4 ms·

What larger societal problem is that? I think if you took 10 random people, they'd give you 10 different answers.

smacktoward 9y ago
The societal problem that men with power feel that it's acceptable to use that power to pressure women to give them what they want sexually. (And the related problem of bystanders witnessing this behavior and failing to push back hard against it.)
- alexashka 9y ago
  Alright. Another person comes to you and says, the larger societal problem is that ambitious people will ignore or put up with a world of shit as long as they get what they are after. Who's right? To elaborate - Salma's ambition was to make the movie, she could've quit 100 times, but instead she put up with 100 cases of sexual harassment (100 being an artbirary large number here) Harvey's ambition was to have sexual relations with every woman that needed him to do something for her, that he found attractive. He ignored everyone else's needs but his own in the process of fulfilling his ambition. Seeing it from the angle of ambition, both people could've done things differently but didn't, because they were preoccupied with achieving their goals, more than achieving let's say... harmony in themselves and the world... Is that the larger societal problem? That our ambitions are small and selfish?
  - vmnieowan873 9y ago
    Equating Salma's ambition here (make a movie about an important minority historical figure) with Harvey's and then calling it small and selfish? Seriously?
    - owebmaster 9y ago
      Would you encourage every women to complain about sexual harassment before they get the benefits they're looking for? Sexual services are considered crime for a reason, but it's not really enforced.
      - orionblastar 9y ago
        It can only be enforced if it is reported to the police and they gather evidence in a timely manner. Like any other crime. If there is no proof or evidence, the trial won't go the way you think it will.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    - alexashka 9y ago
      You're trying to make it A vs B issue, black and white. This worldview causes outrage, which's incredibly unhelpful and destructive. The whole point is to see the greys. Salma was after breaking out of the Mexican soap opera market, into Hollywood. That was her ambition and she was willing to put up with what she describes as an incredible amount of sexual harassment. Once she had reached fame, she didnt' lead this movement to help other women who are trying to do the same. When you don't have a lot, you don't know any better - I will look the other way. When you're already successful, you want MORE success, put up with a mountain of shit along the way - I can safely say you're very driven to accomplish very trivial things, because integrity and mental health are not chips you play with for more fame unless you're incredibly confused. That's the subtle point that folks who want to paint the world black and white and get outraged by anyone who sees greys keep missing - Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, the list goes on and on, get to be creeps, because people are willing to put up with emotional abuse to 'make it'.
      - vmnieowan873 9y ago
        OK, let's get into the grays then. Did you read the article? She didn't put up with Weinstein to get to the point she was at before making Frida. She wasn't looking for fame with this particular film. She wanted to tell an important story. It was something beyond herself. "I did not care about the money," she says. That aside, you do have a point. If people like Hayek would "just say no," and give up on their crazy ambitions this wouldn't ever happen. It's really that simple. That's what you are saying, right?
      - ap3 9y ago
        What is missing from your equation is “power” - Weinstein had all the power. Same goes for dictators - Saddam Hussein had all the power, until the equation changed. But a random iraqi soldier in the mid-80s can’t be blamed for having an ambition to not die.
  - abritinthebay 9y ago
    Your initial counter-argument relies on the existence of the first. So logically the first is right

The societal problem that men with power feel that it's acceptable to use that power to pressure women to give them what they want sexually. (And the related problem of bystanders witnessing this behavior and failing to push back hard against it.)

alexashka 9y ago
Alright. Another person comes to you and says, the larger societal problem is that ambitious people will ignore or put up with a world of shit as long as they get what they are after. Who's right? To elaborate - Salma's ambition was to make the movie, she could've quit 100 times, but instead she put up with 100 cases of sexual harassment (100 being an artbirary large number here) Harvey's ambition was to have sexual relations with every woman that needed him to do something for her, that he found attractive. He ignored everyone else's needs but his own in the process of fulfilling his ambition. Seeing it from the angle of ambition, both people could've done things differently but didn't, because they were preoccupied with achieving their goals, more than achieving let's say... harmony in themselves and the world... Is that the larger societal problem? That our ambitions are small and selfish?
- vmnieowan873 9y ago
  Equating Salma's ambition here (make a movie about an important minority historical figure) with Harvey's and then calling it small and selfish? Seriously?
  - owebmaster 9y ago
    Would you encourage every women to complain about sexual harassment before they get the benefits they're looking for? Sexual services are considered crime for a reason, but it's not really enforced.
    - orionblastar 9y ago
      It can only be enforced if it is reported to the police and they gather evidence in a timely manner. Like any other crime. If there is no proof or evidence, the trial won't go the way you think it will.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
  - alexashka 9y ago
    You're trying to make it A vs B issue, black and white. This worldview causes outrage, which's incredibly unhelpful and destructive. The whole point is to see the greys. Salma was after breaking out of the Mexican soap opera market, into Hollywood. That was her ambition and she was willing to put up with what she describes as an incredible amount of sexual harassment. Once she had reached fame, she didnt' lead this movement to help other women who are trying to do the same. When you don't have a lot, you don't know any better - I will look the other way. When you're already successful, you want MORE success, put up with a mountain of shit along the way - I can safely say you're very driven to accomplish very trivial things, because integrity and mental health are not chips you play with for more fame unless you're incredibly confused. That's the subtle point that folks who want to paint the world black and white and get outraged by anyone who sees greys keep missing - Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, the list goes on and on, get to be creeps, because people are willing to put up with emotional abuse to 'make it'.
    - vmnieowan873 9y ago
      OK, let's get into the grays then. Did you read the article? She didn't put up with Weinstein to get to the point she was at before making Frida. She wasn't looking for fame with this particular film. She wanted to tell an important story. It was something beyond herself. "I did not care about the money," she says. That aside, you do have a point. If people like Hayek would "just say no," and give up on their crazy ambitions this wouldn't ever happen. It's really that simple. That's what you are saying, right?
    - ap3 9y ago
      What is missing from your equation is “power” - Weinstein had all the power. Same goes for dictators - Saddam Hussein had all the power, until the equation changed. But a random iraqi soldier in the mid-80s can’t be blamed for having an ambition to not die.
- abritinthebay 9y ago
  Your initial counter-argument relies on the existence of the first. So logically the first is right