click to expand...
What nuance that is missing from saying that flashing your penis at your co-workers is sexual harassment? The degree argument is exactly why sexual harassment is so prevalent. Calling it out for what it is, has never been the issue. It is the downplaying of it. Telling women, men and non-binary folk, that it wasn't "serious" enough to be labelled as harassment. Defending someone by saying it was "joking" or being "goofy" is why the culture exist. "He didn't mean it", doesn't change what someone did. The idea that you need to be Weinstein level for it to count, is what eliminates nuance. Properly identifying sexual harassment for what it is, does not. What we have here is the type of "nuance" that tells women that they are taking things "too seriously" and how they need to stop being so "fridged" and "get a sense of humor". The nuance argument, is the locker room talk argument. Saying someone is "pearl clutching" is what keeps people from coming forward and reporting it.

If unprompted showing your penis to your co-worker at a car wash is sexual harassment, why is any different on a movie/television set?

MilkmanDan said:
I don't know what you do for a living, but nudity-involving pranks would have felt out of place in every job I've ever had. For that sort of thing to happen at a theatre or TV/film set where actors sometimes change clothes in front of each other or even work at various levels of undress, seems inherently different.

Edit: He was wrong to do what he did. But I don't think it's fair to completely ignore that he did it in a very different situation than what most of us live/work in.
Click to expand...
The attempt to distinguish being an actor from other professions in terms of what it means to be sexually harassed makes no sense. Getting undressed when everyone agrees it is going to happen, is very different then not doing that. This is why we now have intimacy professionals on set. This is before we get into the countless number of people who were forced into the position against their will anyways. Because, "that's the business". It is the normalization of harassment.
 
DarthSkywalker said:
What nuance that is missing from saying that flashing your penis at your co-workers is sexual harassment? The degree argument is exactly why sexual harassment is so prevalent. Calling it out for what it is, has never been the issue. It is the downplaying of it. Telling women, men and non-binary folk, that it wasn't "serious" enough to be labelled as harassment. Defending someone by saying it was "joking" or being "goofy" is why the culture exist. "He didn't mean it", doesn't change what someone did. The idea that you need to be Weinstein level for it to count, is what eliminates nuance. Properly identifying sexual harassment for what it is, does not. What we have here is the type of "nuance" that tells women that they are taking things "too seriously" and how they need to stop being so "fridged" and "get a sense of humor". The nuance argument, is the locker room talk argument. Saying someone is "pearl clutching" is what keeps people from coming forward and reporting it.

If unprompted showing your penis to your co-worker at a car wash is sexual harassment, why is any different on a movie/television set?


The attempt to distinguish being an actor from other professions in terms of what it means to be sexually harassed makes no sense. Getting undressed when everyone agrees it is going to happen, is very different then not doing that. This is why we now have intimacy professionals on set. This is before we get into the countless number of people who were forced into the position against their will anyways. Because, "that's the business". It is the normalization of harassment.
Click to expand...
I could swear we were having this conversation in a totally different thread, but okay...

Let me just point out the things we agree on: A) Having intimacy experts working in entertainment is a good thing. B) Chris Pratt acted inappropriately. C) That kind of behaviour is wrong and needs to be curtailed.

What we appear to disagree on: that Chris Pratt is an obvious sex pervert who intentionally harassed his co-workers for sexual titillation. I think it's entirely possible that Pratt's thought process never went beyond "Naked people are funny. It'll be funny if in the next take, instead of being 95% naked I'll surprise everyone by being completely naked." It was a stupid, inexcusable stunt. But I'm not convinced that it was malicious and deserves to be compared to acts of intentional sexual harassment.

Anyway, how did I end up spending all this time defending an actor I don't even particularly like doing something I don't approve?
 
MilkmanDan said:
I could swear we were having this conversation in a totally different thread, but okay...

Let me just point out the things we agree on: A) Having intimacy experts working in entertainment is a good thing. B) Chris Pratt acted inappropriately. C) That kind of behaviour is wrong and needs to be curtailed.

