For the record, I made several appearances on the ABC’s panel show The Drum some years ago for which I fully apologise to all and sundry now. It was an error of judgment and I knew it even while I was doing it. A written statement of regret is being prepared. For those who demand more, the cheque is in the mail. Soon. Soonish. In the fullness of time.
Like many panel shows, The Drum is little more than street-corner junk opinion dressed up as expertise, featuring desperate stacks-on-the-mill attempts to make the most tortured and bizarre explanations of the bleeding obvious.
I didn’t watch the show last night. Indeed, I never do – but thanks to the magic of social media I was able to glean part of it and I can report that little or nothing has changed.
Unsurprisingly, there was a great deal of hand-wringing and furrowing of brows over the Harvey Weinstein scandal currently enveloping Hollywood. As expected, there were some takes on the program that were laughably glib.
One panellist, Gray Connolly, took a deep breath before launching into a scattergun hypothesis that amounted to spreading the guilt and shame around in a thin layer, apportioning less blame to the offender, the gelatinous sex creep Harvey Weinstein, than to just about everyone else, including possibly you and me.
“The most dangerous people in society are not your evil people. They are the bystanders. They are the people who do not do anything, do not say anything but let these sort of, erm, power mad, ah, maniacs sort of wreak their havoc on people and say nothing,” Connolly said.
Connolly is a lawyer. A barrister, in fact, the last time I looked. He may well be a very good one. If you’re ever in a spot of bother, you might do well to engage his services and suggest he gives his “culture of the bystander” speech a run.
“My client wishes to plead guilty to all charges, m’lud, but our submission is society is to blame.”
If all goes well, the beak could let you off while ordering everyone else in the courtroom, including himself, into handcuffs to be led away.
One lawyer of my acquaintance was a criminal barrister who had taken silk. He used to joke that he couldn’t help his friends if they ever got divorced as family law was beneath his vast jurisprudential skills but if marital friction did escalate and one did murder one’s spouse, he was the first person to call. So much for ethics and the law.
The case of Harvey Weinstein has put much of the commentariat into a deep, addled confusion. The net has been cast wide in the search for culprits and people considered deserving of the gnarled index finger of blame.
Meryl Streep has been put in the frame although there is not a skerrick of evidence to show she knew of Weinstein’s behaviour. Fellow actors Gwyneth Paltrow and Angelina Jolie say they were subject to indignities at the hands of the Hollywood mogul and they, too, have faced media interrogation as to why they did not come forward earlier.
Ignoring the ugliness of victim-blaming for a moment, the answer is fairly obvious.
Weinstein, a morbidly obese pile of predatory flesh with hair sprouting out in all the wrong places, was powerful and could destroy them.
Some of Hollywood’s biggest male names have been bandied about and what they are supposed to have done lies somewhere between ignorance and callous disregard for Weinstein’s victims. While this may be appalling, there is no parallel between what they did or did not do and what Weinstein is alleged to have done over the past three decades.
As we speak, The New York Times is compiling a list of Hollywood’s A-grade actors, men who are yet to have made statements to the media. The suggestion is their failure to condemn Weinstein should be shaped into an endorsement by omission and thus some measure of complicity is attached by measure of vague association.
Weinstein, whose mug brings to mind a phrase often used by the late Bill Leak, “You get the face you deserve,” is facing allegations of serious criminality that in our legal lexicon includes acts of gross indecency, sexual assault and rape.
The truly desperate among the commentariat have sought to politicise the issue. The Left does these things, the Right is as pure as driven snow or vice versa is how the arguments have gone. Not everything is subject to the nebulous rules of an imaginary linear expression of political opinion. In fact, in life and in crime and its rare moments of punishment, very little does.
If we have learned anything from Weinstein and Co., it is only a reminder that power and the abuse of it is the root cause of predatory sexual behaviour from male to female, and from adult to child for that matter.
