Suddenly Vice President Mike Pence's idea of never dinning with an opposite sex - curious about the same sex though - without his wife's presence seems to be more acceptable by a larger swath of population. How did that happen?
To be clear, Weinstein and other men who got outed are indefensible; but to some, Hefner is either in the same category or a great sex liberator. Evidently, the latter wasn't even in for the money. Hefner just took a joyride of his life.
Suddenly, so many people eager to out someone famous. How about a 93 year old former president. You bet!
You have to be living like a monk to be free and clear.
In another column, I responded warning against the mania. I pointed out 20 some years ago every daycare centers were child sex abusers after a couple of cases. Sadly, it still happens on occasions. But the mania has broken after it was proven some aggressive investigators inadvertently coached the children. My response was promptly attacked.
So, let me reiterate. True, there are a lot of predators out there. But not all situations are the same. I used to hate to go to NYC because 42rd Street was such a cesspool. But no, don't follow Mike Pence's footstep of not dining with females without chaperon for good dinner companions, male or female, are hard to come by
4
Playboy wasn't an era. The brand still exists. I find it in poor taste that you would even use Hefner's name in the same headline as Weinstein. Hefner never raped anyone. Did any women come forward accusing him of rape? Never. And Hefner never sent the message to women that they must "tolerate" sex. He made it okay for women to admit that women enjoy sex too. How tasteless to to take a cheap shot at Hugh Hefner...and even worse that you would promote excuses for Weinstein's crimes.
9
Please stop normalizing the term "nonconsensual sex".
4
A creep is a creep is a creep. Anytime, anyplace. No more excuses.
9
Good piece, but let’s not forget that your music empowerer, Beyoncé is married to a hip hop misogynist, at least in his lyrics.
6
When working with sex offenders as a psychologist, a notable observation was the perpetrators' repeated failures to view their victims with empathy, and often, as independent agents separate from the perpetrator at all. Teaching boys and girls the benefits of genuinely paying attention to one another at an early age would solve a variety of interpersonal problems.
8
Not to defend Hefner, but objectifying women and porn were around long before he air-brushed his first blonde, centuries really in both the West & the East. The invention of photography & later movies just changed the explicit from drawings & words to the display of "actual" women, whether on a magazine page or a film. The sexual liberation of the 60s & 70s applied to all genders, and the men who use that time as an excuse would have acted in the same vulgar manner - or worse - hundreds of years ago.
10
I can only hope that women continue to speak up.
7
This article is yet another very strange article that seeks to blame the 1960s culture for male abuse of women. Are these commentators simply ignorant-- or is this just their regular hobbyhorse of "what is wrong with America these days"? My mother experienced the same-old same-old at her job in 1955. She was married with 3 small kids and wanted to add to the family's income as a typist. Her boss's behavior caused her to quit her job. Sinclair Lewis wrote about sexual harassment on the job in The Jungle. Samuel Richardson wrote about it in (1740) in Pamela. Time for a change.
14
This was a good article, I’m excited to see what happens next in entertainment if there are more women making it rather than just being it. If creepy dudes don’t get into making movies “for the chicks” I think they’ll probably be more interesting.
5
Looking back over the forty-six years that I've been a sexually active man, from the early 70s on, I am profoundly conflicted on what to make of my life and in how it relates to women.
I have never considered myself to be a bully; I never felt that I have forced myself on a woman; not once have I thought I might had taken advantage of someone too incapacitated to consent.
Until recently, that is.
A young man I know in his early twenties, was nearly convicted of sexual assault. He was accused of putting his hand down an acquaintance's pants while she (and he) were very inebriated.
I was astonished. I had done the very same thing when I was that age. Did I commit sexual assault?
Although I never was in the power to coerce a woman, I was persistent in my pursuits, often ignoring initial refusals, believing them to be a part of the play. I mean, overcoming reluctance was not assault was it? Today, I think I see that it might have been.
But, although my behavior was acceptable back then (at least I thought it was), I am confused, and I'll bet a whole lot of men and women are too.
When I think about it, there's a lot of gray area between the wide spectrum of seduction and rape.
I believe now, that on occasion, I did things wrong. I should have asked; I should have waited; I should have known.
But boys learning life should never be confused with monsters bearing promises and threats.
13
Thank you for your honesty and for initiating your "searching inventory" of your earlier behaviors. You sound like a person of integrity. I hope more will do as you have done.
10
What's missing is mention of the never ending sexual abuse happening in professional sports and music - particularly hip hop. Mr. Morris fails to address these exclusive boys clubs that have unquestionably effected how young men see women - both in the US and around the world. Culture is a strong export and few do it as powerfully as America.
If we want to influence young minds and help change the culture going forward we should be addressing them where they are. I know of few boys who don't watch sports or listen to music but I'd be hard pressed to find one that either knows who Harvey Weinstein is or watches his movies. While Hollywood absolutely has it's issues, we're turning a blind eye when we fail to acknowledge this is a culture wide issue - not just one for men in suits and ties.
What say ye Mr. Morris?
4
We're talking now about heterosexual misconduct, because that's about all people can stand. We've yet to broach the subject of the abuse of powerless young men in Hollywood and elsewhere throughout corporate America, by both powerful men and powerful women. Yes, women abuse too. And just how much longer before people have the stomach to accept that Hollywood's pedophile problem will dwarf anything we've seen before, including the Catholic Church. Power, regardless of gender, age or sexual proclivity, corrupts.
For not a second do I excuse or condone this behavior, but there comes a time when one has to realize that human beings are predatory by nature. Ya know, Darwin and all that.
2
Don't blame Darwinism. We are human beings not animals. We have morals and ethics which need to modeled for us in childhood and reinforced by social norms. Yours is a cop-out!
These sexual assaults, including pedophilia, are subject to human behavior and choices to act on impulses. Everyday men work well with women so it's just some men with bad behaviors and uncontrolled impulses. Time for the men who assault to learn they cannot do it. It's behavior modification.
Second, harassment and assaults are not about sex. Sex is the means. These crimes are about denigrating and humiliating women, and some men ensuring that they dominate and control them. Time for all this to stop, of course. Women will not put up with this any longer. "Good" men and women must believe women who now feel they have no recourse. Stop these behaviors when they first start, not forty years later when one man may have harmed hundreds of women.
1
"When your famous, they let you." Not even close to taking into account what the person wants does it? Essentially, consent is assumed because they didn't make a big stink about it. Horsecrap!
There's a lesson in that about voters who don't vote. Politicians have nothing to fear from them.
6
Hugh Hefner was an important cultural figure up until 1965, when the Zeitgeist ran right over him. Playboy attempted to ridicule the new "Counterculture," as it came to be called. Hefner and Playboy had been revolutionary in the Fifties, as a force against the Puritanism which characterized American culture at that time. What we rejected in the Sixties was his insistence upon connecting the idea of sexual liberation with the idea of affluence, to the extent that he reduced sexual liberation to a status subservient to the overarching idea of conspicuous consumption.
