Weinsteins step down as Miramax CEOs

That Atlantic article is getting torched in a lot of places already.

Worth mentioning that a short two months ago — not even, november 22 — that writer, Caitlin Flanagan published a piece titled “To Hell With the Witch-Hunt Debate
The post-Weinstein moment isn’t a war on sex. It’s a long-overdue revolution.”

Obviously there’s been a tipping point of some kind, with people who are in sympathy with the goals of this movement — including Margaret Atwood! — expressing reservations about how this is playing out. You could say that’s “bad lol” if you want I guess but I think it’s worth registering that these critics are not reactionary voices.

Fwiw I have no investment in Aziz Ansari and think his show is terrible and that he was most likely a disrespectful asshole to that woman. But I agree with Flanagan that it’s troubling that anonymous accusers can just torch someone’s reputation like that. It’s at least very different from anything we’ve seen before.

Atwood does articulate well the semantic dismissals of the witch-hunt analogy:

A digression: Witch talk. Another point against me is that I compared the UBC proceedings to the Salem witchcraft trials, in which a person was guilty because accused, since the rules of evidence were such that you could not be found innocent. My Good Feminist accusers take exception to this comparison. They think I was comparing them to the teenaged Salem witchfinders and calling them hysterical little girls. I was alluding instead to the structure in place at the trials themselves.

“Starting to think things went too far when the woman from gone girl did that thing... let’s go back to how things were”

Kinda feel like the onus should be on treeship types to paint a way forward if they’re not happy w the current one! Rather than generically co-signing women standing athwart history and yelling stop. How should this conversation happen that it isn’t? Is “we’ve gone too far” a question worth discussing or should that question be reframed so that it focuses on justice & better treatment of other people? (I haven’t read the Atwood article yet but the Flanagan one is terrible)

Treeship types!

Ugh, Caitlin Flanagan.

apparently we're staying in the weinstein thread

Apparently there is a whole country full of young women who don’t know how to call a cab, and who have spent a lot of time picking out pretty outfits for dates they hoped would be nights to remember. They’re angry and temporarily powerful and last night they destroyed a man who didn’t deserve it.

RIP to ansari, he is destroyed

It definitely shouldn’t be me. Flanagan is a feminist writer who was heartily pro me-too but was skeptical of a thing that happened yesterday. That’s someone to listen to, disagree with, whatever, but not just dismiss.

xp deej

Fwiw I have no investment in Aziz Ansari and think his show is terrible and that he was most likely a disrespectful asshole to that woman. But I agree with Flanagan that it’s troubling that anonymous accusers can just torch someone’s reputation like that. It’s at least very different from anything we’ve seen before.

― treeship 2, Monday, January 15, 2018 12:35 PM (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

The thing to me is that the torching of his reputation will be softened by the many many ppl who think he might have gotten a raw deal. And let’s say he did, and this girl is a criminal mastermind: is the reason this story is resonating with people because they all know it to be exactly true, or because it’s been true so often and so personally to them that it speaks to something true ? It could be both of course, but if assault’s been covered up millions of times so when one is apparently uncovered it resonates with a lot of people, that says something needs to be discussed in the open, and people will have to have the conversation about the subject. In the context of assault you’re the one complaining about the smashed window in sal’s famous

I think it's unfair that Aziz is in jail for life now

this notion that the accused are "destroyed" is such bullshit. give it a year or two and you'll see how destroyed they are.

Flanagan is a feminist writer

Nope.

caitlin flanagan, feminist writer: https://www.bitchmedia.org/post/douchebag-decree-caitlin-flanagan-our-first-douchebag-all-star

I don’t think ansari getting a raw deal implies that the accuser must be a criminal mastermind, or even that she is making anything up.

"Flanagan is a feminist writer"

uhhhhh

I was mostly looking at her past few articles, which were pro-me too, pro- believing Bill Clinton’s accusers even though it’s politically inconvenient. don’t know that much about her work overall xp

Within minutes of returning, she was sitting on the kitchen counter and he was—apparently consensually—performing oral sex on her (here the older reader’s eyes widen, because this was hardly the first move in the “one night stands” of yesteryear), but then went on, per her account, to pressure her for sex in a variety of ways that were not honorable. Eventually, overcome by her emotions at the way the night was going, she told him, “You guys are all the fucking same” and left crying. I thought it was the most significant line in the story: this has happened to her many times before. What led her to believe that this time would be different?

The bolded part has nothing to do with the subsequent events except here to suggest the apparently consensual oral sex means the rest of the "story" is perhaps suspect.

Some of her essays underscore the emotional rewards and social value of a traditional housewife's role. Consequently, Joan Walsh of Salon has criticized her for misrepresenting her life choices, and then condemning other women for not choosing the more traditional lifestyle.