Earlier in the week I was witness to a discussion between two middle-aged professional women, one in media, the other in advertising, while they catalogued the sexual abuse, harassment and humiliation they had been subjected to in their working lives. I say witness because it pays to sit quietly and listen at these times.
The accounts were staggering both in extent and gravity and told stories of jobs lost, resignations made, opportunities withdrawn and of unacceptable behaviour reluctantly accepted.
Some say that some good may come of Weinstein’s exposure and that victims and witnesses might now be emboldened to come forward. I am not convinced. Whether it is media, politics or the corner-store mixed business, the same power structure is in place defining the powerful and the vulnerable and that structure is rarely broken. Even if it were, its replacement would merely reinstate a new division between those who have power and those without it.
Let’s not fall for the nonsense that predators like Weinstein are only partly to blame. As difficult as it might be for victims and witnesses, the only way forward is to lay the blame and the consequences squarely on the shoulders of the offender, bearing in mind the fundamental principle of law enforcement, not to mention logic, is that if the offender is removed, the offending comes to a halt.
But then, what would that leave them to babble about on The Drum?
This column was first published in The Australian on October 13, 2017.
Jack,
From my readings, it doesn’t appear that there has been a lot of victim-blaming in the case of Harvey Weinstein. Apart from the comments on the other side, many of which identify Democrats as enablers of Weinstein , the outrage has been focussed on Weinstein himself which, as you say, is as it should be.
I haven’t read much in the way of Democrats supporting Weinstein, who has and will continue to pay a stiff price for his poor behaviour. However, you have other serial abusers like Roger Ailes (until his recent death) and Bill O’Reilly who continued to be supported by Donald Trump, Rudolph Giuliani and others. I see that O’Reilly recently was given a platform at Fox to promote his latest book. Hypocrisy writ large.
Pls c msg abt Pop yr Twtr feed. Barbara Wiss.
Got it. All looking good.
I am told G Wizz has had his surgery. There were some complications but he is out of ICU now and is resting up. Wishing him well.
Great news Wizz, go well.
This brings to mind the famous poem by Martin Niemöller: “First they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Communist…” etc. I’m sure you know the rest. Or, as Desmond Tutu put it, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor”.
My point is that the blame-game is not zero-sum; culpability is not a limited resource. I think we can lay full accountability on the shoulders of wrongdoers, while still accepting our own responsibility not to stand by and let the wrong be done.
Hear, Hear, JOH, Hear, Hear
over the other side someone called catherine keeps parroting the phrase the standard you walk past is the standard you accept, which makes me think catherine may have coined this pearl of wisdom herself.
anyway, there is plenty of this plenty of this sort of behaviour about, more in some industries than others. it’s hard to stop as it is amazing what a bit of power and money does and there will always be some folks who take advantage of their position
equally there will be a few who will say that if that’s all i have to do then i will grin my way through it and make damn sure i get what i want.
and sadly there will be far too many who suffer or walk away with dreams unfulfilled and opportunities denied.
i suspect that in this case a lot of the pilling on is rooted in the sanctimony of the Hollywood set. plenty of people are a bit fed top with being talked down to by the amazing moral arbiters of the film and TV business and are giving a bit back.
Maybe. Sanctimony is often bound in hypocrisy. The most important point is to stick with the basic rule the cuplrit is responsible. If people looked the other way for whatever reason, that might be regrettable but that doesn’t mean the culprit’s guilt is diminished or in some way shared around.
i haven’t seen anyone saying that Weinstein isn’t responsible, no-one seems to be offering the George Constanza Was that wrong? line of defence, it just looks to me like they are having a free swing at the sanctimonious twats in Hollywood.
there are all sorts of reasons why people may have looked the other way, or chosen not to know, some much more defensible than others and i wouldn’t be calling people out on that myself without knowing a lot more about the circumstances, but i can understand the push back against sanctimony.
Plenty have, mate. The comments usually start, “These women…” and end with the tedious argument that their ambition and their riches now mean they deserved the treatment they received.