In other words, it was all about Power. This brings us to Hollywood, which has always been about Power. Many conservatives complain about Hollywood because, in their view, it has the temerity even to go so far as to acknowledge the existence of sex at all. Notice, however, that Conservatives in general have no problem with violence.
My own contempt for Hollywood has nothing to do with sex. Rather, I am alienated by the stupidity of the "Cultural Market" in general, which panders to the lowest levels of intellect and of taste. If Hollywood offends Conservatives, however, it can be said to have redeeming social value by that fact alone.
Weinstein, I learned from Wikipedia, has made a lot ofmovies, none of which I have had the least curiosity to see.
Try this --
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/25/jerry-falwell-miami-h...
How about treating sexual harassment and assault as a hate crime?
4
Men seemed terribly confused by all this "stuff." Wait, I can't comment on her appearance? She's wearing a short skirt. Isn't that because she thinks it's sexy? Am I wrong to react to that? Women want sex,too, and like it, so how am I supposed to know when it's okay to "respond." Women aren't angels, you know.
Here's a suggestion: err on the side of caution. And respect. And fairness. You can never go wrong NOT commenting on her appearance, NOT making salacious jokes, and above all keeping your hands to yourself. If you wouldn't say it or do it to a man, DON'T say it or do it to a woman.
If she wants your attention, and is interested in a personal relationship, leave it to her to explicitly tell you so.
It's really not so difficult.
17
Hefner found an unexploited opportunity for making money and building his personal rotating harem by merchandising women's bodies and a cult of pleasure without consequences, commitment, or affection. Weinstein was in love with his own power and dreamed of possessing the screen goddesses who worked with him, an oddly deficient half-man, gross in appetite and behavior, in lack of self- or impulse control. When Americans see each other as men and women, rather than as commodities or instruments for gratification, or as mythical racial and cultural nightmares or dreams, they may have a chance of a human and fulfilling life. That's as much as anyone has any right to expect, and far more than possible for the poor, deprived, and oppressed, in America and elsewhere. Meanwhile, the serial sexual predator in the White House who can never tell the truth or feel shame or empathy or check his impulses continues to hold the loyalty of 80% of Republicans as he revels in his Twitter fights, abuse, bullying, and rants. The women who accused him of abuse had their stories independently corroborated, but that hasn't mattered So what price American culture of today? Is it acceptable to have abused several women before the presidency but not for a film producer?
6
The entirety of everything to do with the 'me generation' 70's was just ghastly in retrospect.
I can't read anything about these people without smelling the stench of their cigarette-saturated shag-carpeting imagining oppressive, dark faux-wood paneling & slippery 42nd st. theater floors.
If I see one more photo of some comb-overed, mustachioed leisure-suited sleaze who thought they were just such cool & groovy guys I'll wretch.
Everything about that era of American culture is hideous! Every one of those disgusting guys should be horrified they ever signed on for any of it.
Please make the last of whatever's left of the 1970's go away forever. I don't wanna know about that horrible era & its disgusting sex-addicted swingers. Gross!
Maybe we need an 'a-sexual revolution' to cleanse that era out of America's pores.
1
Beyonce, a fighter for feminism? Surely you jest.
Not one word about the hip-hop/rap culture that exists today in all of it's raging misogyny.
9
Correct me if I stray, but doesn't Madonna also like to posture as something of a force in the Progressive vanguard? I am rather inclined to dismiss her as a Go-Go dancer who thinks she's an Artist. But then again, I am rather inclined to dismiss commercial Pop Culture in general -- since about 1969, actually, but with notable exceptions For the most part I will insist that anything that is commercial is false.
1
"The disentanglement of Harvey Weinstein from Hollywood’s institutions has, so far, culminated in the termination of his membership in the Motion Picture Academy, the outfit whose duties include handing out the Oscars. His eviction might address an aspect of the Harvey Weinstein problem. But it doesn’t do much to reverse the absence of women from all kinds of craft jobs; nor does it end the drought of best picture winners that feature two or more women in major speaking roles who also speak to each other."
Umm. That's about as good an example of the term 'losing the plot' as I've ever seen. Harvey Weinstein in a bathrobe standing in the path of up-and-coming actresses on the brink of actual greater success and fame is, as has been said not often enough by anyone even remotely associated with Hollywood, just the tip. Of. The. Iceberg.
There are many hundreds of Harveys standing in the way of tens of thousands of Hollywood hopefuls. It's called the casting couch. Get on it, or get back on the bus to Iowa. This is a real thing. I would hope that the last few weeks would have demonstrated that if nothing else.
The casting couch is not some relic from a bygone era. It's Hollywood today, yesterday, and it will be Hollywood forever unless enough people wake up and demand that legal protections in place in the US somehow come to be enforceable behind the metaphorical gates of the studios. Which means, by the way, everywhere on this earth reachable by a private jet.
5
The cultural revolution of the 60s is the gift that keeps on giving.
Since "the culture" is being scapegoated, it might be noted that some cultures, because of their religious indoctrination, might have gone extinct centuries ago but for the grace of the wine-god.
Even if there was a time when harassing behavior was OK, we are decades past that. I have been training employees on the do's, don'ts and legalities of harassment for at least 20 years. You can't tell me that Weinstein and others of his ilk were not aware that their behavior was not acceptable. Aside from business training, and clearly stated company policies, there have been plenty of high profile news stories and lawsuits about sexual harassment. As has often been said, sexual harassment and assault are about power and control. And, about powerful people who think that the law doesn't apply to them. Maybe there's a thrilling adrenaline addiction, too from doing something they absolutely know is wrong.
5
I agree with Weinstein to the extent that coming of age in the 60s and 70s was a time when many of us believed that the more people you had sex with the better. Personally, I think rock and rock musicians were the role models for my rutting generation, not Hefner. And not only men felt and lived that way. On the other hand the idea that it was legitimate to use one's power and position to get someone to consent to sex was not defensible then or now. Intimidation and bullying were still intimidation and bullying.
3
From the Wikipedia article on "Sexual Dimorphism": "In many non-monogamous species, the benefit to a male's reproductive fitness of mating with multiple females is large, whereas the benefit to a female's reproductive fitness of mating with multiple males is small or nonexistent. In these species, there is a selection pressure for whatever traits enable a male to have more matings. The male may therefore come to have different traits from the female." Of course humans are different.
You wrote, "Of course humans are different."
Well, we no longer have tails, but we still have horns. :-)
"Mr. Hefner invented the Playboy ethos" Like racism, the Playboy ethos is as old as the hills. The ethos predates the first issue of Playboy by several millennia. To analyze (white) male entitlement in the 21st century by citing one movie or TV series after another is what a fraternity brother would do. ("The Deuce" is one tired cliche after another, one tired stereotype after another.) If you want to disrupt the boys in the locker room take away their nondisclosure agreements and arbitration clauses. Start a system that indicts them for wrecking people's lives.