What we appear to disagree on: that Chris Pratt is an obvious sex pervert who intentionally harassed his co-workers for sexual titillation. I think it's entirely possible that Pratt's thought process never went beyond "Naked people are funny. It'll be funny if in the next take, instead of being 95% naked I'll surprise everyone by being completely naked." It was a stupid, inexcusable stunt. But I'm not convinced that it was malicious and deserves to be compared to acts of intentional sexual harassment.

Anyway, how did I end up spending all this time defending an actor I don't even particularly like doing something I don't approve?
Click to expand...
The mods wanted it out of there. The mods say it, I do it. This is the appropriate thread, so I moved it here, because I had more to say.

I am not saying Pratt is a sexual pervert. I am saying Chris Pratt sexually harassed his co-workers by flashing his penis at them unprompted. There is a distinction. I don't care if he is "sexual pervert" and in this context I am not sure what that means. I am talking about the act of sexual harassment. Which he performed. He didn't get in trouble for anything else. As FC said in the other thread, why would he get in trouble, if no one had a problem with it? That is why it was reported in the first place. And if people had a problem with him showing his penis unprompted, that's sexual harassment. His intention doesn't enter the conversation and is the classic defense that against many forms of known sexual harassment.
 
DarthSkywalker said:
The mods wanted it out of there. The mods say it, I do it. This is the appropriate thread, so I moved it here, because I had more to say.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's what I thought. Still, I don't think it's entirely fair to take a quote from me and address it in a completely different conversation. Especially this one. My comments were probably bad enough with context. Now I just look like I'm randomly going around defending sexual harassment.

I am not saying Pratt is a sexual pervert. I am saying Chris Pratt sexually harassed his co-workers by flashing his penis at them unprompted. There is a distinction. I don't care if he is "sexual pervert" and in this context I am not sure what that means. I am talking about the act of sexual harassment. Which he performed. He didn't get in trouble for anything else. As FC said in the other thread, why would he get in trouble, if no one had a problem with it? That is why it was reported in the first place. And if people had a problem with him showing his penis unprompted, that's sexual harassment. His intention doesn't enter the conversation and is the classic defense that against many forms of known sexual harassment.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. His actions do meet the standard of sexual harassment. I just don't think that was his intention and I think the unique nature of the acting world should be taken into account. But yes, you're not wrong to call what he did sexual harassment.
 
DarthSkywalker said:
What nuance that is missing from saying that flashing your penis at your co-workers is sexual harassment? The degree argument is exactly why sexual harassment is so prevalent. Calling it out for what it is, has never been the issue. It is the downplaying of it. Telling women, men and non-binary folk, that it wasn't "serious" enough to be labelled as harassment. Defending someone by saying it was "joking" or being "goofy" is why the culture exist. "He didn't mean it", doesn't change what someone did. The idea that you need to be Weinstein level for it to count, is what eliminates nuance. Properly identifying sexual harassment for what it is, does not. What we have here is the type of "nuance" that tells women that they are taking things "too seriously" and how they need to stop being so "fridged" and "get a sense of humor". The nuance argument, is the locker room talk argument. Saying someone is "pearl clutching" is what keeps people from coming forward and reporting it.

If unprompted showing your penis to your co-worker at a car wash is sexual harassment, why is any different on a movie/television set?
Click to expand...

We are talking about a really specific situation here, a pretty ridiculous situation altogether, and one that absolutely doesn't correlate with the standard co-worker rules and expectations.

Chris Pratt that day was employed to pretend to be naked, a sock or whatever away from genuinely naked, and his colleagues were paid to look at him in the sock and pretend he was naked and be shocked that he was naked. He did a take actually naked to get more genuine shock.

This is unlike any work experience I have ever encountered. I do think that the context matters here. I do think he was wrong to do it and it warranted a telling off. I do think it was about as 'honest' as a flash can be, and don't think it needs to be taken that seriously. I do worry that equivocating this story with much worse cases of abuse does a disservice to the others.

[Edit: To add this is not a hill for me to die on. I post here strictly thinking out loud, not arguing some entrenched beliefs. I have likely given this far less thought than most (never entered this thread before to my knowledge) here but I would like to learn, and hopefully not offend anyone.]
 
henzINNIT said:
We are talking about a really specific situation here, a pretty ridiculous situation altogether, and one that absolutely doesn't correlate with the standard co-worker rules and expectations.

