Since she has the duty with her as a white person just as she’s putting the onus on men in this Weinstein sitch


>http://mashable.com/2017/10/13/harvey-weinstein-timeline/#LFlQM6Vxhqqk
>
>Seems pretty clear that noone was genuinely 'shocked' when the
>story broke.
>
>And listening to the audio footage of him pressuring the
>actress to go into his room is legitimately triggering. It
>really upset me to be honest. It's just such a perfect
>encapsulation of that type of behavior. Like a case-study in
>abuse.
>
>I think we're fooling ourselves by saying that gender roles
>are irrelevant in this case. Buddy touched on it above and I
>think there's more to discuss. I think it boils down to
>this.....Was there a greater onus on the men in HW's life to
>identify and speak out on his behavior?
>
>Mindy Kaling tweeted this:
>
>'Why is it helpful men speak up? Bc that's what this
>personality fears most: the disintegration of the tacit male
>support for this behavior.'
>
>Ryan Coogler:
>
>The entertainment industry, like many others, has a historic
>imbalance of power among gender that allows these violations
>to run rampant. As men we sit in positions of privilege. It is
>our responsibility to leverage our position, and be allies to
>the women in our industry. We need to do everything we can to
>make sure violations like these don’t continue to happen.
>The first step is to listen. Salute to the brave women who
>came forward. I could never imagine how difficult that must
>be.
>
>Most importantly, Lena Dunham's article for the NYT:
>
>https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/09/opinion/harvey-weinstein-lena-dunham-silence-.html
>
>Gawd I hate Lena Dunham....but she's definitely articulating
>the most explicit and clearest position stating men have the
>bigger responsibility in outing this behavior. I'm being
>pulled in two directions here. On the one hand....I kinda
>agree with some of her points. On the other hand....I think
>she's an opportunistic hypocrite who's basically chastising
>men for a moral transgression without providing ANY pragmatic
>suggestion for what they should have done. In fact....it
>would seem SHE is guilty of what she's accusing men of doing.
>
>She writes:
>
>"The reason I am zeroing in on the men is that they have the
>least to lose and the most power to shift the narrative, and
>are probably not dealing with the same level of collective and
>personal trauma around these allegations."
>
>This is the crux of the argument. Firstly, it's important to
>note that Dunham acknowledges she was aware of the rumors for
>a long time but did not personally experience any abuse from
>HW. So I'd contend that it's fair to compare her experience
>of this whole affair in the same way that say, Christian
>Slater did. They both depend on Hollywood for their
>livelihood, they were both aware of rumors about HW and they
>both could have their careers ruined by the most powerful man
>in Hollywood.
>
>So does she have 'more to lose' than Slater in outing HW's
>behavior? I don't think so. Apparently, HW would essentially
>destroy the career of anyone who stood in his way and he had
>tremendous resources at his disposal to do this. So if Slater
>goes public with rumors? His career's over. If Dunham goes
>public? Her career's over. Why is it that she thinks she has
>more to lose than Slater?
>
>The next claim is that Slater has 'more power to shift the
>narrative' than Dunham has. I don't think this is true
>either. To my understanding....Rose Mcgowan is the one who
>came out and she certainly 'shifted the narrative'. She
>certainly hasn't been shown to be 'powerless'. She
>essentially took down the biggest hollywood mogul that exists.
> So the proof's in the pudding. We know that woman have the
>power to shift the narrative because that's exactly what
>happened.
>
>The last point is a little more nuanced but I still think it
>doesn't hold up under scrutiny. I think we'd all agree that
>the ideal scenario is that one of his victims shouldn't have
>to be the one to out him. It would be much better for a
>non-victim to do the outting because they can do so without
>paying the emotional cost that a victim pays. But again,
>neither Slater or Dunham were direct victims. And don't even
>get me started on the 'collective' trauma that Dunham gently
>references (but wisely doesn't really follow up on because it
>borders on being disgustingly disrespectful to the actual
>victims). There would be no legitimate 'trauma' for neither
>Slater or Dunham to do the outting.
>
>So it all begs the question....why does Dunham's argument
>about 'deafening silence' not apply to her? Why didn't she go
>public about the rumors? She attempts to take responsibility
>for her role in the 'deafening silence' by saying 'I’m sorry
>I shook the hand of someone I knew was not a friend to women
>in my industry'. (god she is a piece of work). So firstly,
>she's basically saying 'all I did was shake his hand' and
>present herself as the 'leading by example' righteous one. As
>if to say 'If I can take responsibility for such a small
>transgression than those closer to Weinstein should take
>responsibility for their much more significant
>transgressions'.
>
>So she's being totally hypocritical....but even in this phony
>acknowledgement of her role...she doesn't actually say WHAT
>SHE SHOULD HAVE DONE. And similarly, she doesn't say what
>these horrible men in Hollywood should have done either. What
>should Slater have done? Go to the press and say 'I heard
>that HW might rape women'? I mean...we're all sitting here
>playing the moral righteous game....'oh it's so awful. Noone
>had the courage to say anything. Everybody is complicit in
>his crimes through their silence'. It's all bullshit. We all
>agree that anybody who either cooperated in Weinstein's acts
>or were involved in threatening reporters or victims are
>despicable. But those aren't the people that Dunham is
>attacking. She's attacking people like Christian Slater. So
>what was he supposed to do? And if Dunham has an answer for
>that....why didn't SHE DO IT?
>
>See...this is the perfect platform for a moralizing,
>self-righteous asshole like Dunham to take on. You get to
>make these broad sweeping statements that paint a targeted
>group (in this case, men in hollywood) as morally corrupt
>without having to offer any course of action they can
>undertake to correct their behavior. You men of hollywood are
>jerks and there's nothing you can do to change it. Also...she
>gets to align herself with the victim (reference to
>'collective trauma' and 'I TOO was sexually harassed by a
>director'). These women were RAPED. You were hanging out at
>a bar and a drunk guy started saying that women should show
>their tits more on tv. How desperate to self-victimize does
>one have to be to even CONSIDER comparing these two scenarios
>to each other.
>
>'Staying silent is like gagging the victim'. All these moral
>parading and virtue-signalling basically amounts to empty
>gestures. None of it MEANS anything and none of it provides a
>roadmap to correcting any of the problems. We all know that
>you shouldn't help a rapist rape people. We all know that if
>you witness a rape you should report it. But that's not what
>we're talking about when we address the 'deafening silence'.
>What people seem to be suggesting....is that we spread
>unsubstantiated rumors just in case they happen to be true.
>So you overhear someone saying that a co-worker raped someone?
> Send out a company-wide email to everyone saying 'Ed might be
>a rapist'. Because 'silence' is the real enemy.
>
>I'm not trying to be insensitive to the victims. But these
>sentiments are empty gestures. Designed to make you appear
>ethical but actually contributing NOTHING to the problem. And
>also attacking a vague and unidentifiable enemy (the 'men of
>hollywood') designed in such a way that noone will call you on
>your bullshit because you don't target anyone directly. It's
>hilarious....the actual 'men of hollywood' are tweeting out
>their disdain for the men of hollywood lol. Create a faceless
>enemy that can't be specified.....make them out to be
>evil....and then show everyone how woke you are by expressing
>outrage at them. What a stupid game.