4
Can you imagine how many men, in all professions, are not sleeping
wondering if 'that girl' he abused, harassed year ago might
suddenly come forward and speak out.
But, after this story dies down in a few months.
Will anything really change?
I unfortunately believe this kind of action will continue.
We women do need men to help stop this abuse.
6
"We’re talking about a phallocentrism that’s baked into movies and television" And societies. Accounting for it by reference to villains is not very helpful.You might as well ask : "Sigmund where are you now that we need you?"
1
Weinstein is right that it was different in the 60s and 70s, although it provides no "excuse" in 2017. In response to the predictable outrage:
1) Decent men did not do it, ever. My stepfather, a civil engineer, treated women with respect and honor. It was, however, viewed as caddish behavior, not illegal.
2) Sexual harassment did not become a recognized tort until 1986, in a Supreme Court decision the name of which escapes me now. Remember that Anita Hill's time in the limelight did not happen until 1991.
3) Boorish behavior in the earlier period was viewed as exactly that but, barring physical force, not more than that. That phrase is an important qualifier. It was viewed as something a woman could and should stop with a clear "no" and, in egregious cases, a slap in the face.
4) Boorish behavior did not create tort liability; it did not expose the perpetrator to criminal liability; and it did not cause him to lose his job. It is wishful thinking to conclude that in such a climate, a man was legally required to live up to 2017 standards.
5) That said, things changed in the 80s and 90s (except for certain mishaps in the White House in the 90s) and what was once tolerated clearly was tolerated no longer.
The time for getting with The Program was long ago, and Weinstein knew it, or properly is held responsible for knowing it. It does not "excuse" current or recent behavior. As for long ago behavior, it marks him as a boor and a cad by the standards of the times.
Actually, re: 2) above, I believe the Supreme Court held that what is now called sexual harassment was a form of sex discrimination, which violated federal statutes. But you get my point.
It is very unpopular to comment on violence towards women in mainstream TV but shows like Criminal Minds and even SVW often portray graphic violence during prime time. Most of the victims are women pursued by male killers. These programs are lauded and honored with awards. What if all the perpetrators were female and the men were the victims? How would that change what young people see?
And, as long as we allow young females to parade around the streets of NYC in what used to be called underwear, and we do not teach them to respect their bodies while out in public (and we stopped doing that in the 60s), we are telling them to be "loud and proud" in a wrongful and dangerous manner. I had, in the old days, an hourglass figure. I was careful in how I dressed. I could be bold with how I dressed, depending on where I was, but I didn't go out in my bra and shorts with my behind sticking out. That isn't "liberation" - that's accepting the programming that women are window dressing.
The whole subject needs to be discussed. The NYT/Kristof interview with Ashley Judd yesterday was amazing. Please, everyone, watch her and hear what she had to say.
5
This kind of behaviour has existed forever and will continue to exist until people who are female human beings are seen as human beings instead of things.
Aren't the "perks" of success for men supposed to be, among other things, "money, fame, fast cars, drugs and women" ?
Money is a thing. Fame is a thing. A fast car is a thing. Drugs are a thing. These are all objects, with no sentience or emotions or rights.
The fact that women are lumped into this list of things and objects is telling.
6
Hmmm? What's wrong with the last sentence of the essay?
"Beyoncé is sending that solidarity cry out for ladies. But to get anything meaningful done, more than a few good men are going to have to answer it, too."
A good example of how unconscious bias pervades our culture and diminishes women.
Beyoncé is sending that solidarity cry out for LADIES. But to get anything meaningful done, more than a few good MEN are going to have to answer it, too.
2
Men are incurious (perhaps to the point of revulsion) about women in dialog with other women because getting inside the minds of women is seen as without value. What men want to see in movies are examples of how to get ahead in the game of being the best man. They cannot imagine that a) maybe working to be a better HUman could be an interesting way to live; and b) learning about women WOULD make them a best man.
7
I don't think I will see the end of sexism (as a personal choice and as a societal structure) in my lifetime, but the reference to Sisyphus here is apt: I agree with Camus that "The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a [wo]man's heart." I take joy and hope from each small crumb of victory. Someday women will be treated as the equals we are.
5
One very real way that men can help women is by supporting and voting for pro-choice political candidates and supporting Planned Parenthood.
Sexual harassment is workplace discrimination recognized widely only after 1991 when Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas's harassment of Anita Hill was revealed.
Without the right to end unwanted pregnancies, women never make it to the workplace at all. Yet, every election cycle, some candidates still say men are entitled to control women's bodies, destinies and independence. And, of course, Justice Thomas is still on the Court.
So, men, you may not have a chance to ward off an offender or find a platform to speak out misogyny, but you identify those who support women and vote for them. It's easy and you have the chance to do it very often.
15
My interpretation of the “Playboy Philosophy” when I was a teenager wasn't exactly as portrayed in the article. It is true that it encouraged men to seek out sexual relations with women, but the role of a female participant was not to be dominated, but rather to share the experience. Their role was to be attractive enough that a man would ask them persuasively to participate. For me, I do not believe that the issue of respect would arise unless the refusal of a woman to participate was ignored or mocked, or unless there was such an atmosphere of sexuality permeating the workplace, that it was impossible for employees not to “participate” just by being at work.
I think that sexuality was viewed a little bit like dancing at a species-wide college “mixer”. It isn't harassment or even rude to ask anyone to dance, even along with attempts to ask as persuasively as possible. However, there certainly are ways of asking and ways of handling a refusal that are rude and that constitute harassment. Men who respect women could adopt the Playboy Philosophy (I believe) without losing their respect; women could engage with them without any risk of not being respected or of being harassed.
I think the article has it right when referring to those times as being used as an excuse or a rationalization for sexual misconduct and misogyny, but I believe that in those cases, the person (ab)using that excuse never really understood what it meant.
4
If a man is fully clothed in a suit, and a Playboy Bunny is wearing not much more than her fluffy tail, she's being dominated. And unfortunately, this attitude didn't stay just in the Playboy Clubs. The magazines used to be everywhere, as was/is the philosophy that a women is an object to be possessed, even if only briefly.
6
Some additional videos for those who don’t understand what misogyny looks like, and who may not understand the burst of cheers for justice from those who are old enough to remember the match and have lived through these decades
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DrcQeFl76cg
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i_7GrRw6S64
1
I grew up in the 60'S and 70's too. My parents taught me to show respect to everyone especially to girls (when I was younger) and women. It's not culture it's upbringing.
13
I don't think this kind of behaviour will stop until women are seen as full human beings. Right now, women are still viewed as accessories to power.
What are the perks of success for men? "Fame, power, money, fast cars and women.'
Fame is a thing. Power is a thing. Money is a thing. Fast cars are things. None of these have sentience, feelings, or rights. As long as women are in that last, and such thinking permeates our world, the Harvey Weinsteins will continue to exist.