“If we have learned anything from Weinstein and Co., it is only a reminder that power and the abuse of it is the root cause of predatory sexual behaviour from male to female, and from adult to child for that matter.”
Not necessarily so Jack. Some men (not Weinstein) are just plain randy and cannot get any because all of the gates are shut (looks, money, employment, social status etc). Such men are just exercising their primal urges which laws and social mores suppress and keep in check. I do not condone thei sexual exploitation of women but am just stating the obvious-we were made this way. To sow our oats one way or another. The manner in which some women dress makes it very difficult. These women automatically assume that ALL men can control their feelings and urges…they can’t and they should never forget this and always take necessary precautions.
When my daughter often used to say “I can dress any way I want” I used to warn her she was taking a huge risk. “The way you dress sends a message whether you like it or not”.
That’s not the way the law works, Bassman.
Bassy my daughter has just finished jury service, chap late forties married with a small child sexting girls under 16.
My daughter said it was pretty revolting reading as the jury had to go through nearly a thousand pages of his photographs and suggestions, would you say girls of a certain age shouldn’t have phones in case men can’t control their urges?
They found him guilty on six of eight counts, the last two my daughter and one other (male) juror couldn’t get through the others so compromise had to be made.
As I have said I do not approve or condone criminal behviour
Wow Bassman, really?
So I can’t wear my bikini on the beach or walk around in a short skirt because “men need to sow their oats one way or another” and my doing this “makes it very difficult” for some of them? I’m not dressing for them so if there still are those who make that assumption in 2017 then they’ve got serious issues. You surprise me mate.
That is not what I said. I said women should not automatically assume that ALL men can control themselves and because of this women should take necessary precautions…don’t walk in dark lonely places (men a s well!) don’t wear over suggestive clothing.
Jill Meagher walking along a well lit street in “respectable” clothing after an evening out besides the fact that an utter grub abducted then raped and murdered her.
Didn’t she have every right to be out and feel safe? maybe it’s the men that shouldn’t be out as they seem to have the control “issues”
You are suggesting all women should alter, censor or constrict their behaviour because a few primate men can’t? That’s like catering to the lowest common denominator. I suggest we should ask/demand the exact opposite.
And on the flip side Bassman, regardless of what I do or don’t wear, or wherever I venture, I’ve noticed that despite their natural urges and desires, pretty much every female I’ve met have managed to keep themselves under control.
Yes I am because the risks are so great as blogged by Tracy says:
OCTOBER 16, 2017 AT 11:02 AM
I have a bit of an issue with all this 2XU and other compression gear, If I was to go down to the shops in my full compression outfit like woman of my age I would probably be viewed as quite strange but for a woman of my age who obviously is not going to or coming from the gym with the full hair and makeup done it seems acceptable? ( I don’t have much more than a space saver spare tyre either before you start) Just thought I would try and lighten the scene.
And the logical progression from there Bassman is the burqa; has that reduced the risks for the women that wear them? Another plus for the burqa is that it can hide all the bruises!
…and what happens to a young bloke if he is walking down the street and a well endowed woman is walking towards him with ‘touch them’ on the T-Shirt (I have seen such clothing). If he obeyed he would probably be jailed!
One would wonder what had “happened” to that young bloke if he can’t read something without acting on it. Billboards would dictate his day. Sounds like a union loving, labor voter to me old mate!
Ask/ demand all you like. When it comes to the primal part of the human brain, etiquette doesn’t get a look in, nor does consideration for the victim or fear of punishment, you might as well ask/demand the tiger not rip your head off.
BASSMAN is talking of risk minimisation, the degree to which one applies it is the individuals choice. “I should be able to…….” belongs to an ideal world.
Are we there yet?
Balls Jean! Self control – we’re supposedly above animals.
See Bella, they shouldnt be allowed out without a keeper. Like the bitches in Saudi, only the other way around. And maybe they should have to have collars, with their owners contacts, to pick them up if they wander. And a shock buzzer installed, for when those wild oats look like winning. Or judges that take rape seriously, that would be nice too.