Ok never mind. I can’t speak to her motives. Atwood though.

I think there is a way to respectfully point out the downsides of these tactics without being a callous, dismissive asshole, and that flanagan essay is not it

It seems like the Atwood thing reads differently in the US versus Canada, though I'm not sure how to articulate it. An uncharitable CA reading of it is that it's defensive posturing from someone who, well before #MeToo, chose solidarity with the lit community over solidarity with victims of sexual harassment. It's also shitty timing with the scandal going on at Concordia right now. Whereas to Americans it's reading as a feminist icon claiming this has gone too far as of Jan 2018.

OTM

I don’t think ansari getting a raw deal implies that the accuser must be a criminal mastermind, or even that she is making anything up.

― k3vin k., Monday, January 15, 2018 12:44 PM (forty-three seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Didn’t say it did. I was suggesting the most extreme and malicious possible scenario, wherein an innocent Aziz Ansari finds his career in tatters bc a women set out to destroy him: is the conversation now less relevant? The answer is “no” (this is why you should all love “gone girl”)

As far as we are concerned, ansari’s Guilt or Innocence is ultimately an abstract question; we can never know “for real” any more than the average person is apt to know what it’s like to be in outer space. What we do know is the situation she described, in reaching for a Malicious Lie, was rendered in extremely convincing, relatable prose for many, many people. So fixate the conversation on that, marinate on what that means. Undoubtedly, at some point, one or even more of these accusations will be false, because there are psychopaths out there, lol. But does that change the fundamental conversation?

I have other gay, middle age friends saying they have been on multiple dates like this (Aziz Ansari) and while they felt horrible, they also let it happen and it wasn't assault or misconduct. Can we just agree that if you have to drug, wear down, trick, scare, coerce, or trap your date into engaging in intimate acts then you are the one being a shitty person and not the date who ended up in that position.

Thing about sociopathy is it tends to be very practiced “normal” interaction, and this entire convo is about the problem with “normal,” not the problem with sociopaths

/yerac otm

/yerac otm

lol caitlin flanagan is a lot of things but “feminist” is not one

Didn’t say it did. I was suggesting the most extreme and malicious possible scenario, wherein an innocent Aziz Ansari finds his career in tatters bc a women set out to destroy him: is the conversation now less relevant? The answer is “no” (this is why you should all love “gone girl”)

As far as we are concerned, ansari’s Guilt or Innocence is ultimately an abstract question; we can never know “for real” any more than the average person is apt to know what it’s like to be in outer space. What we do know is the situation she described, in reaching for a Malicious Lie, was rendered in extremely convincing, relatable prose for many, many people. So fixate the conversation on that, marinate on what that means. Undoubtedly, at some point, one or even more of these accusations will be false, because there are psychopaths out there, lol. But does that change the fundamental conversation?

― Listen to my homeboy Fantano (D-40), Monday, January 15, 2018 1:52 PM (forty-three seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

for the record, I am not disputing the allegations against ansari. I have no reason to doubt the account and ansari comes across as, at best, a pig.

to your point, though, it would seem to me that an absolutely necessary part of this new social contract-paradigm is that the accounts need to be true. it is not, imo, enough that the “convincing, relatable prose” brings comfort to other victims who identify with the story: it may further a conversation that absolutely needs to be had, but someone who is innocent can’t be a means to that end. it almost sounds as if you’re saying the truthfulness of the story is a secondary concern.

but i mean yeah the question should be about how we can make affirmative consent more “fun” than this art of the chase bullshit and also maybe how western masculinity is at its core an entirely fucked up concept

also the shift between flanagan quoting women’s magazines from the ‘50s and then sneering “and who’s the REAL racist here” to The Youth one of the most egregious leaps of logic not taken by david brooks or andrew sullivan of late

like that sort of gotcha is the worst “refuge of the scoundrel” look and it’s embarrassing that anyone publishes her

yeah I’m honestly shocked that flanagan piece was published

i mean i’m not because she has credibility with a certain type of editor who is more interested in status quo preservation than anything else, and unfortunately they still run the game in a lot of places

I just read that Bitch piece about Flanagan. Wow. I hate her.

Re:many things - the "exposing men who take advantage of their power to assault / abuse / rape" conversation and the "public shaming is out of control" conversation are both important (to different degrees perhaps) but it seems hugely unhelpful to try to have them at the same time.

to your point, though, it would seem to me that an absolutely necessary part of this new social contract-paradigm is that the accounts need to be true. it is not, imo, enough that the “convincing, relatable prose” brings comfort to other victims who identify with the story: it may further a conversation that absolutely needs to be had, but someone who is innocent can’t be a means to that end. it almost sounds as if you’re saying the truthfulness of the story is a secondary concern.