20
It's challenging to aspire to an awareness of the many expressions of misogyny, but not take a repressed, pious and puritanical stance in relation to our libidinous selves. Referencing mass entertainment tv shows so heavily to explain ones ideas seems especially narrow and flimsy here. Reassuringly simplistic moralizing is rampant, probably always has been, but the paper of record should aspire to more.
3
Weinstein is only 65. He grew up in the 1970s. There was the burgeoning gay rights movement, and the Women's Liberation movement was in full swing. He went to college with women. No excuse.
33
I remember that "Battle of the Sexes" tennis match. It was BIG news; cover of Time magazine; interviews on tv. I was just telling a 25-ish year old young woman about it earlier this week. She laughed: she thought I was exaggerating. We've come a long way, baby. We just haven't come far enough.
Yet.
26
The curious thing is that a battle between Ms. King and a man 26 years her senior was billed as a battle of the sexes. The only reason it succeeded as such was the then widespread notion that any man, any time, should be able to beat any woman at any physical sport. Which is why Rigg's convincing defeat of Margaret Court earlier was a non-event: of course a man would beat a woman.
Obviously, that's not correct. Some women can beat some men, particularly if the latter are already receiving AARP Magazine. Surprise.
The religious right was wrong to support a political party that serves mammon rather than God. The religious right currently errs by supporting a womanizing pagan.
Nevertheless, the religious right is right about the sexual revolution. Male sexuality is sometimes violent and frequently exploitative. It needs to be restrained by moral restrictions.
The end result of the sexual revolution is the growing percentage of children who grow up without the security of being raised by both biological parents living together in matrimony.
Children raised to adulthood by both biological parents living in matrimony tend to have many fewer problems in life.
10
Only in your fantasies, John.
5
Mr. Morris, you cannot grab a woman "by the vagina." The vagina is located inside the body where it cannot be grabbed. The word you want is vulva.
30
The ancient Romans had the right idea. The term "Mons Veneris" means "Mountain (or mound) of Venus," thereby naming it for their goddess. Thus, it would also appear to have given us the verb "to venerate," which the Catholic Church considers something less than the verb "to adore."
6
Ummmmm.... I pretty sure that's a quote. Originally stated by our President.
pet peeve- thank you!
Women have been suppressed by men f--o-r-e-v-e-r. In every way, in every realm.
It's not just Hollywood and it's not just the Playboy ethos. Please look more broadly.
37
Forever hasn't happened yet. But if it had, that would indicate a certain inevitability, no?
Evolution, maybe?
Maybe not forever, Shiloh: 6 Modern Societies Where Women Rule
http://mentalfloss.com/article/31274/6-modern-societies-where-women-lite...
Weinstein lives very much in the modern era. He supports gay rights, women's rights, Hilary Clinton for President. He's not a dinosaur. He knows what he did was wrong.
46
2 rights don't excuse a wrong?
1
Thank you Lisa.
I have been trying to explain that the difference between Weinstein and Trump, Ailes and O'Reilly is that Weinstein knows he did wrong.
I believe that makes Weinstein reprehensible and the others simply subhuman.
2
This column misses the mark. The Harvey Weinstein's of the world know what they are doing is wrong. Harvey's lame, I grew up in the 60s and 70s fooled exactly no one. He is a sexual predator and alleged rapist, not a product of an evolving culture.
40
He is a sexual predator and alleged rapist, ...."
What's is interesting is the outcry around the world because women are involved, and they have a voice and a platform, but there was not all that much uproar when the abuse and rape involved thousands of young boys around the world abused by Catholic priests---and people are still going to their churches.
I guess as Ivanka woudl say , everything is RELATIVE.
Porn is not real and is not to be taken as such....All fiction is this way....it is a release.....sometimes mindless.....just like cartoons....and sports.....to give them this underlying power that they truly effect human behavior is the illogical fallacy.....
2
It’s about as real as it gets for the women acting in it, no?
1
Porn tends to be very "retro" or reactionary in its perspective. However, if religious conservatives are against it, that fact in itself should be accepted as "redeeming social value." If the religious conservatives don't like it, it must be good for something. Yes, I am serious.
If you didn't know in the 1960s and 1970s what Heffner and Playboy were about, you were just plain stupid. He was selling sex and desire. Men knew. Women knew. Anyone using it as an excuse, well... it's just an excuse, and a really bad one.
18
Nah, I'm not buyin' this. Steve Carell as Bobby Riggs was just a movie. Cam Newton is a young kid who isn't used to women asking him questions about receivers' routes. You vilify a young man for his inexperience and call it something else, suggest lasciviousness. This has just enough valid points in it, but they've all been said before. Then it reaches and goes too far and sees a villain in everyone, evil everywhere. Nothing is so pervasive and clear cut or Weinstein wouldn't have gotten away with this for so long.
7
Good article, but please--no more Beyonce. She is a burlesque artist whose lyrics often objectify women ("if you liked it you should have put a ring on it"). I can't believe there aren't better role models for black girls out there. Is it really so difficult to find them and quote them?? In fact quoting this burlesque artist makes a mockery of the writer's main point.
32
Great article. Isn't it ironic that the world (including NYT) gave Hefner a flowery eulogy following his death, while in other moments and articles we clamor for the respectful and fair treatment of women?
I love this line: "We romanticized Mr. Hefner’s empire as a revolutionary force — lovers gonna love, and all of that — but it was actually just a popularization of entitlement."
It made me sick how honored he was.
Two things I wished you had explored (maybe you can get it in your next article):
1. The ubiquity of porn and its role in how our world perceives sex and gender roles in sex.
2. How films like "The Deuce," "Game of Thrones," and "West World," replete with female nudity yet praised for their storytelling and artistic value, might actually be adding to the problem we're trying to fix.
41
Hefner did more for the 1st amendment than trump will do for anything is his lifetime. The problem that you allude to is called HUMAN NATURE, and it cannot be "fixed".
1
The financial sucess of Hugh Hefner disproves the belief of Sadducees, John Calvin, and the Republican Party that God rewards righteousness with wealth.
.... Not to mention Game of Thrones...
To even begin comparing Hefner to Weinstein is obscene. Weinstein's deranged criminal behavior would never have been tolerated by Hefner or at the Playboy Mansion at any time, under any circumstances. Playboy was about the empowerment of both sexes and the embracement of sexuality. Weinstein was about the abuse of power to serially abuse women. Playboy was about respecting women's feelings and emotions, achieving mutual consensual sexual satisfaction, and the embrace of giving pleasure for the benefit of both partners. Weinstein was about forcing himself on women in the most disgusting fashion imaginable. Criminal behavior behavior is criminal behavior, and there is nothing about Hefner and Playboy that can in any way be correlated to the actions of Weinstein. It is despicable that you would link their names in such an insulting way to the legacy and memory of a man, Hugh Hefner, who positively changed the culture of the nation for the better for decades....whether for First Amendment rights, civil rights, or human sexuality and understanding...and shows you have a profound misunderstanding of Playboy, Hefner and his legacy. Shame on you!!!
