The Me Too Movement: The Sexual Harassment and Assault Thread

[MilkmanDan]

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?

Yes. Our conversation makes it clear that this is an ongoing discussion. But at first it was just a case of you quoting me out of context in a completely different thread. And I'm not sure that's something you should do. Having said that, I did mean to put a smiley face after my comment about how this makes me look. I'm not genuinely upset. And I'm not actually all that worried about how I'm coming across. Although I seem to be stuck to giving a half-hearted semi-defence for a dumb flashing incident on a set of a sitcom.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

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.

Why are you downplaying that he showed his penis? You are constantly doing this by playing the nickname game with it. It's his penis. He showed his literal sex organ, the one part they all agreed he had to cover up. Why do you think that is? shirts and giggles? If you think it is the same as him being shirtless, try this. Go outside with your penis out, but fully clothed otherwise. Walk around for a bit. I know we are lockdown, so please, wear a mask. Go to a store. Buy something. See how long it takes you to get arrested. You aren't arrested for indecent exposure for showing off your kneecaps.

Minimizing any form of harassment is a far bigger issue then offending those who don't want to acknowledge it. Because this is how we only have people considering sexual harassment or assault rape done with those few inches of flesh you want to downplay so much.

 

[DarkKnight88]

To be fair, this is literally none of our business. The only opinion on it that matters is the people who were there. Now we’re getting into speculation territory which is dangerous as well. Yes, you can have your opinion, but that's all it is in the end with what we know. An opinion. But until someone comes out that was there, from all accounts that considered each other as family by that point, and says that was harassment, that's really the only opinion I care about in this particular case. No speculation on our part on what the cast/crew may or may not have felt.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Overarching question, for those having this discussion. What is wrong with labelling what Pratt did sexual harassment? It fits the definition to a tee. He showed his penis unprompted, forcing others at his work place to view it, whether they wanted to or not. That is an act of sexual of harassment. Cut and dry.

Those arguing for nuance, seem to be disengaging from the very concept of nuance when it comes to sexual harassment. It encompasses everything from rape to catcalling. All is sexual harassment, and all of it has degrees. But that does not change that it is all sexual harassment. But the labelling of what Pratt did as sexual harassment, seems to irk some people, claiming it downplays sexual harassment. But you won't call textbook sexual harassment, sexual harassment, how is that now downplaying sexual harassment?

No one said Pratt was a serial rapist. So one said he grabbed a woman and sexually assaulted him. I said he committed sexual harassment. That is true. So what is the argument?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

To be fair, this is literally none of our business. The only opinion on it that matters is the people who were there. Now we’re getting into speculation territory which is dangerous as well. Yes, you can have your opinion, but that's all it is in the end with what we know. An opinion. But until someone comes out that was there and says that was harassment, that's really the only opinion I care about in this particular case. No speculation on our part on what the cast/crew may or may not have felt.

Uh, no. Pratt is the one who revealed it to the world. How in the world is that not up for discussion? Where is the logic in that? More over, he did sexually harass people. Good lord, are we really arguing flashing your penis to your co-workers unprompted can be considered anything else? What do you think he was punished for?

 

[Dr.]

Unwanted/unsolicited nudity is a type of harassment. I guess... But I'm not sure it's automatically sexual.

 

[Zarex]

Why are you downplaying that he showed his penis? You are constantly doing this by playing the nickname game with it. It's his penis. He showed his literal sex organ, the one part they all agreed he had to cover up. Why do you think that is? ****s and giggles? If you think it is the same as him being shirtless, try this. Go outside with your penis out, but fully clothed otherwise. Walk around for a bit. I know we are lockdown, so please, wear a mask. Go to a store. Buy something. See how long it takes you to get arrested. You aren't arrested for indecent exposure for showing off your kneecaps.

Minimizing any form of harassment is a far bigger issue then offending those who don't want to acknowledge it. Because this is how we only have people considering sexual harassment or assault rape done with those few inches of flesh you want to downplay so much.

A lady can also get herself arrested for exposing her tatas (More silly nicknames!) in said store. Or on most US beaches. That ok with you?

The problem with lumping the Pratts in with the Weinsteins is that you risk coming off as not serious. "The Libs are trying to legislate all normal human activity!! Be sure to fill out a consent form, fellas, before going in for that smooch!" Pratt effed up, the manner was appropriately dealt with, and as far as we know there are no victims. There was no foul on the play so lets keep the sexual harassment label for the massive amounts of stuff we all agree with.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

A lady can also get herself arrested for exposing her tatas (More silly nicknames!) in said store. Or on most US beaches. That ok with you?

Of course. Unless we are talking about breast feeding or a nude beach, of course it isn't okay. What's your point?

