Harvey Weinstein: Why is it about so much more than Harvey Weinstein?

[Lily Valley]

Meanwhile in New Orleans, John Besh just stepped down from his restaurant group following allegations that his kitchens were a regular hell on earth for women employees.  This is a really good article from the Times-Picayune.  Their investigation was thorough and it's written to where the non-apologies from the chefs look like the steaming turds that they are.

Not limited to Besh himself, Alon Shaya was the owner of Shaya's restaurant and presumably responsible for all of his employees' behavior.  This woman was fired BY THE OWNER for crying because her work environment was so bad.

:blinks:

http://www.nola.com/business/index.ssf/2017/10/john_besh_restaurants_fostered.html#incart_special-report

Quote

Elizabeth Campbell, a former Shaya line cook, said she witnessed the abuse directed at the former line cook and it "made me feel very uncomfortable." Campbell said she now regrets not having complained herself.

"I saw this subtle violence that was in front of me," Campbell said. "I just accepted it because I thought it was okay. I thought the goal was to put out really delicious food." 

Campbell said she was fired from her job at Shaya in June after 13 months, for crying during work. 

Campbell said Alon Shaya told her when he dismissed her, "'It's really a shame, because you're talented, but you have to not cry at work. You really have to be stronger and don't let your environment get to you.'" She added: "It bothered me, because it was an environment that he created." 

Alon Shaya, in his most recent interview, recalled both incidents. He said the employee responsible for the jokes referenced in the former line cook's email was disciplined. Both he and BRG provided documentation that the discipline occurred. Alon Shaya said he regretted that the disciplinary action did not change work conditions enough to keep the female line cook from quitting. He also said he did not intend to "make excuses" for the offending employee's behavior in his conversation with her. 

"I'm not trying to minimize anybody's complaints or concerns," Shaya said. 

As for Campbell, Shaya said "we worked to help her with her situation" but that her crying was "disrupting the customer experience in the restaurant." 

[mankytoes]

3 hours ago, Week said:

Except for when she said:

Victim blaming -- still not ok. Sexual harassment and assault is not an acceptable risk for a legal profession in our society. 

She's not saying "women should have to dress modestly", she's saying it's sad that she has to do that to avoid harrassment.

You're confusing "victim explaining" with "victim blaming". Women in short skirts do tend to get the most hassle from dickheads. That isn't a condemnation of women in short skirts, it's a condemnation of dickheads.

I meant "high risk" as in most actors fail to make it, not "high risk" as in you're likely to get assaulted. I guess, like a lot of people (including Bialik, I'm guessing) I'll just stop talking about harrassment and assault.

[Week]

Just now, mankytoes said:

You're confusing "victim explaining" with "victim blaming". Women in short skirts do tend to get the most hassle from dickheads. That isn't a condemnation of women in short skirts, it's a condemnation of dickheads.

No, I'm not. "Victim explaining" is not a thing. 

[Darth Richard II]

3 minutes ago, Week said:

No, I'm not. "Victim explaining" is not a thing. 

This^

Can you and Dr Pepper run for office please? pleeeease?

[Dr. Pepper]

So is victim explaining the new victim blaming?  

You know what would be a condemnation of dickheads?  Actually condemning dickheads without mentioning anything about what the victim was wearing, what she was drinking, what make up she wore, her weight, nada.  Focus on the dickhead.  Be a dickhead explainer.  

[mankytoes]

41 minutes ago, Week said:

No, I'm not. "Victim explaining" is not a thing. 

Of course it is, it's simple. "He got beat up by the racists because he was black" is explaining why he was a victim. No one would hear that and say "they're victim blaming his, saying it's his fault for being black!". Similarly, "She was harrassed by the men because she was wearing a short skirt" is just explaining why they harrassed her, not saying "it's her fault for wearing a short skirt".

Victim explaining is very important, because it indicates a solution. If men are harrassing women when they wear short skirts, we know we need to educate men on this specifically.

Should we stop walking women home when they ask as well, because that implies women are to blame if they walk alone and get attacked? If you have/had a daughter, and you lived in a city where there was one area that had a lot of rapes, would you warn her not to go there, or be careful if she had to, or would that be "victim blaming"?

 

22 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

So is victim explaining the new victim blaming?  

You know what would be a condemnation of dickheads?  Actually condemning dickheads without mentioning anything about what the victim was wearing, what she was drinking, what make up she wore, her weight, nada.  Focus on the dickhead.  Be a dickhead explainer.  

No, because explaining something about blaming someone for something aren't the same thing. I don't understand how that is difficult, "blame" and "explain" aren't even similar concepts.

Well if you read my comments earlier in the thread actually talking about Weinstein, I didn't do any of those things, so I am a dickhead explainer! Hooray for me. I'm sure if Bialik was just commenting on Weinstein, she wouldn't have done so either. She was actually writing the article primarily about herself, and her experiences. But yeah, lets all slag off a famous feminist for doing so articulately (I'm guessing this isn't what you mean by being a "nasty woman").