18
I am kind of reluctant to admit this, but even as a genuine 70's women's libber -- I don't see Hefner as ever coming close to suggesting that forced sex was acceptable. Did he objectify women? Yes. Did his personal fantasies cater to the male to the detriment of women. Yes. DO think the male obsessions with very young models is close to pedophilia. Yes. But I never got the sense that Hefner hated women.
Weinstein, however, is a woman hater: his behavior is meant to humiliate and destroy the victim's spirit. A coward, planning sexual attacks, not any different from a street thug.
This isn't some sort of cultural trickle down from days of "free love" if anything, maybe he thought this was the way the old Hollywood film magnates operated.
36
Really Joel? When I "read" Playboy in my youth I don't recall much about the feelings and emotions of the Playmates of the Month. But I wouldn't condemn the magazine either.
The message of Playboy is that women are only valuable when they are young, beautiful, shapely, and willing. The message is that a man of 50 can desire a woman of 20, but a woman of 50 is too disgusting to think about.
1
There are lots of women who are complicit in this. Those who are impressed by power and intentionally expose themselves to this. There are enough examples of women who have publicly stated that they wouldn't have minded being cornered in the Oval Office by Bill Clinton. These women are throwing fuel on the fire that engulfs the other women who don't really have that in mind. It is not as though all women are horrified by a man*s aggressive attention.
13
The 60's were damaging to women. I lived through it. "Free love" wasn't free to those women who caught an STD, or ended up pregnant, a single mom or dealing, frequently completely alone with an abortion. Women wanted freedom; what we got was more ways to be exploited. I remember a date taking me to a Playboy club. I wondered why he thought I would enjoy seeing women dressed up as barely-clad bunnies, having to "dip" rather than bend over, to avoid being molested as they were serving drinks. Somewhere between repression and ownership of women, and a decadent free for all with our bodies is a respectful answer.
54
"Weinstein, Hefner"? Maybe it's just me, but I never thought Hugh Hefner was accused of sexual harassment by any woman he had any relations with, nor was he accused of unwanted sexual advances, or being abusive to any woman!
And, I'm not trying to be glib here.
17
Hefner was more than just for the "popularization of entitlement." He was clearly anti-racist and pro free speech. The former is at least still valued in the liberal community. And Playboy didn't just operate under a "patina of civility," compared to the culture Weinstein yearns for, there was more than a patina of consent, also.
9
For all the mockery that was heaped on Vice-President Pence for his refusal to have a private meeting with a woman without his wife present, a world where more men followed that rule would be a world with fewer Harvey Weinsteins.
As for pornography, I’m just going to say it—it’s completely anti-feminist. Some woman may argue that their participation in it is “empowering” or “sex-positive,” but the guy alone on his computer doesn’t care what your motivations for participation are. He just sees an object for his gratification.
9
"...A world where more men followed [VP Pence's } rule would be a world with fewer Harvey Weinsteins." It would also be a world where women's advancement, by not being able to meet with mentors and fellow businesspeople in a private setting. would be severely limited.
How about in a world where all men (not just most) followed the rule that women who are colleagues are deserving of the same respect afforded a male colleague - that of not being hit on or subject to sexual harassment? That would work.
19
Perhaps the woman looking at her paycheck sees men as objects. Or at least sees things less categorically than you do.
Just read about how Kennedy just 'took' his intern and she was just expected to go along, feel privileged and keep her mouth shut.
It was and has been at certain levels for very long. Y'all might not want to look at the fraternity environment for training in predatory behavior.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/reliable-source/post/jfk-intern-mim...
7
Perhaps we should confine pornography to the physician's office.
Many much-desired, healthy babies have been born after the physician sent the husband into a private room to view pornography. Are there reasons for everything under the sun?
1
One industry that has hardly been considered so far is architecture, in which male studio faculty routinely picked someone (male or female) with whom to sleep for the semester, and in which male entitlement continues right through the food chain, which is one more reason why so many women are fired when they have kids and are obviously not going to be so easily available for sex as well as working the eighty hour weeks that are not uncommon but seldom paid in full for.
7
" the dog ate my homework" excuse for alleged grown-ups. Please notice that Women don't use this as an excuse. Or NEED to.
4
Two incidents when I worked in a public hospital in the "70s:
- A doctor wrote in the chart of a 7 year old girl who was sexually abused by her father that "[girl's name] should learn not to act so seductively."
- I found a "men's" magazine on the ward with an ad towards the back advertising knock out pills so that "she'll never know what happened".
Obviously, we would not find these incidents to be acceptable today. But maybe more of us need to think about what was overtly happening then and what might be covertly happening today.
17
Meanwhile we have a misogynist as President who women voted for because they identify with male power to feel good about themselves. If they agree with him just on policy issues, then something is really wrong. It is not just Weinstein and Crosby, Trump, etc. who demean women, it is engrained in our culture. Just because Weinstein excuses himself because of the "culture" doesn't cut it. Not only will we resist as women, mothers, daughters, sisters, friends, but as fellow human beings: politically, socially and, yes, culturally. We will get the sexists and racists out of office eventually but the struggle will be a long one. Thanks for the article. Well done!
17
Not to mention the current GOP who are abusing women in "Legal" ways by taking away clinics, health coverage, retirements, clean water and along with the person in the President's seat are shouting down colleagues, candidates, press and immigrants who happen to be women. This has been going on forever. Let's stop it now.
3
"Not only will we resist as women, mothers, daughters, sisters, friends, but as fellow human beings: politically, socially and, yes, culturally."
Will that be BEFORE or AFTER you google "escorts" "live webcams" "hot chicks" and god knows how many other categories. Most of the women there seem to saying something else (and yes, I know some are forced into this, but not all as it is a lucrative job, job being the keyword, It think. Perhaps that is the brush with which all men paint all women.
And you know how "women" voted, exactly, how?
It's not just Hollywood. The Fashion Industry has been buffeted a bit but the big players who know where all their bodies are buried are keeping their heads down tossing up relatively small game trophies and hoping that everyody goes back to sleep soon. All those friends of Harvey in the fashion world who invited those young hopefuls to the parties knowing they weren't likely to make it in the business but could serve as useful cannon fodder for Harvey and his analogues knew what they were doing. The other shoe that is slowly dropping is the political sector. All those congressional and White House interns and aides have a lot of horrific stories to tell and have told them. Even Bush I and Bush II have been accused. Who's missing? What other "open secret" is there in the political sphere? You might want to reread some NY Post stories from just last year about what has reportedly been going on at some recently constructed presidential libraries. Why just last year a former president was reported to be "cajoling" - let's say - foot massages from female interns over a few glasses of wine. Would the male interns (where there any?) have been asked to provide this service? Probably not. But, hey he's a favorite of the Liberal media and its not like he's facing an almost Cosbyeque line of existing allegations of sexual impropriety. The wagons always circle to protect the powerful and the little people suffer especially when the people you want to protect serve your political needs.