The problem with lumping the Pratts in with the Weinsteins is that you risk coming off as not serious. "The Libs are trying to legislate all normal human activity!! Be sure to fill out a consent form, fellas, before going in for that smooch!" Pratt effed up, the manner was appropriately dealt with, and as far as we know there are no victims. There was no foul on the play so lets keep the sexual harassment label for the massive amounts of stuff we all agree with.

You mean the same people fine with Trump being a rapist? The hell do I care what they think? There is no issue with labelling sexual harassment, sexual harassment. Because that is what it is. Also, I'm not a lib.

I do not tether myself to your arbitrary standard for what sexual harassment is. It's be laid out multiple times by people far smarter then us. That is what I hold to, because the amount and types of of harassment society thinks is still okay, is frightening. Remember our former president's infamous recording.

Did you really take nothing from FC's post on the very concept that there was "no victims"? You keep running with that. You say Pratt did something wrong, he got in trouble, though apparently randomly because according to you no one had a problem with it. How does that make sense? Explain how there is no foul play, if he "effed up", that is foul play. If there was no foul play, why did he get in trouble? Someone clearly had an issue with it.

 

[Eddie Dean]

Unwanted/unsolicited nudity is a type of harassment. I guess... But I'm not sure it's automatically sexual.

You can end up on the sex offender registry if you publicly urinate within 100 yards of a school. You don't need to commit a sexual act for it to be sexual harassment.

 

[henzINNIT]

It's just a penis. Maybe that's my point of contention ha.

It's taken very seriously around children for good reason, but there is a good case to argue there is very little sexual or harassment about Pratt's sexual harassment in this instance, which is perhaps why people are resistant to calling it so.

 

[Eddie Dean]

He's supposed to have it covered up, it doesn't matter if he has any sexual intent or not. It creates an uncomfortable working environment and sets a precedent for what kind of behavior will be tolerated going forward. Unless you have consent from all parties beforehand, you don't expose yourself in a work setting, period.

 

[Zarex]

Of course. Unless we are talking about breast feeding or a nude beach, of course it isn't okay. What's your point?

I find it odd that a small breasted woman has to cover up while Man Boob Marty can let those sweater puppies fly free. Seems unfair, that's all.

You mean the same people fine with Trump being a rapist? The hell do I care what they think? There is no issue with labelling sexual harassment, sexual harassment. Because that is what it is. Also, I'm not a lib.

Its not just about the Trumpers. I am a Never Trumper, but I don't think an overly broad definition of sexual harassment helps actual victims.

I do not tether myself to your arbitrary standard for what sexual harassment is. It's be laid out multiple times by people far smarter then us. That is what I hold to, because the amount and types of of harassment society thinks is still okay, is frightening. Remember our former president's infamous recording.

Did you really take nothing from FC's post on the very concept that there was "no victims"? You keep running with that. You say Pratt did something wrong, he got in trouble, though apparently randomly because according to you no one had a problem with it. How does that make sense? Explain how there is no foul play, if he "effed up", that is foul play. If there was no foul play, why did he get in trouble? Someone clearly had an issue with it.

My guess is one of the higher ups, possibly Mike Schur, decided he needed a talking to.

I ain't no lawyer, but I typically think of workplace sexual harassment as taking place over an extended period of time and involving multiple incidents. It usually involves a superior taking advantage of a person of lower status and is sexual in nature. Chris Pratt calling Alejandro Pena out from the bullpen doesn't meet the smell test for me.

Anyhoo, I'm watching Mr. Mayor, the new show from that monster Tina Fey. Agree to Disagree!

 

[henzINNIT]

If Pratt was to cop a charge for it, he'd likely be charged with public indecency and not for sexually harassing everyone in the building.

What about butts? If he instead pulled his pants down and showed his arse, would that be sexual harassment? They share a similar 'not good' status in regards to censorship, and are every bit as sexualised. I've been mooned by someone at least once in my life. In those instances, am I the victim of sexual harassment? Is the perpetrator sexually harassing me and anyone who may see the butt?

 

[Donner]

Michelle Trachtenberg: Joss Whedon wasn't allowed to be alone with me on 'Buffy'

 

[Nemeres]

I loved the guy's shows something fierce and really admired him as a media figure in general. Bitter to reconcile w the fact that they're tainted with professional a**holery. Sorry he felt the need to keep his employees down. I appreciate the Buffy and TV people being willing to share specifics.

 

[Chesterfield]

Specifically focusing on this whole Whedon business, what I find irritating on top of all the horrible allegations, when Ray Fisher spoke out about the terrible things Whedon supposedly did, people didn't believe him. He was ridiculed, labelled a cry baby, the validity of his claims were called into question and was deemed a time waster. Now, you have a bunch of certain people coming out after 8 months of a resilient Fisher catching crazy heat from people, now sharing their unfortunate testimonies against Whedon and despite these incidents having taken place circa 20 years ago, no one questions the validity of these allegations and immediately rallied together wanting Whedon's head on a spike.