[Dr. Pepper]

4 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

Of course it is, it's simple. "He got beat up by the racists because he was black" is explaining why he was a victim.

No, dear.  That's not how this works.  You're still victim blaming, even if you want to call it 'explaining'.  

"He was attacked by racists because they were racists who attacked non-whites for simply existing."  It's really not hard to put the blaming and explaining on the responsible party.  

[Paladin of Ice]

6 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

Of course it is, it's simple. "He got beat up by the racists because he was black" is explaining why he was a victim. No one would hear that and say "they're victim blaming his, saying it's his fault for being black!". Similarly, "She was harrassed by the men because she was wearing a short skirt" is just explaining why they harrassed her, not saying "it's her fault for wearing a short skirt".

Except it's not. If all these people wanted was sex, they can get a blowjob in the right neighborhood for a few dollars, or they could splurge out of their millions to go to a high class brothel. Lording their power over people and feeding their ego with it is exactly a major part of the spice for them. Whether the women are old, young, beautiful or plain, dressed "provocatively" or modestly is all beside the point. Hell, it doesn't have to be a woman at all, Terry Crews, an extremely large and muscular ex-football player turned actor reported being groped by a showbiz executive and having had to make the decision to keep quiet about it.

Quote

Afterward, others in Hollywood started to come forward on social media to share stories of sexual harassment. Terry Crews, a former NFL player who currently stars as a police sergeant on Fox’s “Brooklyn Nine-Nine,” wrote a long thread on Twitter and said that the Weinstein news is giving him PTSD because he was groped by a “high level Hollywood executive” during an event last year that he attended with his wife.

Crews said he thought about fighting back, until he realized the optics.

“I was going to kick his ass right then— but I thought twice about how the whole thing would appear: ‘240 lbs. Black Man stomps out Hollywood Honcho’ would be the headline the next day,” he wrote. “Only I probably wouldn’t have been able to read it because I WOULD HAVE BEEN IN JAIL. So we left.”

Crews, who added that he shared the story to “deter predators” and provide hope for others in similar situations, said that after the incident, he understood why women don’t speak up when they’re harassed.

“Who’s going 2 believe you? ( few) What r the repercussions?(many) Do u want 2 work again? (Yes) R you prepared 2b ostracized?(No),” he wrote.

If modest clothing prevented rape, after all, it wouldn't exist in sexist societies that mandate women cover up, or in times when people were covered head to toe in thick clothing.

There are some small advantages in not being super attractive and dressing unappealingly, but that isn't and has never been the point. You may imagine it is, likely because you don't think and act like these people, but it's not.

[mankytoes]

34 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

No, dear.  That's not how this works.  You're still victim blaming, even if you want to call it 'explaining'.  

"He was attacked by racists because they were racists who attacked non-whites for simply existing."  It's really not hard to put the blaming and explaining on the responsible party.  

Thanks for the condescending language, always very constructive.

This is like doublespeak. I'm saying the victims aren't to blame. Therefore, I'm not victim blaming.

You're victim blaming, saying it's the victim's fault for existing

24 minutes ago, Paladin of Ice said:

Except it's not. If all these people wanted was sex, they can get a blowjob in the right neighborhood for a few dollars, or they could splurge out of their millions to go to a high class brothel. Lording their power over people and feeding their ego with it is exactly a major part of the spice for them. Whether the women are old, young, beautiful or plain, dressed "provocatively" or modestly is all beside the point. Hell, it doesn't have to be a woman at all, Terry Crews, an extremely large and muscular ex-football player turned actor reported being groped by a showbiz executive and having had to make the decision to keep quiet about it.

If modest clothing prevented rape, after all, it wouldn't exist in sexist societies that mandate women cover up, or in times when people were covered head to toe in thick clothing.

There are some small advantages in not being super attractive and dressing unappealingly, but that isn't and has never been the point. You may imagine it is, likely because you don't think and act like these people, but it's not.

Most people would rather have sex with famous actresses than high class prositutes. But yeah, as with most things, there is more than one cause.

Did you not think that producer might have been homosexual, thus fitting the "picking on someone conventionally attractive" idea?

But no one is saying "modest clothing prevents rape", which I think you know. I'm saying it can be a factor. If you go to countries that are worse for this, like some in Asia, you'll see this more clearly. People have the attitude that if a woman is showing a lot of flesh, she's basically fair game. Of course wearing more clothes isn't a guarentee you'll be safe, but wearing less well definitely get more negative attention. You can tell me this isn't true, but it's something I've seen with my own eyes.

 

[Kelli Fury]

2 hours ago, mankytoes said:

Of course it is, it's simple. "He got beat up by the racists because he was black" is explaining why he was a victim. No one would hear that and say "they're victim blaming his, saying it's his fault for being black!". Similarly, "She was harrassed by the men because she was wearing a short skirt" is just explaining why they harrassed her, not saying "it's her fault for wearing a short skirt".

Victim explaining is very important, because it indicates a solution. If men are harrassing women when they wear short skirts, we know we need to educate men on this specifically.

