Apparently the fine French actress, Catherine Deneuve, who has done a number of admirable things in her life, is championing the rapists, sexual assaulters, sexual harassers and other, assorted poor, put upon things who are being exposed in the past several months. And it isn't the ambiguous cases she and apparently a group of French stars in popular culture and the pop-star culture academia that is a fixture in France. As Noam Chomsky has pointed out, even the philosophers are media stars in the fashion driven culture of Paris.
The revered French actor Catherine Deneuve has hit out at a new “puritanism” sparked by sexual harassment scandals, declaring that men should be “free to hit on” women.
Deneuve was one of about 100 female French writers, performers and academics who wrote an open letter deploring the wave of “denunciations” that has followed claims that the Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein raped and sexually assaulted women over decades.
They claimed the “witch-hunt” that followed threatens sexual freedom.
“Rape is a crime, but trying to seduce someone, even persistently or cack-handedly, is not – nor is men being gentlemanly a macho attack,” said the letter published in the newspaper Le Monde.
“Men have been punished summarily, forced out of their jobs when all they did was touch someone’s knee or try to steal a kiss,” said the letter, which was also signed by Catherine Millet, author of the explicit 2002 bestseller The Sexual Life of Catherine M.
Men had been dragged through the mud, they argued, for “talking about intimate subjects during professional dinners or for sending sexually charged messages to women who did not return their attentions”.
The poor, put upon men.. Apparently Deneuve et al, consider "sexually charged messages which women elsewhere don't return" include groping, other physical forms of assault (some with violence) intimidation, threats, indecent exposure, being ejaculated on and, yes, being raped.
I would go farther into what was said, which you can read in the many articles about it online, but I've got to go take an anti-emetic.
While reading the several articles I read on it all I could think was that France was the country that invented the absolutely, disgustingly misogynistic Danse Apache, most gratifyingly and intelligently presented cinematically in the movie Ma and Pa Kettle on Vacation in which Ma Kettle intervenes, beating up the man to protect the woman who is being brutalized as entertainment in a night club. Other than that it's pretty much pure misogyny in which all involved takes the liberté for the fraternité and says fuck all to the égalité. From my understanding, occasionally such a dance is reenacted for the benefit of those who would like a deeper understanding of the great French cultural tradition, even now.
It's also worth remembering that France was a country where women didn't get the vote until 1945, which isn't that much worse than in the United States and other countries but it would seem to still lag way behind other countries in really believing women have a right to personal autonomy and integrity. Again, that's not something that we can take much pride in, here. American pop culture is full to the top with stuff as bad as any in French culture. And, to tell you the truth, I remember hearing Brits complaining that Americans took such things "too seriously" as well. Though generally that's more about race when they say it, but misogyny, too.
I really can't say the extent to which this petition for the right for men to harass and, apparently, to ejaculate on women, or perhaps to rape them - since men being held accountable for that is what the manifestation is complaining about, is a product of the secular side of French culture, something which is a major division of society there since the revolution. It would be interesting to know more about the famous women who are signing onto something telling other women they should just take it in the interest of "liberty" in terms of that. Paris has issues. While there are many wonderful things in French culture, that isn't one of them.
You: "This petition for the right for men to harass and, apparently, to ejaculate on women, or perhaps to rape them"
ReplyDeletev
Them: "Rape is a crime, but trying to seduce someone, even persistently or cack-handedly, is not."
I think it's possible both sides are right: Plenty of predators in positions of power and it's easy to want to be part of society of victimhood.
Here's what I want to know: Numerous actresses have come forward and accused Weinstein of offering parts for favors, yet all these tales come from performers who insist they did nothing unbecoming.
So, either he was never successful in getting actresses to acquiesce to his demands or many stars of Miramax films are staying silent about their own role in this. Do we want the truth, or just the parts that won't make us feel guilty?
Um, I don't think, after reading what she said, that I'd expect Catherine Deneuve's definition of rape would match a reasonable definition of it.
Delete"yet all these tales come from performers who insist they did nothing unbecoming"
Well, that's the nature of sexual assault, sexual harassment, it's not consensual, if that's what you meant by "did nothing unbecoming". Of course you're not going to get accusations from someone who consented, if any such exist, Weinstein being pretty gross and disgusting.
If they consented what would there be to talk about? If he managed to get consent from 48,973 women and he assaulted 20 he'd have still assaulted 20 women.
I don't have any intention of posting a long discussion of those accusations in general and certainly am not going to speculate on who might have had sex with him but isn't talking about it. If someone consented is irrelevant to him assaulting someone else.
What difference does it make to the issue if someone was in a Miramax film?
"Um, I don't think, after reading what she said, that I'd expect Catherine Deneuve's definition of rape would match a reasonable definition of it."
DeleteConsidering some of the left think sex + regret = rape, I have to defer judgment until details are offered. Crazies on both sides.
"Well, that's the nature of sexual assault, sexual harassment, it's not consensual, if that's what you meant by 'did nothing unbecoming'. Of course you're not going to get accusations from someone who consented, if any such exist, Weinstein being pretty gross and disgusting."
But that's the problem, if actresses did consent (and I imagine many did - the casting coach is as old as the director's chair), they certainly did something unbecoming to achieve their success. That they don't want to talk about it is understandable. But those who played the game were the reason the game was being played, and are not victims the way the other actresses, who refused, are. One could argue they were enablers and associates.
I'm just baffled and frustrated that the news appears to be going along with the idea that 1) Harvey propositioned many women for quid pro quo sex but 2) he was ALWAYS turned down. Even an actress who wrote a detailed account of his attempts to garner sexual favors for her makes a point of saying the actress who did get the part he was dangling didn't do what she wouldn't. It's classy to make that point, but considering the culture of Hollywood, it's not unreasonable to ask said actress if that's true, and to wonder if she's lying.