4
Interesting.... I’ve wondered what was going on with an ex-president who was a womanizer before and during his presidency. I doubted he changed his stripes, but to openly discuss it would have put a damper on his wife’s run for president. Hummm... funny how we give him a pass and a patina of respect now.
If you are looking for the fundamental basis for sexual discrimination in western society then read the Bible. It's curious that many historically significant women in western society who accomplished great deeds toward the emancipation of woman, and men, were Unitarian, or were influenced by it. In case you don't know, the "Uni" in Unitarian is in deliberate contrast to Trinitarian, as in The Father, The Son and the Holy Ghost (whatever). Unitarians, for the most part in the USA, don't read the Bible, but Unitarians in Romania do (you can figure that out yourself).
The reason sexual discrimination is tolerated, protected and thrives is because it is fundamental to the Christian values of our society. It's almost subconscious. It just feels right, like our calendar in the Year of our Lord, Jesus Christ. The president takes the oath of office with his hand on a Bible. People take an oath in a courtroom on a Bible. It's the default. How can the USA possibly fundamentally respect the First Amendment if the president of the USA takes the oath of office with a Bible? But don't think this is a comment about Trump. ALL of our presidents have taken the oath of office over a Bible.
4
Very true - when they say women being considered targets to hit on, and so long as you aren't using actual force, 'hey, you're a good guy!' was the normal culture back then - that's entirely true. It was the cost for being in the workplace, the resentment for you being in the workplace, and saying that back then this was normal is real - and horrible.
It doesn't make it right.
6
“The culture then” encouraged men to loosen their libidos and women were expected to tolerate it". Not just tolerate it unfortunately. willingly quietly accept it if they wanted to have any chance at a career.
5
The left needs a focal point to push its agenda, and Hefner and Weinstein make a convenient focal point.
But Hefner was never much more than a side show selling at most a few million magazines per month. Women buy many more copies of Cosmopolitan and other erotic magazines. And Weinstein is a parasite in a morally bankrupt, sexually charged industry. Most parents advise their daughters to steer clear.
This isn’t a problem of men vs. women. It is a problem society not enforcing decent behavior in the workplace.
5
Excellent piece, thanks for writing it, Mr Morris, and to The NY Times for publishing it.
The problems of sexism, inequality, sexual harassment and sexual assault are not just due to a few bad apples, it’s a whole system and culture—operating in ways both subtle and unsubtle—including (but certainly not limited to) companies marketing sexist products and themes to make money. Or to get elected. Sexism is very deeply ingrained and a lot of people don’t want to talk about it or see it in the world around them. This article is a wonderful exception. Thanks again.
12
Hollywood's trade is scandal and self-promotion. The only place I can think of that is more of a cesspool is D.C. This Hollywood hand-wringing drama seems over the edge (even for Hollywood) because its people crave the spotlight - for any reason. Careers live and die by it.
As the old saying goes, for every casting couch, there is a woman willing to lie on it.
7
At the risk of inserting myself into a conversation where I may be less than welcome, I would just like to add that I had a similar experience when watching “Battle of the Sexes” – though of course we all knew the outcome, the audience I was part of gave each point for Billie Jean applause.
Mine was among the loudest. Strange, because I care almost nothing about sports, but I felt extremely caught up in the moment.
I remember the build-up for the game when I was young, because secretly, I knew which side I was rooting for. I was on the verge of coming of age, and had my own battles to fight with the prevailing male attitudes of the time. Silly as it was, I was invested in the defeating of Riggs and all the chauvinism he celebrated and everything connected with it.
I hated it. Emerging from puberty, I felt more of a connection with women, not so much because I was gay, but because I couldn’t relate to the brand of maleness I was expected to emulate.
I sympathize more than you may think about confronting “the culture then.” When I was a freshman in high school, a gym teacher of mine took it upon himself to invite me into his office, whereupon he attempted to get into my pants. And though he failed, I remember the sense of violation. And being even more confused about what is expected of a man.
But with Billie Jean, I was very, very clear. Felt so good to cheer her on after so much time had passed.
43
I’m very sorry that happened to you. Good for you for speaking about it. Thank you.
7
While I appreciate the (belated) breast beating and mea culpas this issue has rightly elicited, aren't we missing a much larger point? The sexual predation of women by men didn't start with Hugh Hefner, or Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby or the current occupant of the Oval Office. It did not originate in Hollywood or on 42nd Street nor is it limited to western culture. Misogyny and the degradation/mistreatment of women is universal and as ancient as human society. I would LOVE to hear/read someone explain this in anthropological or evolutionary terms. Finger wagging is comforting and important but it ain't enough.
71
Go read "The Alphabet vs. the Goddess" and then ponder whether women should be chasing power and status in a left-brain/linear/alphabet world (with all the emphasis on STEM) or should be working to reassert the right-brain/graphical/image-based world of the Goddess that dominated prior to the rise of the written word that appears to have had a consequence for neural structure.
The author (Leonard Shlain) was a neurosurgeon and knew of what he spoke. His research and writing were triggered by his observations arising from mucking around inside people's skulls.
The plasticity of the human brain has led to enormous gains for civilization, but not without significant costs; women appear to have been donors to the advances by bearing much of the costs...and seldom with their acquiescence.
I had the same reaction to an earlier article - while it is maybe therapeutic to believe we can change behavior with better communication about how certain behaviors negatively affect women today, looking at any historic period for clues simply ignores the 99.999% of our evolutionary history where these behaviors evolved. Before civilization, before tribal societies existed for more than a few hundred years at a time, before we had ways to reliably record our history, before art, before language as we know it with rich vocabularies and memories informed by what our great grandparents discovered - before all of that we were already humans striving to perpetuate the species. Procreation is the most important factor, as Darwin explained, and the cultures promoting lots of children reinforced themselves over eons. We are presumptuous to believe that drive can be throttled with birth control, safe sex, shaming unpleasant expressions of pure sexual desire, or op-Ed’s. When we can stifle the opposite urge, to kill, maybe there will be a similar reduction in the drive to reproduce - but given our rampant death culture surrounding guns and nukes, I would say it is more likely some new species will replace us first.
4
Right. We're waiting for you gentlemen. But I laugh when people talk about the "Mad Men" defense. I worked in the casting department at the J. Walter Thompson advertising company in 1962-3, and it was nothing, absolutely NOTHING like Mad Men. True, 95%, maybe 99% percent of women assumed they would spend the productive parts of their lives as somebody's wife, but that didn't sound to me and my friends like such a horrible idea. I worked in New York City for about thirty years and got annoyed my share of the time, but nobody ever pushed me into a closet or an elevator, masturbated in front of me (except a stranger on the subway), and so on. In the developing sexual environment of the 60s, which included not only Hefner, but also the Pill and tampons, women probably had more sex than in the days when we all expected to be somebody's wife. Weinstein is one hundred percent wrong to think that there was ever a time when predation was considered okay or was welcomed by women. Predators are like the criminal world in general, a few evil men do the most harm, and that includes, in my opinion, Woody Allen, who did the worst kind of predation and seems to have gotten away with it.