Should we stop walking women home when they ask as well, because that implies women are to blame if they walk alone and get attacked? If you have/had a daughter, and you lived in a city where there was one area that had a lot of rapes, would you warn her not to go there, or be careful if she had to, or would that be "victim blaming"?

 

No, because explaining something about blaming someone for something aren't the same thing. I don't understand how that is difficult, "blame" and "explain" aren't even similar concepts.

Well if you read my comments earlier in the thread actually talking about Weinstein, I didn't do any of those things, so I am a dickhead explainer! Hooray for me. I'm sure if Bialik was just commenting on Weinstein, she wouldn't have done so either. She was actually writing the article primarily about herself, and her experiences. But yeah, lets all slag off a famous feminist for doing so articulately (I'm guessing this isn't what you mean by being a "nasty woman").

Yeah, you’re wrong here. No woman in the history of ever was sexually harassed because she was wearing a short skirt. I know this because I am a woman and I get harassed all the time regardless of the fact that my legs are always super covered. I wear a hoodie, long pants, knee high socks, and knee high boots daily. You need to go through three layers to find an ankle. The skirt isn’t why. If some sexist asshat finds you attractive they will be harassing regardless of what you wear. 

[mankytoes]

58 minutes ago, Kelli Fury said:

Yeah, you’re wrong here. No woman in the history of ever was sexually harassed because she was wearing a short skirt. I know this because I am a woman and I get harassed all the time regardless of the fact that my legs are always super covered. I wear a hoodie, long pants, knee high socks, and knee high boots daily. You need to go through three layers to find an ankle. The skirt isn’t why. If some sexist asshat finds you attractive they will be harassing regardless of what you wear. 

Yes, and on average men will find you more attractive in a short skirt.

[Darth Richard II]

OK, wait, is someone actually arguing that places where women have to cover up more have less rape? Cause, India.

[Week]

24 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

Yes, and on average men will find you more attractive in a short skirt.

Not relevant to the discussion. Unless you are blaming victims -- or rather, mansplaining explaining that they are victims due to their provocative dress choices or physical characteristics.

Let it go. Let the immorality of those who commit sexual assault and harassment fall solely upon their own shoulders. There is no excuse. There is no context that makes it remotely understandable, relate-able, or acceptable in any way.

[Theda Baratheon]

I think the short skirt argument is, ahem, flaming festering donkey shit. 

Because by "explaining" that the woman is being raped for wearing a short skirt you are operating under the assumption that women's bodies are inherently sexual or that rape is about sex and lust and sexual attraction only. When it's not. Women get raped in jeans and t shirts, they get raped in baggy shirts, they get raped covered head to toe. Rapists aren't just men who are feeling a bit lusty and taking it too far - they're chasing an inherent physical and violent power over another person. It's about taking something away from that person and forcing yourself and your body and your power onto another person without their consent. Stop treating rape like it's just men who really like sex! !! Because men gave high libido! !! ( in other cultures, in other times women have been seen as having higher libido) but for some reason the perpetrators of rape are almost all men. It isn't about sex it's about power. 

[Dr. Pepper]

3 hours ago, mankytoes said:

Thanks for the condescending language, always very constructive.

 

One might say that you receive condescending language because you show inferior understanding of everything.  

Hey, just victim explaining here.

Quote

This is like doublespeak. I'm saying the victims aren't to blame. Therefore, I'm not victim blaming.

You're victim blaming, saying it's the victim's fault for existing

No sweetheart.  I'm accurately describing the actions of the perpetrators.  The blame/explain falls entirely on the shitbags.  

[Week]

^^(because there is no clapping emoticon) -- better put by Theda and Dr. Pepper.

[Bonnot OG]

And this thread has turned into the shit show I figured it would. 

Nice to see victim blaming happening and the denial of it happening.

 

[DanteGabriel]

3 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

And this thread has turned into the shit show I figured it would. 

Nice to see victim blaming happening and the denial of it happening.

 

I was a fan of the "I'm going to ignore all research and people's direct experiences to wax ignorantly about Occam's Razor to find the simplest fucking explanation possible" approach.

[Darth Richard II]

1 hour ago, mankytoes said:

Yes, and on average men will find you more attractive in a short skirt.

Jesus fucking Christ, do you have any idea how fucking creepy and disgusting you sound? 

[Yukle]

15 hours ago, mankytoes said:

Did you actually read her article? She didn't say anything remotely like that, she said she was never targeted because she isn't conventionally attractive. Honestly, that reaction has annoyed me so much, she wrote an intelligent and personal article, and most women jump down her throat for offering a little nuance on the issue.

I read her article, and I think she absolutely deserves the vitriol.

How about, "I still make choices everyday as a 41-year-old actress that I think of as self-protecting and wise..."

"We can't be naive about the world we live in"?! WHAT THE FUCK?! She wrote that?! We're supposed to just accept this as a part of life?

In other words, stop looking so hot and men will no longer touch you inappropriately. It's your fault. 

 

I hate her more than I already did before I read it.