Chris Pratt that day was employed to pretend to be naked, a sock or whatever away from genuinely naked, and his colleagues were paid to look at him in the sock and pretend he was naked and be shocked that he was naked. He did a take actually naked to get more genuine shock.

This is unlike any work experience I have ever encountered. I do think that the context matters here. I do think he was wrong to do it and it warranted a telling off. I do think it was about as 'honest' as a flash can be, and don't think it needs to be taken that seriously. I do worry that equivocating this story with much worse cases of abuse does a disservice to the others
Click to expand...

It absolutely does. It's kind of frivolous and cheapening to the whole conversation, IMO.
 
MilkmanDan said:
Yeah, that's what I thought. Still, I don't think it's entirely fair to take a quote from me and address it in a completely different conversation. Especially this one. My comments were probably bad enough with context. Now I just look like I'm randomly going around defending sexual harassment.
Click to expand...
A moderator said that the subject had dragged a thread too far off topic, it's not addressing it in a separate conversation to continue in an on-topic thread, that's a pretty common thing. If anyone wants to follow the conversation up to the point it entered this thread, they can click the arrow on the earliest quote and it'll zip them over there.
 
MilkmanDan said:
Yeah, that's what I thought. Still, I don't think it's entirely fair to take a quote from me and address it in a completely different conversation. Especially this one. My comments were probably bad enough with context. Now I just look like I'm randomly going around defending sexual harassment.
Click to expand...
It's a literal conversation about sexual harassment. It's the sexual harassment thread. I think our conversation has made it clear that we were discussing this in another thread. A question though. If you believe the post can be interpreted as you defending sexual harassment, isn't that an issue with the stance on the topic, not where it located on the board?

MilkmanDan said:
Fair enough. His actions do meet the standard of sexual harassment. I just don't think that was his intention and I think the unique nature of the acting world should be taken into account. But yes, you're not wrong to call what he did sexual harassment.
Click to expand...
To me, this is similar to when someone says something racist and tries very hard to argue it isn't racist, as to not be labelled a racist. We can discuss the nuance there, but imo the act is what frames what the act is. The downplaying to avoid a label doesn't change the act.

Pratt wasn't a child when this happened. He was a full grown man, who committed an obvious act of sexual harassment. I do not understand the issue with having it labelled that way, and if the idea is, "he didn't intend it" I just don't agree that is valid reason to not call it what it is. Is he Weinstein? No. But he still committed an act of sexual harassment.
 
Looking it up, unless I'm missing something @flickchick85 raised a good point in the other thread. Unless I'm mistaken, the one who brought it up as a funny joke was - Chris Pratt. Not his coworkers or any crew members that may have been in attendance. As well, the fact he was reprimanded means at least one person was not comfortable going to work and having a man shove his junk at them. It's not abuse, and no one's called it that. He's not Weinstein, he didn't (to my knowledge) rape anyone, but yeah... that's sexual harassment. There's no reason to presume other people are going to be fine having you show them your junk at work - a subject I feel like should be obvious. And it seems at least one person took issue with it and said it, and it's possible others did too. Given he seems to be the one who brought it up on talk shows, it puts everyone else in an awkward position.
 
henzINNIT said:
We are talking about a really specific situation here, a pretty ridiculous situation altogether, and one that absolutely doesn't correlate with the standard co-worker rules and expectations.

Chris Pratt that day was employed to pretend to be naked, a sock or whatever away from genuinely naked, and his colleagues were paid to look at him in the sock and pretend he was naked and be shocked that he was naked. He did a take actually naked to get more genuine shock.
Click to expand...
They covered him for a reason. To avoid his co-workers, including those behind the camera, from seeing him naked. Not just for him, but for them as well. They literally set it up as a situation where people wouldn't see him nude, because no one was there for that.

