An ordinary, malignant symptom of systemic sexism
Harvey Weinstein as symbol of Hollywood sexism and misogyny.
It is the perverse, insistent, matter-of-factness of male sexual predation and assault — of men’s power over women — that haunts the revelations about Mr. Weinstein. This banality of abuse also haunts the American movie industry. Women helped build the industry, but it has long been a male-dominated enterprise that systematically treats women — as a class — as inferior to men. It is an industry with a history of sexually exploiting younger female performers and stamping expiration dates on older ones. It is an industry that consistently denies female directors employment and contemptuously treats the female audience as a niche, a problem, an afterthought.
Still. After all this time. Feminism might as well not have bothered as far as the movie industry is concerned.
It’s greatly encouraging that women like Gwyneth Paltrow have gone public about Mr. Weinstein. But he is not an aberration. He is an ordinary, malignant symptom of systemic sexism, as is everyone who facilitated him, shrugs it off now or offensively asks why women didn’t say something sooner. What largely separates Mr. Weinstein from other predators, within and without the entertainment world, is that he was once powerful, he got caught and a number of gutsy women are on the record. Together, their voices are creating a forceful rejoinder to an industry that runs on fear and in which silence is at once a defense and a weapon as well as a condition of employment.
But will the forceful rejoinder make any difference?
Jenni Konner, the co-showrunner for the HBO series “Girls,” has said that the revelations about Mr. Weinstein are a tipping point: “This is the moment we look back on and say, ‘That’s when it all started to change.’” I hope she’s right. One problem is that the entertainment industry is extraordinarily forgiving of those who have made it a lot of money, as Mel Gibson can tell you. It might glance at the fallen comrade on the floor, but only so it can step over the body en route to the next meeting. And if that comrade somehow gets on his feet again, the industry will ask if he has a new project. This forgiveness is often ascribed to the familiar line that the only thing the business cares about is money.
Well, money plus abundant opportunities to grab them by the pussy.
Although the allegations against Mr. Weinstein may not prove to be the necessary tipping point, they are part of growing feminist pressure to change the industry. Activists inside and outside the entertainment bubble are calling out its biases — and showing how those biases affect employment, which in turn affects representations and audiences. (According to The Los Angeles Times, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — spurred to action by the American Civil Liberties Union — began contacting female film and TV directors in 2015 to see what issues they’re facing.)
I hope real change comes soon, especially for the women working in the industry who each day are forced to fight sexism just so that they can do their jobs. I hope change comes because the movies need new and different voices and visions, something other than deadening, damaging stereotypes and storybook clichés. And I hope change comes for those of us who love movies. I’ve spent a lifetime navigating the contradictions of that love, grappling with the pleasures movies offer with the misogyny that too often has informed what happened behind the camera and what is onscreen. The movies can break your heart, but this isn’t the time only for tears. It is also the time for rage.
We need change to come not just because we love the movies but also because the movies are part of what shapes us.
Don’t worry, the solution is on the way. I saw a link on CNN’s front page to a piece Opinions: Harvey Weinstein is a symptom, but what is the deeper problem? Weirdly, one of the photos above the link was of Penn Jillette. What, I wondered, could he possibly have to say on the matter? Regaling us with tales of the actions he’s taken against sexual harassment in the skeptic community? Ha ha. Or perhaps lecturing us that sexism isn’t really a problem at all?
Nah, I should have known — he went for the “I have a daughter” card. He decided to let us know that his daughter might become the world’s greatest magician, even though “[m]agic is still a boy’s club.” Hmm. But maybe magic is more of a guy thing! Seriously, though, that was what he decided to share with the world about Weinstein’s abuse: my daughter is really awesome, and she’ll fix everything. Because, presumably, today’s women are just insufficiently awesome to solve harassment. Sigh.
It’s hardly surprising that Hollywood, or the movie industry in general, should be such a hotspot of misogyny and sexism when you look at some(/most?) of the stuff it produces. A while back (Inspired by Anita Sarkeesian) I went through my own movie collection (not a vast one, but not exactly tiny either) and tried to identify all the problems (from a feminist perspective) I could find. Unsurprisingly most of my movies failed to pass the Bechdel test. Objectification/sexualization of female characters etc. was obviously a recurring theme. The Damsel in Distress as well as the even darker Woman in Refrigerator trope* were depressingly common. I also identified several instances of what Sarkeesian has called the Evil Demon Seductress trope and a few that, as far as I’m aware, don’t have names at all.
But by far the most common problem I found was sympathetic portrayal of sexist and misogynist men. Whereas overt racists are almost universally (with perhaps one or two exceptions, mostly from some of the older movies) depicted as the scum of the Earth and deserving of nothing but contempt, when it comes to sexism, the general tone seems to be that being a sexist or misogynist in no way makes you a bad person. At best it’s portrayed as a minor flaw or “quirk” that only makes the male character more “human” (and hence likable), and at worst it’s one of the very things we’re supposed to find cool about him **. Sure smells like self-serving bias to me.
* I.e. the one where a female character is killed as a pretext for the male hero to seek revenge and kick some ass.
** We see something similar with rock stars, many of whom who are/were notorious sleazebags. I can no longer listen to some of the rock songs I used to enjoy because the lyrics sound like the stuff that people tweet at Anita Sarkeesian.
[…] a comment by Bjarte Foshaug on An ordinary, malignant symptom of systemic […]
Screechy #1,
“As a man with no daughters, here are my views on feminism.”
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2017/10/man-no-daughters-here-are-my-views-feminism
That’s really good. I suspect it may woosh over a number of heads on both sides of the argument.
Cressida, I loved it. Thanks. I sent it to my feminist son, who also has no daughters (but does have 5 stepdaughters).
“I’m a father of daughters” is becoming the sexist equivalent of “Some of my best friends are black”.
“…grown from the seed of the homunculi which lie waiting in my loins.” That killed me!