Hollywoodies.

g

Erica Ambler wrote:

Salomé wrote:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/harvey-weinstein-threatened-kill-employees-wing-women-lawsuit/story?id=53006556

This lawsuit is likely the first serious consequence that Weinstein has faced.

Weinstein is not what this is about. It hasn't been about him for a long time.

I count two dead so far, Jill Messick and Carl Sargeant. However, I realise that being driven to suicide doesn't compare to being sexually propositioned in this Brave New World.

Weinstein isn't the only one accused of sexual assault/rape.

Weinstein still has a decent amount of importance as the genesis of this movement (warts and all).

Look, I'm not saying you don't have a point in terms of the extremes.
I just read a criticism aimed at Stanley Tucci's latest film "Submission" because it features the kind of relationship and behavior that #MeToo is criticizing. There is so much wrong with that POV, starting with the fact that obviously no one involved in the film could have seen #MeToo coming when they were still shooting the film. Secondly, is any interaction that might be deemed problematic now completely banned from any form of entertainment?

g

Hey Erica, perhaps #MeToo isn't all bad:

https://twitter.com/eramshaw/status/964149205584568320

g

g

That was interesting.

I'm not sure I can completely agree with her central point.
Certainly at the micro level, the large majority of men I encounter should not yield feelings of either gratitude or fear.
At the macro level, her point is valid, up to a certain point.
I find some of the things she said in the margins more recognizable.
e.g. the limits of the concept of toxic masculinity.
My main issue with it is that some of the behavior it denotes isn't at all purely masculine.
So from that point of view, it sort of loses its reason for existing at all.

hg

You are talking to the wrong person, I don't identify as a feminist, mostly because I don't know what it is supposed to mean in 2018. Especially when I see women who self-identify as feminists attack the likes of Margaret Atwood.

What I meant with my previous post is that the large majority of individual men I encounter do not warrant either feelings of gratitude or fear. Of course, that does not mean there aren't men out there that should be feared and/or admired.

As for my second post, it was a more general observation in terms of so-called toxic masculinity.
Primarily that I see quite a lot of the supposedly purely male behavior in a lot of women too. So this devalues a lot of the theory behind it for me.

g

http://observer.com/2018/03/why-brigitte-bardots-attacks-on-metoo-in-paris-match-feel-personal/

What condescending nonsense. I disagree with Bardot on a lot of things, but the idea that she lacks agency and didn't arrive at this point of view on her own rather than some reductive notion in which she is a life-long victim is absurd and insulting.

g

I think people like Jasmine Lobe don't even realize how insulting it is to suggest that someone who disagrees with their point of view is weak of spirit and has been brainwashed into taking their oppressors point of view.

The idea that they could have come to an opposite point of view courtesy of their own life experiences is apparently beyond them. Or doesn't fit neatly into their narrative.

g

g

g

He also attacked John Cleese for supporting Brexit in the same piece, so YMMV.

I still don't see what is particularly misandrist about holding Harvey Weinstein accountable for his actions.

g

Erica Ambler wrote:

Salomé wrote:

He also attacked John Cleese for supporting Brexit in the same piece, so YMMV.

I fail to see the connection. Brexit caused #metoo?

Salomé wrote:

I still don't see what is particularly misandrist about holding Harvey Weinstein accountable for his actions.

If he's done anything illegal then Weinstein will be held accountable for his actions. Meanwhile, the three billion other men on the planet wonder whether some gender-specific insanity is spreading through the water supply:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/mar/17/punished-pushing-back-pregnancy-metoo

I can only hope General Jack D. Ripper is on the case.

There is no connection, more an observation that Terry Gilliam is merely a film director and thus not the authority on all things?

I think there is a case to be made against some excesses within the MeToo movement (e.g. the James Franco "buyer's remorse" accuser), but for me they cannot be framed around the figure of Harvey Weinstein.
The sheer amount of accusers as well as the nature of the crimes he has been accused of mean that either dozens of women are lying or that he is a serial predator.

g

g

g

Still have a thing for Pam Dawber. Ring a ding ding.

-

Not quite Hollywood but read lately or the much missed Sir Norman Wisdom being a bit touchy-feely with his female co-stars (Fenella Fielding and the late Linda Bellingham).

Erica Ambler wrote:

Hurt died without knowing how right he was. After the fightback is won he shall be canonised.

https://bondandbeyond.forumotion.com/t3099-modern-life-is-shit-john-hurt-on-how-pc-fucked-it-up

Loved this quote from that article: “People go out today with the intention of getting smashed. We never had that intention, although it might happen. We hated binge drinkers. They were boring and if you slipped into it, you’d be told to pull yourself together. We wanted to seek, to find, to be interested, heighten awareness, talk.”

Another legend, like Reed, O'Toole, Burton, and Harris.