119
My thoughts exactly! Thank you for a great piece, Wesley
2
I disagree so strongly equating Hefner and Weinstein. Men's lust in itself is not a crime. It's a crime when it's forced on a woman. Hefner did not promote the kind of behavior that Weinstein is accused of.
21
Ok, I laughed out loud at this comment asserting that Hefner didn’t promote the kind of behavior that Weinstein engaged in.
Hefner most certainly promoted exactly the kind of behavior Weinstein is accused of with every atom in every fiber in every piece of paper that Playboy was published on. A clear example is the cartoons in Playboy of “Chester the Child Molester,” you know, because child molestation is so funny.
A friend’s dad when I was growing up in the early 80’s left Playboy lying around their house. What do you think a little kid thinks and feels in seeing something like that? What message does Playboy send about the value of women and girls? If you think it’s something other than objectification and low value, you’re in denial.
14
Yes, sir, he did. Women whose main function in life is to please men sexually, regardless of being in real life or in fantasy is perpetuated infamously by Playboy. It was made mainstream and acceptable by being veiled in style. It was made to make people rich. If your daughter was being bent over and "adored" by Hugh Hefner, you may feel differently. Maybe not. Sex was created to bind men and women closer together. So they would serve each other and raise a family together. Caring for each other mentally, emotionally and sexually. Not just for one to be satisfied at the expense of the other. I hope that someday, you and others who think like you, get it.
9
I think your sentence" Men's lust in itself is not a crime. It's a crime when it's forced on a woman." Is the most succinct and accurate differentiation of what we are talking about here. And while I am only 51 and have worked in finance my whole career, I would bet my life that predatory behavior a la Weinstein was never thought of as ok and at best an ugly secret...
6
Yes, there is much to criticize and anguish over regarding sex sex sex.
When were the Salem Witch Trials? When was "The Scarlet Letter" written?
When was Eve portrayed as The Temptress? But by reading the Morris valuable insights, by reading/hearing the comments of both women and men incensed by Weinstein and others, one might come away with the belief that sexuality and sexual relationships are by nature evil, to be denounced and avoided at all cost. In terms of women's "liberation," in recent years (as perhaps in the Roaring 20s) there seems to have been a sexual liberation for women that for many has been a positive occurrance Human beings are attracted to one another for many reasons and in many ways. Like it or not, pornography exists (has existed for a long long time) for reasons beyond cash flow. Apart from "the moral squalor of the sex business," do many women choose to dress in ways that are sexually interesting, appealing? What can be done to alter the ways men and women view one another, relate to one another so as to remove anything remotely "sexual" from the human species? Of course sexual abuse is "moral squalor." So is theft, so is murder. But until an inhumane medical revolution excises "sex" as a human characteristic, we're stuck with it. We need not tolerate mental sickness exhibited by the Weinsteins in our culture, but as Mae West noted long ago, sex is here to stay. And it was a woman who wrote and spoke the line, "Come up and see me sometime."
11
The author never proposed that sex itself is wrong or unequal or inherently comes with a side of squalor.
How revealing it is of your psyche that when told that sexism is wrong, you immediately think you’re being told that sex is wrong. How revealing it is of your psyche that sexism and sex are inextricably linked in your mind.
Hint: sexism and sex are not the same thing. Getting rid of sexism is not at all an effort to stop people from having sex, from wanting to be attractive to and being attracted by those with whom they may want have sex. Sex and exploitation are not the same thing. You can have one without the other.
13
It's too late to note that in my comment I wrote "one might come away with the belief . . ." I did not say I BELIEVED that sex is wrong, or that readers were being told that sex was wrong. And I agree that sex and exploitation are not the same.
But I do question whether we can ever eliminate exploitation, or sexual abuse or theft or murder. however worthy it is to try. Over many years, Sex In America has been researched, discussed, written about. Attitudes about sex, sexuality, sexual abuse, exploitation are threated through the American culture. And it may be unfortunate, but it seems possible that some human beings do not
object to being sexually "exploited." (By "exploited" I do not refer to rape, sexual slavery and other abuses.)
But thanks for reading my comments.
1
i've just returned from the middle east where women wear giant cloth bags covering their entire bodies. It's so men won't to be "tempted" by the sight of a woman. So, instead of the men learning to control themselves and their feelings and actions the women are forced to endure being big bags. When the power structure is out of whack and only men are in control women can be reduced to this. Keep writing about this dynamic. We can continue to hope that male insecurity and testosterone won't rule. Though our current political environment in the US isn't giving much comfort.
90
Despite the suggestions in current headlines, male predatory conduct revolves around a lot more than sex. Male predatory conduct is present in all walks of life, including that of "stronger" males--those that are most advantaged--against "weaker" males.
16
I grew up in the 50s before Hefner and the 60s sexual revolution and, while women certainly still have a long way to go for real equality, there were some positive messages for women embedded in all the silly playboy stuff. Most young women today don't appreciate how restrictive and repressive it was for women before the 60s. But then the women's movement did happen. Women were allowed to be sexual, to go for their own pleasure and not just be objects. Like a lot of revolutions and protests we may have gone overboard with the sex but women were a part of that new freedom, not just men. And both men and women weren't sure how to behave or what was the line between freedom or exploitation. Some women even made use of their sexual power and went after and sometimes exploited powerful men for their own advantage. And some women finally just started having a good time with sex. We weren't always the victims. There is clearly still a lot more enlightenment and equality for women to fight for but I do think Hefner and his gang as repugnant as they may be were a clumsy part of our battle.
23
What this article says about treatment of women in media is true. But I'd like to point out that media's treatment of men is similarly limited. What conversation do two men have in a movie other than about women, or how to dominate other men? In action stories, what's the ratio of (unlamented) male deaths vs. female? Women can now fill most of the roles formerly reserved for men (e.g., action heroes), but men cannot fill roles reserved for women (e.g., caring and nurturing, particularly for other males). Example: we can have a Star Trek with a female captain named "Michael", but you'll never see one with a male captain named "Elizabeth", except as comedy.
Indeed, many of the problems of male exploitation of women (and of other men) are exacerbated by the limited emotional roles our society and its media mouthpieces allow males to occupy.
True progress will come only when such limitations and tropes are eliminated for both sexes.
34
Excellent points, Mr Llewelyn. Thank you for making them.
1
"But to get anything meaningful done, more than a few good men are going to have to answer it, too."
And women too! (I'm still trying to wrap my mind around why 53% of white women voted for Trump while fully knowing that he embodied those same abhorrent traits.) We need to stop empowering them with silence or votes.
55
Perhaps they voted that way because A) they didn't view Trump's private boasting as particularly threatening or B) they thought other things were more important. Like immigration. Like the loss of jobs to Mexico. Like the pending TPP negotiations.
Open up your mind, instead of trying to wrap it around things. People have differing ways of viewing the world.