What these women have experienced is incredibly sad and unfortunate and it's good to see perpetrators, int his case Whedon exposed for their gross misconduct. However, I just find it interesting and ridiculous that someone like Fisher was practically ostracized and essentially fought a 1 man campaign against his victimisers and wasn't afforded nowhere near the same kind of respect and support.

 

[DarkKnight88]

What these women have experienced is incredibly sad and unfortunate and it's good to see perpetrators, int his case Whedon exposed for their gross misconduct. However, I just find it interesting and ridiculous that someone like Fisher was practically ostracized and essentially fought a 1 man campaign against his victimisers and wasn't afforded nowhere near the same kind of respect and support.

It is treated differently in the media when a man comes forward. There's still that stigma of a "man can handle himself". Just as a society at large. Look how ignored Brendan Fraser and Terry Crews were when they came forward regarding their sexual assault. An article here then forgotten.

 

[Sithborg]

Incest accusation in prominent family prompts French national reckoning with child abuse - CNN

Wtf France? Okay, #metoo trending about many people coming out about sex abuse is one thing, but to have it be #metooincest? What the fork? An NGO estimates that 1 in 10 french people have been part of incest. No wonder Polanski is nice and at home there.

 

[Teelie]

It is treated differently in the media when a man comes forward. There's still that stigma of a "man can handle himself". Just as a society at large. Look how ignored Brendan Fraser and Terry Crews were when they came forward regarding their sexual assault. An article here then forgotten.

Or in the rare case like Kevin Spacey and Brian Singer, it gets noticed and there are repercussions but not severe enough to break the wall and allow other similar cases like Fraser and Crews to get more notice.

That "suck it up" mentality for men is especially true of Hollywood.

 

[Shinobi Shaw]

Specifically focusing on this whole Whedon business, what I find irritating on top of all the horrible allegations, when Ray Fisher spoke out about the terrible things Whedon supposedly did, people didn't believe him. He was ridiculed, labelled a cry baby, the validity of his claims were called into question and was deemed a time waster. Now, you have a bunch of certain people coming out after 8 months of a resilient Fisher catching crazy heat from people, now sharing their unfortunate testimonies against Whedon and despite these incidents having taken place circa 20 years ago, no one questions the validity of these allegations and immediately rallied together wanting Whedon's head on a spike.

What these women have experienced is incredibly sad and unfortunate and it's good to see perpetrators, int his case Whedon exposed for their gross misconduct. However, I just find it interesting and ridiculous that someone like Fisher was practically ostracized and essentially fought a 1 man campaign against his victimisers and wasn't afforded nowhere near the same kind of respect and support.

All of this.

You know the narrative will gain massive traction once it happens to someone white and with blonde hair. That’s just a simple fact.

From jump street, I always said I wished Fisher just came out swinging and gave all the details about what he experienced, but then I put myself in his shoes. A relatively unknown black actor who taking on big Hollywood people; that’s scary as hell.

 

[henzINNIT]

I'm inclined to agree in general but it is more complicated than Charisma Carpenter being white and Ray Fisher being black. The former addressed the world with one carefully written and detailed description of her experiences, the latter made a ton #'s and provided very few details. The different effect of each approach speaks volumes, but I don't think it's about race. For the most part, anyway. There are apparently racists everywhere.

I support Ray Fisher in his goal. I was pretty skeptical at first, but he has been persistent, weathered an unfathomable torrent and has managed to turn the tide. That is quite some feat, and he deserves credit for it. In an ideal world I could enjoy Buffy with no baggage, but it is far more important to know the truth and stamp out any trace of this 'casual cruelty' in the industry.

 

[Schlosser85]

I'm inclined to agree in general but it is more complicated than Charisma Carpenter being white and Ray Fisher being black. The former addressed the world with one carefully written and detailed description of her experiences, the latter made a ton #'s and provided very few details. The different effect of each approach speaks volumes, but I don't think it's about race.

This.

 

[DarkKnight88]

 

[Detective Conan]

 

[Sithborg]

I'm inclined to agree in general but it is more complicated than Charisma Carpenter being white and Ray Fisher being black. The former addressed the world with one carefully written and detailed description of her experiences, the latter made a ton #'s and provided very few details. The different effect of each approach speaks volumes, but I don't think it's about race. For the most part, anyway. There are apparently racists everywhere.

I support Ray Fisher in his goal. I was pretty skeptical at first, but he has been persistent, weathered an unfathomable torrent and has managed to turn the tide. That is quite some feat, and he deserves credit for it. In an ideal world I could enjoy Buffy with no baggage, but it is far more important to know the truth and stamp out any trace of this 'casual cruelty' in the industry.

Ehhh. One of his targets has been left out to dry. Remember, his initial complaint was against Whedon and Johns. He also has issues with Hamada as well.