― k3vin k., Monday, January 15, 2018 1:11 PM (four minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

K3v: how will you ever, ever know? Under what circumstances will you be able to determine the absolute truthfulness of this? A video with clear audio of the exchange leaks? Is it your responsibility to determine it’s absolute truth before responding to the story ? If so, none of these stories will ever, ever have an impact on your life. What relevance does their absolute truth of their situation have on your or your life?

I can't really grok the Aziz Ansari scenario.. the Babe article was written in such a grotesquely inflammatory way, and had so many missteps, that I felt on first reading that it must be parodic, and even wondered if it had been written deliberately so "over the top" as to undermine the movement

The entire paragraph listing his accomplishments? The "this behaviour might be OK for an 18-year old, but Aziz is a 34-year old"-- so, it's only assault because Aziz wasn't a young man? Terrible writing imo

Overall tho I'm becoming worried about the way that the definitions of "what is consensual" and "what is assault" are broadening and broadening to include "run-of-the-mill weekday date behaviour"

Not because that behaviour isn't harmful

Or that it shouldn't be called out and stopped

But because the implication that this sort of behaviour is now criminal will only put men-who-engage-in-these-harmful-behaviours on the defensive, and be unapologetic and unwilling to hold themselves accountable

This came up a lot during the Franken defense that even I had to change my mind on it. Don't let a man's feminist or ally credentials or policy-making give them a protective shield from thinking they can't do shitty things to women too.

I guess I just don’t see the purpose of having such a stake in the Court or Public Opinion when you bring nothing to the case in terms of evidence or insight, and it’s that very court of public opinion that so concerns you, giving it power by endlessly debating if the court has gone too far & instead thinking through the case’s wider implications in your own conversations with friends and loved ones and ilxors, lol, seems like the healthiest option imo

The court of public opinion will be what it is, i guess, but ppl get canceled and rehabilitated every day & it seems like pushing a boulder uphill to try & fight that

These were xps to k3v btw not a response to flamboyant goon tie who is making a difft point

xp to FGTI

The 'Babe' piece is doing an incredible disservice to the person who feels abused imo. It's clutching at straws, most of the indictment is cased into "but wait, and then this happened... ok I hear you say that's not a big deal but under *these* circumstances... no wait please read on". Listing his filmography is nagl.

It's not just terrible writing, floating out there as if it too should be held accountable, it's also a *huge* disservice to victims of sexual abuse coming out imo. It's lowering the bar for people already thinking people are lowering the bar of what constitutes abuse and what doesn't. No winners here.

deej I really can't even parse that last post

i feel some of what fgti is saying
there is def a lot of noise in the babe article

i don’t disbelieve her account but there are lot of details in the piece that made me quietly question the intent & even thd audience of the finished writeup. it was almost written AT Ansari

someone said it reminded them of the xojane piece that presaged the ghomeshi stuff and i think that’s somewhat accurate in tone and sloppy editing. obv we have to wait and see about its bearing out

the Anzari piece is frustrating because yeah it's sensationalistic but also by going chronologically lots of readers check out halfway through and think that it's just a description of an awkward date; if you read all the way through though the woman tells him no, clearly, verbally, and he goes "ok we don't have to do anything" and then goes for it anyway:

Grace says she spent around five minutes in the bathroom, collecting herself in the mirror and splashing herself with water. Then she went back to Ansari. He asked her if she was okay. “I said I don’t want to feel forced because then I’ll hate you, and I’d rather not hate you,” she said.

She told babe that at first, she was happy with how he reacted. “He said, ‘Oh, of course, it’s only fun if we’re both having fun.’ The response was technically very sweet and acknowledging the fact that I was very uncomfortable. Verbally, in that moment, he acknowledged that I needed to take it slow. Then he said, ‘Let’s just chill over here on the couch.’”

This moment is particularly significant for Grace, because she thought that would be the end of the sexual encounter — her remark about not wanting to feel “forced” had added a verbal component to the cues she was trying to give him about her discomfort. When she sat down on the floor next to Ansari, who sat on the couch, she thought he might rub her back, or play with her hair — something to calm her down.

Ansari instructed her to turn around. “He sat back and pointed to his penis and motioned for me to go down on him. And I did. I think I just felt really pressured. It was literally the most unexpected thing I thought would happen at that moment because I told him I was uncomfortable.”

Like, sure, that doesn't make him Weinstein or even Louie CK. But "no means no" is pretty basic shit, guys.

xpost w/ maura

The Babe article totally was sloppy editing. I had to re-read the part about the white and red wine a couple of times to figure out the point.

omg yes

That was the part that made me think "was this article written by Russian hackers to undermine the #metoo movement"