The All-Purpose, Hollywood Sexual Accusation Thread

[Tycon]

It is certainly a red flag given that context, but I wonder if we are we a society too caught up in catchphrases and buzzwords? Can a person's character actually be defined that easily?

I think it's so easy to place him within those parameters because of what he's said before:

1) His idiotic "colorblind" state
2) https://twitter.com/mguggenheim/stat...69182033854465
3) https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOd6kYtXcAAL74N.jpg

He's just an all-around bad guy.

[Beaubier]

Not gonna lie, him having Piotr act like a creeper and thinking that’s being romantic set off some red flags.

[Tycon]

Just to be clear here.
Is the hate on the term 'reverse sexism' coming from the idea of it as a defense of men accused of sexual harassment or because people think women can't be sexist to men?

The term itself.....is not real, outdated, and frankly disrespectful response.

[Lutecius]

Just to be clear here.
Is the hate on the term 'reverse sexism' coming from the idea of it as a defense of men accused of sexual harassment or because people think women can't be sexist to men?

Sexism used to mean "prejudice or discrimination based on gender", like racism meant ("prejudice or discrimination based on race") and of course it could go both way.

But some ideologues in universities have tried for years to redefine these words and add qualifiers like "it has to be institutional" or "it's power+prejudice", meaning that men can be sexist to women (and whites can be racist to minorities) but not the other way around because white men have "privilege" and women or minorities are "historically oppressed", regardless of actual individual circumstances.
The goal is to be able to lower the bar and call everything white males do "sexist" or "racist" (because those are powerful accusations that come handy when trying to shut people down) while making sure that women and minorities don't get flak when they do the same things, and generally speaking, to justify all sorts of double standards.

Of course these tactics have also caught on social media and the outrage over "reverse _ism" is often used as a diversion when someone dares point out prejudice against white males but really, no one has to accept this newspeak or play by these rules.

[Jackraow21]

Guggenheim seems to me like someone who is just not very smart. His writing and his tweets give me that impression. Based on the stuff I glanced over, though, the outrage-meter from some is a bit higher than warranted. But that’s par for the course in 2017. Everyone is fighting to be relevant.

[Michael Watkins]

eh, they're pretty good at lowering the bar; on their own.

[Calaigah]

What exactly did he do wrong?

loving the same sex?

hating the opposite sex?

or what am i not getting?

Not sure since I didn't bother to read the whole drama. What I gathered is that the producer from Supergirl did something bad and somehow Guggs is being accused of helping cover that up. He's also being called out for tone deaf tweets he makes. Think. female worked might've called him out as misogynist.

Not gonna lie, him having Piotr act like a creeper and thinking that’s being romantic set off some red flags.

Excluding the creepiness of this, the way he writes Kitty is the whole madonna/whore complex. A woman who is worth being written because she's "perfect".

[Tycon]

Sexism used to mean "prejudice or discrimination based on gender", like racism meant ("prejudice or discrimination based on race") and of course it could go both ways.

But some ideologues in universities have tried for years to redefine these words and add qualifiers like "it has to be institutional" or "it's power+prejudice", meaning that men can be sexist to women (and whites can be racist to minorities) but not the other way around because white men have "privilege" and women or minorities are "historically oppressed", regardless of actual individual circumstances.
The goal is to be able to lower the bar and call everything white males do "sexist" or "racist" (because those are powerful accusations that come handy when trying to shut people down) while making sure that women and minorities don't get flak when they do the same things, and generally speaking, to justify all sorts of double standards.

Of course these tactics have also caught on social media and the outrage over "reverse _ism" is often used as a diversion when someone dares point out prejudice against white males but really, no one has to accept this newspeak or play by these rules.

YYYYYeeeeeaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh, ok. Things like heterophobia, reverse sexism, reverse racism, """cisphobia""" just plain don't exist. A basic definition off of dictionary.com or Merriam Webster isn't going to dig deep into the nitty-gritty of sexism, racism, homophobia, and transphobia. When you understand the effects of privilege (oh god, buzzword!!!! IK) and how people of different races are inherently affected. Putting a simple, one-for-all definition isn't enough for something as heavy and deep as racism. A dictionary simply doesn't have any insight or depth into those type of conversations.

Now, onto why "reverse sexism/racism" and "cis/hetphobia" don't exist in our societies, or at least the US where this whole scandal is unfolding. Sexism, racism, homo/transphobia are all oppressive forces. There are hierarchies at play in who holds the power. I'm not saying you can't discriminate against a white guy or a straight person or etc etc. But as far as it is actual oppression, that'll be a no simply because it isn't something ingrained or systemic. A majority with power cannot be oppressed by the minority.

[salarta]

Unless there was a critical mass of threads threatening to overwhelm the CBR boards, I think merging every single thread involving sex accusations into this one is dismissive of important context. The Weinstein, Takei, Spacey and Louis C.K. accusations are not in the same vein as the Ratner and Guggenheim accusations. The first four aren't directly involved in DC and Marvel activity, at least very often. Ratner's been directly involved in DC and X-Men live action films. Guggenheim has been directly involved in Arrow, and is writing X-Men Gold. Lumping Ratner and Guggenheim in with people not heavily involved in comics-based content effectively buries accusations relevant to comics-based discussion. You have to read later replies to see they come up at all.

This is important because knowing about the accusations toward a comics-oriented person can affect a lot about how a person views and responds to that person's comics-oriented work. It can lead to them learning things that weren't known before, or noticing things they didn't notice before.

This isn't including how putting them all in TV/Film means people who never check this section of the board will never see the thread. I only saw the Guggenheim accusations when they were a separate thread because they were on the X-Men board, and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have known it got merged into this thread if I didn't reload a tab I had open that redirected to here.

In the end, I know this is CBR's decision, but I think the problems with this approach far outweigh any mod/admin convenience of turning this topic into a one stop shop that many users have to go looking to find, if they know to look for it at all.

[Bafflement]

YYYYYeeeeeaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh, ok. Things like heterophobia, reverse sexism, reverse racism, """cisphobia""" just plain don't exist. A basic definition off of dictionary.com or Merriam Webster isn't going to dig deep into the nitty-gritty of sexism, racism, homophobia, and transphobia. When you understand the effects of privilege (oh god, buzzword!!!! IK) and how people of different races are inherently affected. Putting a simple, one-for-all definition isn't enough for something as heavy and deep as racism. A dictionary simply doesn't have any insight or depth into those type of conversations.

Now, onto why "reverse sexism/racism" and "cis/hetphobia" don't exist in our societies, or at least the US where this whole scandal is unfolding. Sexism, racism, homo/transphobia are all oppressive forces. There are hierarchies at play in who holds the power. I'm not saying you can't discriminate against a white guy or a straight person or etc etc. But as far as it is actual oppression, that'll be a no simply because it isn't something ingrained or systemic. A majority with power cannot be oppressed by the minority.

Okay, this disgusting little rant is just straight-up bigotry. Trying to pigeon-hole people as acceptible targets based on their gender or race is always wrong.

[Lutecius]

YYYYYeeeeeaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh, ok. Things like heterophobia, reverse sexism, reverse racism, """cisphobia""" just plain don't exist. A basic definition off of dictionary.com or Merriam Webster isn't going to dig deep into the nitty-gritty of sexism, racism, homophobia, and transphobia. When you understand the effects of privilege (oh god, buzzword!!!! IK) and how people of different races are inherently affected. Putting a simple, one-for-all definition isn't enough for something as heavy and deep as racism. A dictionary simply doesn't have any insight or depth into those type of conversations.