The presumption of not only him, but those commenting on it by saying, "it's a different work environment" ignores that for everyone else standing there, it is there job and they were not expecting to be confronted with the situation. Even if not one person had a problem with it, he said he did it without telling anyone and thus presumed they be okay with it. I no universe does working on a film set, where no one was intended to see him naked, change the work environment nearly enough for that to be okay. Especially when you consider the fact that Pratt has no idea what any of his co-workers have experienced in this regard. What if someone was a victim of harassment before in that room? Sexual assault even? Statistically, that is not likely, it is almost certain.

henzINNIT said:
This is unlike any work experience I have ever encountered. I do think that the context matters here. I do think he was wrong to do it and it warranted a telling off. I do think it was about as 'honest' as a flash can be, and don't think it needs to be taken that seriously. I do worry that equivocating this story with much worse cases of abuse does a disservice to the others.
Click to expand...
Yes. The context is he was covered up on purpose, he ignored this and showed his penis to every co-worker in the room, without them knowing it was going to happen.

I take all forms of sexual harassment seriously. Equivocating levels of sexual harassment, is what does a disservice to the survivors of such horrid events. Considering yesterday also saw the Joss Whedon news drop, I would have hoped most would have learned the lesson of equivocating past actions. Guess not.
 
DarthSkywalker said:
It's a literal conversation about sexual harassment. It's the sexual harassment thread. I think our conversation has made it clear that we were discussing this in another thread. A question though. If you believe the post can be interpreted as you defending sexual harassment, isn't that an issue with the stance on the topic, not where it located on the board?


To me, this is similar to when someone says something racist and tries very hard to argue it isn't racist, as to not be labelled a racist. We can discuss the nuance there, but imo the act is what frames what the act is. The downplaying to avoid a label doesn't change the act.

Pratt wasn't a child when this happened. He was a full grown man, who committed an obvious act of sexual harassment. I do not understand the issue with having it labelled that way, and if the idea is, "he didn't intend it" I just don't agree that is valid reason to not call it what it is. Is he Weinstein? No. But he still committed an act of sexual harassment.
Click to expand...

By my way of thinking when you lump in things like what Pratt did - becoming a few inches (or more) naked in a scene in which he was already mostly naked - with cases in which people were diminished or threatened over a period of time with little hope of recourse, you risk losing folks who in most cases would be allies for change.

Por ejemplo, I am all for tearing down Confederate monuments. But when well meaning types decide the next step in the fight is taking the names Washington and Lincoln off of schools, my eyes roll far back in my head.
 
Snow Queen said:
Looking it up, unless I'm missing something @flickchick85 raised a good point in the other thread. Unless I'm mistaken, the one who brought it up as a funny joke was - Chris Pratt. Not his coworkers or any crew members that may have been in attendance. As well, the fact he was reprimanded means at least one person was not comfortable going to work and having a man shove his junk at them. It's not abuse, and no one's called it that. He's not Weinstein, he didn't (to my knowledge) rape anyone, but yeah... that's sexual harassment. There's no reason to presume other people are going to be fine having you show them your junk at work - a subject I feel like should be obvious. And it seems at least one person took issue with it and said it, and it's possible others did too. Given he seems to be the one who brought it up on talk shows, it puts everyone else in an awkward position.
Click to expand...
Say someone called it out on the talk show. Considering the reactions we are reading in this very thread, apparently they would have been "overdoing it". Just like we saw with Carpenter, who she would talk about issues with Whedon in the past. And the cycle continues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
Decades of Sexual Harassment Accusations Against Harvey Weinstein - Part 4
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
70K
Thread Manager
T
T
  • Locked
Decades of Sexual Harassment Accusations Against Harvey Weinstein - Part 3
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
73K
Thread Manager
T
T
  • Locked
Decades of Sexual Harassment Accusations Against Harvey Weinstein - Part 2
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
77K
Thread Manager
T
T
  • Locked
Decades of Sexual Harassment Accusations Against Harvey Weinstein - Part 1
38 39 40
Replies
999
Views
72K
Thread Manager
T
T
  • Locked
Me and Earl and the Dying Lounge
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
26K
Thread Manager
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 1, guests: 2)

Staff online

Members online

Total: 1,082 (members: 20, guests: 1,062)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,554
Messages
21,759,187
Members
45,594
Latest member
evilAIS

Share this page

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"