Thats right bloody SA giving those sheilas the vote before the rest of world. Look at the trouble that has caused.
Bassman says – “the manner in which some women dress”, “primal urges”, “sow our oats one way or the other” ?? You’re not embedded with Sheik Hilaly by any chance Bassy? If not, you’re sailing close to the wind of his outrageous exposed cat’s meat comments a few years ago mate.
Gday Toaster….luverly to see you again in print.
“There is no crime, absolutely none, that cannot be condoned when ‘our’ side commits it. Even if one does not deny that the crime has happened, even if one knows that it is exactly the same crime as one has condemned in some other case, even if one admits in an intellectual sense that it is unjustified — still one cannot feel that it is wrong. Loyalty is involved, and so pity ceases to function.” – George Orwell, Notes on Nationalism
Well I did read that Gwyneth Paltrow told her boyfriend of the time, Brad Pitt, who consequently confronted Weinstein. Don’t know how true this is, but it seems she wasn’t hassled again. Judi Dench jokes about having Weinstein’s initials tattooed on her bum, because he was the one that gave her the start she needed in Hollywood. We don’t know how much people knew or how many women are yet to come out with allegations against him, but all I can say is that you simply cannot blame society, the actors or even dare I say the movie industry, when this revolting man has behaved so badly. He obviously believed that he had the power to do so simply he could make or break these women’s careers. I believe though is it is only coming out now because he’s dispensable…..shame he wasn’t exposed (unfortunate word In the circumstances) before.
Great comment, Penny.
You partly quote in your article, Mr Insider, and I do quote: “Weinstein, a morbidly obese pile of predatory flesh with hair sprouting out in all the wrong places……….” Agree 100%, if I were a female Movie Star he would be the last person I would want “heaving” all over me! Sorry ladies for the “word picture”. I blame Harvey Weinsten for ruining our upbeat Media coverage of late. Be gone you ugly piece of crap.
The curse of social media is the lynch mob mentality, somebody doesn’t like something let’s call them out publicly whether you know the full details or not.
Weinstein is a grub and a predator but having said that how about overpaid Hollywood actors and actresses stop telling people how they should be living/voting etc
Hollywood has been covering up since the day it started, an actor or actress in trouble call Louis B or Sam Goldwyn first and have it all swept away before the scandal breaks.
Just think we should be blaming culprits rather than bystanders, Tracy.
I understand Jack, just think actors and actresses should stick to their day job and let the powers that be sort him out.
There’s a bit of a run for the hills happening.
At the risk of sounding like I am defending Weinstein, I am not, unless he his charged and goes to court, is he thus far just faced trial by media?
As this article states, incredible power, and the willingness to exploit it sadly makes this sort of behaviour all too common. Could any of us say they were genuinely surprised that Weinstein, and others of his ilk, behaved this badly and for so long? And when you think about it, is it not the nature of this exploitative behaviour to be difficult to prove/or disprove? I’d imagine the majority of Weinstein’s overtures, or worse, were carried out when he was alone with a female, and as such putting the victim in an extremely difficult position.
Thus far Weinstein has lost his job and his wife yet he still has his freedom and no doubt a bucket load of money. I doubt the ignominy and pariah status would be considered a suitable punishment by his victims.
Get the man in court and have him face justice.
Fair question, Milton. He faces one very serious allegation of rape and in New York, where it is alleged to have occurred, there is no statute of limitations and police can gather evidence. Weinstein has denied this. The other matters as I understand them cannot be pursued through the courts as they are older matters and/or relatively trivial as far as the law is concerned – indecent exposure, turning up naked that sort of thing. Weinstein has accepted responsibility without specifically confirming incidents. Of course now more women are coming forward. He is in a world of trouble and it is clear that he has behaved very badly. In the way these things work, we’re entitled to make judgments on his conduct without interfering with police investigations.
As Rolf will tell you proof hard proof is always difficult to get in these cases but with 30 women accusing him there must some way of tripping the mongrel up Bald.