4
Must clarify - although still disturbing numbers - 53% of white women Who Voted, voted for tRump. The turnout for female voters was about 63%, so that means "only" about 1/3 of white women voted for tRump. Not as bad, but nothing to cheer about!
Why? I buy the theory that being white gives a person more "power" than being female, in this country.
Sidebar: women have always had higher voter turnout than men, since the 1980's, so if we could get our priorities straight, we could be a powerful force (despite gerrymandering, the inability to audit the vote, and inequalities in congressional representation).
Yeah, an uphill battle, but a necessary one.
5
53 percent of white women did not vote for Trump. Around half of the electorate voted. Some voted for third party candidates. A lot of women stayed home. No more than 25 percent of white female voters could possibly have voted for Trump. Who are these commenters who show up every article to talk about Trump no matter how irrelevant? I'm starting to think they are being paid.
Where was this article when we endured the glamorizing Hugh Heffner obituaries that galvanized him as a "progressive". So many men on how Playboy had helped them through adolescence, without mentioning the cost: developing into adulthood with a warped sense of sex, that support submission, utilitarianism and emotional manipulation. The world is not black and white and our options are not be repressed or be a predator.
114
I consider it a warped sense of sex, to think of it as predatory. Harvey wasn't a sex addict he was a predator. And I highly doubt Playboy was what warped men...it might have been the Catholic Church...their parents...a crush who rejected you. Blaming a magazine is giving it way too much credit (and blame). By the way, the correct spelling is "Hefner" not "Heffner". I suggest you watch the Amazon series "American Playboy." It is an accurate portrayal of Hefner and his influence on society, from his point of view. It seems most people have all kinds of opinions about him, but no real knowledge.
1
I was a young woman in 1991 when Anita Hill was trashed for telling the truth about her sexual harassment experience with Supreme Court Justice Thomas. The story was huge. Much bigger than the current Weinstein story. Everyone thought things would change. But alas, nothing much changed. We flatter ourselves when we believe big news stories about various forms of women-hating will change the social landscape. Men need to feel masculine and they achieve this on the bodies of women. This is primal. Nothing will change until men can solve the problem of 'feeling-like-men' some other way.
61
Some things changed. There were more laws. Which basically people that is men and companies run by men ignored.
1
"Men need to feel masculine and they achieve this on the bodies of women." True, but most men achieve this having obtained the consent of women involved.
4
Men need to feel attractive and cannot imagine that you would not want to have sex with them. When you don't most men just let it go, but about 30% get really aggressive....
Let me be a little provocative: If a 90-year-old white woman refers to African-Americans as "colored people"...should the "generational defense" apply? I think so.
2
No. She's had 50 or 60 years to reeducate herself and catch up with the culture. I'm a third younger than that example and I've had to roll with a lot of change in my life.
14
Then the NAACP should change its name.
2
I think "colored" has become yet another word that only certain people are allowed to say. And minute linguistic variation becomes the ground for massive grievance: colored person versus person of color.
Explaining is not excusing.
2
Mr. Morris, thank you for this column. I especially like this observation: "We romanticized Mr. Hefner’s empire as a revolutionary force — lovers gonna love, and all of that — but it was actually just a popularization of entitlement." You imply it, but I'd add the word "male" before "entitlement" to make things utterly clear for those who missed it.
It's worth underlining the historical point that women weren't liberated by men, including those men who promoted sexual liberation/revolution. Women liberated themselves.
And we can't stop now. We can't expect anyone else to rescue us or to preserve the rights we've struggled to win. It's up to us, working together, speaking up, fighting hard.
66
At one job, though I wasn’t in management and no hiring power, I was often asked to sit in at interviews for my opinion. It became clear to me the age difference in our company was no accident: say, if for job title x, the average age of a male employee was 35, the average age of a female employee was 25. It was a combination of female managers who wanted to meet the company’s diversity target and male managers who wanted to be surrounded by good-looking young women. This meant “older” women stood little chance of getting the job; there was a gender pay gap, but it could be wholly accounted for by the men having years of experience in the field while the women were barely out of school; male employees begrudged female employees, thought little of their abilities, and felt they were picking up the slack of the workload; and sexual harassment. Most of the women hired had no clue about what when into the process, though some did, but that was no reason to refuse a good career opportunity: the others were convinced they were truly the promising self-starters they imagined themselves to be and thought their comparative youth was proof. “Is this any way to run a business?” I asked one of the managers over drinks. “You know a better way?” he said.
11
Maybe I'm too much of a Brooklyn snowflake, but I've been looking at the subway ads for "Battle", and they seem backwards to me: Riggs in foreground, addressing an audience (?), and the winner of the match, King, smiling coyly behind him, head tilted, looking on. She may as well have a crush on the Captain of the team, judging by her expression.
Is it subliminal, or over-interpreted? Everything is loaded with meaning, and with none.
19
I know for myself that the ideas, values, portrayals in pornography are not neutral or innocent. They hurt me. I was exposed to some pretty heavy pornography on my kindergarten playground, mid-60's, brought by a kindergarten classmate who was just curious. I have come to see many years later how those images altered my perception on myself, others and my world. Perhaps it was one small thing, one little experiment by innocent children. I was not otherwise abused in any way I can perceive. But it was abuse and I know it had deep effects which I still work on. Men may think that pornography goes all their own way and that women thus portrayed are free for the picking, but it breaks both ways. There is no good in it and it is not harmless. For the record -- I do not view films or drama series that come anywhere near the explicit portrayals discussed here, though I support Wesley Morris' open and even brave discussion. I have not worked out how to portray a better world which is still frank and candid about the reality of our lives, but I think this article shows part of the way forward, part of the work that is necessary and beneficial. Thanks.
34
Man, I grew up soaked in that supposed culture, as a boomer, where the guys before us regularly made vulgar and demeaning general comments about women, and most of our cohort and after somewhat less so. But everyone in his right mind knew the difference between the comments and actual physical behaviors. Wheedling, pitching woo, begging, sure, sometimes. Touching, pawing, going against someone's stated wishes, never. Those were known to be wrong; there was no 'confusion'. It was NOT a continuum. So can we stop with the culture argument that conflates verbal rudeness / inconsiderateness with actual harassment and coercion? It is as though men did not now the difference b/w right and wrong back then. Come on.
93
Verbal rudeness is harassment - do you have any idea how very frightening it is to be on the other side of those comments? How we never know if they're just comments or will be followed up by actions? There is no difference.
44
@ Samantha: Verbal rudeness may be discomforting (or even extremely discomforting), but were your statement to be true we would be in even bigger trouble than we already are! There absolutely is an enormous difference between comments and action!
Said Jerry, the GUY, who has no experience being on the receiving end of harrassing and often overtly crude and sexual remarks.
11
Always love your thinking, Wesley; thank you.
14
A perfect indication of why these men like Weinstein exist.Its the culture of Hollywood ,then ,and now.
7
Art imitates life. Hollywood didn’t make this up. It just capitalized on it.
39