Now, onto why "reverse sexism/racism" and "cis/hetphobia" don't exist in our societies, or at least the US where this whole scandal is unfolding. Sexism, racism, homo/transphobia are all oppressive forces. There are hierarchies at play in who holds the power. I'm not saying you can't discriminate against a white guy or a straight person or etc etc. But as far as it is actual oppression, that'll be a no simply because it isn't something ingrained or systemic. A majority with power cannot be oppressed by the minority.

Oh, believe me, I know all the justifications for these double standards. I simply don't buy them.
For instance yes, basic definitions in a dictionary aren't going to delve deep into the minutiae of how discrimination affects different people, but the claim that only members of a "privileged" category can be racist or sexist isn't some finer point that you could leave out of a definition. You know very well this isn't how these words were understood originally, or how most people still understand it.

Adding qualifiers like "institutional" or acknowledging that some categories are disproportionately affected by discrimination can be useful in social sciences, but the attempt to actually redefine words is a political tactic by ideologues (and some mindless followers) who know very well the effect on people. Otherwise they wouldn't feel the need to minimize instances of racism or sexism towards white males as "mere prejudice".
Likewise, thinking in terms of classes, power dynamics or historical oppression has its place in sociology but when someone starts using these notions to impose double standards for individual behaviours, they should expect to be called out.

[Sighphi]

i thought this thread was about sexual harassment.

Why did it suddenly turn into, "i dont like what they post on twitter and how they write female characters" thread?

[PLG1962]

I'm waiting for a "Power Female Exe etc" will be accused of Sexual Harassment and we all know it happens
I wonder if the Feminists will be in denial or they will carve her up like they are doing to the males

[Tofali]

i thought this thread was about sexual harassment.

Why did it suddenly turn into, "i dont like what they post on twitter and how they write female characters" thread?

mods merged an x-forum thread with the previous more measured thread in tv/film forum

[Cyke]

I'm waiting for a "Power Female Exe etc" will be accused of Sexual Harassment and we all know it happens
I wonder if the Feminists will be in denial or they will carve her up like they are doing to the males

That's easy. Just look at every time a female high school teacher has an affair with a male student. Yes, feminists call them out as well, because that abuse is harmful. At the very heart of it, whether it's sexual harassment or gender rights, it's still about the balance of power and authority. Any abuse of that power will and should get called out.

Feminism isn't about being anti-men. Feminism isn't about female superiority. Feminism is about women getting equitable treatment comparable to men. Yes, there are women in power who sexually harass, but it's grown in a culture that says sexual harassment is itself a necessary expression of power. And that ain't right at all, but feminists were the first to notice that, because they get that treatment far more often.

There's also model Ali Michael. She lost a large chunk of her social media presence because, as a 27 yr old, she hit on 14 year old Finn Wolfhard from Stranger Things. And a lot of her fans are feminists.

But another thing to look at: it isn't just Weinstein or Spacey themselves, but the ones who protected them and deflected them and lied for them. Matt Damon and Russell Crowe killed a story exposing Weinstein a decade ago. Louis C.K.'s manager had to put out his own statement about his being complicit. That is abuse of power. Whereas when a female teacher gets caught, you never hear of other teachers or the administrators protecting them, or telling people to wait till they have "all the facts," or making excuses for them. Schools shut that **** down fast, and rightfully so. That's the proper way to exercise power. So it's one thing to accuse a man, it's separate and incredibly frustrating thing to expose their protectors as well. And that's how sexual harassment and abuse goes unchecked in Hollywood, and why we're seeing this wave of accusations now, moreso than ever before. Part of feminism means trying to hold Hollywood power players as accountable as female school teachers when they abuse their power for sexual gain.

I seriously wonder if these types of posts show the intent of sweeping under the rug (and thus maintaining) a male-dominated structure of abuse, rather than simply just dismantling that entire structure altogether. Hell, most Mad Men episodes depicted harassment as both everyday *and* horrifying (which is why the show rarely portrays Don Draper as a protagonist as opposed to just central character).