"If they consented what would there be to talk about? If he managed to get consent from 48,973 women and he assaulted 20 he'd have still assaulted 20 women."
No, but that's the point, those 48,000 are the reason those 20 were assaulted. The entire culture has to change, but that includes accepting that those who played ball were participants in it. Not eager or happy ones, but they are part of the problem.
I heard a friend's wife say about her friend, who tried making it in the industry, left because "she had more morals than ambition." That was five years ago. So these revelations surprised me about as much as a sunrise.
"What difference does it make to the issue if someone was in a Miramax film?"
That was his company. I have to admit, when I see an actress in it, my first thought is, "How did she get that part?" It's not fair, but this whole thing is a half-assed measure, and likely won't solve anything. The predators will just come up with a new way to approach and solicit.
It bears repeating, because it's true: It seems Hollywood isn't angry because they found out what was happening. They're angry because WE, the public, found out.
I don't intend to go through your claims comprehensively and this will be the last comment I post on this unless something different comes up:
Delete"Considering some of the left think sex + regret = rape, I have to defer judgment until details are offered. Crazies on both sides."
I haven't heard any of the accusations against Weinstein which would fall into that category and many others have certainly not been of that type.
Your claim mentions that as an attribute of those on "the left" when a. there is nothing left or right about coming up with a bad definition of a term, b. I have certainly written against that claim that verbal consent can be revoked ex post facto, making "yes" mean "no" is even more unworkable than the ancient scumbag MALE claim that "no" means "yes". You might remember those charming Yale frat boys and their chant that began that way a few years back. It's not my experience that Yalie frat boys or, really, any frat boys would be mistaken for a real left.
"But that's the problem, if actresses did consent (and I imagine many did - the casting coach is as old as the director's chair"
When you are talking about a specific case you're not talking about "actresses" you're not talking about any generalized category that can tell you something about the specific case, you're talking about what happened between two people (in some cases in the news BOTH MALES). I doubt you'd say that because "boys" have consented to have sex with male coaches that that fact should call into doubt a boy's claim that he was raped by a man who is a coach. Because if you did I'd wonder how you became a Penn State fan in Arizona. Boys past the age of puberty wanting to have sex with adult male coaches is a pretty old story too, just not one straight people often hear. It reminds me of what the pederast, Gore Vidal said at the start of the priest sex abuse scandal, claiming that the boys were the ones to blame because they'd seduced the adults. Which should have ended his public career, but, he not being a priest or minister, it didn't. That the sex might be consensual doesn't excuse the abuse of authority and position on the part of the adult just as abusing the authority and position of a director or producer doesn't.
The film industry is a whore house, that's been pretty well established from the time before it moved from New York to Hollywood. That doesn't mean it has to stay that way or that other businesses should be allowed to practice the same mores.
If your first part on seeing an actress in a Miramax film is "How did she get that part?" seems rather odd to me but if Weinstein has damaged the brand to that extent, well, he did what he did.
Movies are 99.44% crap. You can say the same about pop music. God bless you if you can get into it without it turning you into a prostitute, trading on your body to get money, but even more so if you can be a director or producer without giving into the moral sewer level behavior that it mostly encourages.
If your complaint is that actresses didn't expose this before I don't understand why you seem to be so angry that they've done it now? If they'd done it 30 years before you'd still, apparently be angry that they hadn't done it 60 years before.
And thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster that heroic Kirsten Gillebrand dispatched THE FRANKEN MENACE!!!!
ReplyDeleteOh, and here I thought that was the one thing we agreed on, that Franken shouldn't have resigned from the Senate because the accusations against him were political or so dubious that the Ethics Committee should have done an investigation.
DeleteI wrote enough words to that effect that you pretended to read.
You see, Simple-minded one, that someone might be guilty as hell doesn't preclude someone not being guilty but falsely accused and that it took a rigorous presentation of evidence to decide which was credibly accused and which was not.
But that's too complex for the Simp-licity of the the Eschaton "Brain Trust" [they really do call it that, sort of a anticipation of Trump announcing that he's a "very stable genius.]
I criticized Kirsten Gillibrand for her part in an injustice, probably more times than you did.
But, of course, you lie.
"Apparently the fine French actress, Catherine Deneuve, who has done a number of admirable things in her life..."
ReplyDeleteCompared to you, right? Please enumerate the admirable things you've done in your life that remotely qualify.
You apparently don't understand that your comment doesn't cohere, do you. I noted that C. D. had done a number of admirable things, which she has and you apparently think that means she hasn't done a number of admirable things.
DeleteOf course, you must have posted this clipped and so distorted version of what I said over at Duncan's den of puerile prevarication leaving out the rest of it containing my criticism of this one thing she has done which is not admirable.
You get more like Trump every time you post a comment.
You should also understand something, Simps, I wouldn't presume to say whether or not something I had done was admirable because someone doesn't have a right to make that judgement about their own actions, it is for those who admire something you do to decide if it's admirable. Unless like Simels and Trump, you decided to heap admiration on yourself even as others turn away in disgust.
And, by the way, Simps, heaping admiration on yourself as you do every time you tout your retrieval of your garage band's cassette legacy, that's not admirable.
DeleteYou are proof of what Franklin said about a man who falls in love with himself will have no rivals. What BG is doing, who can figure it?
"And, by the way, Simps, heaping admiration on yourself as you do every time you tout your retrieval of your garage band's cassette legacy"
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for following our poor retrospective efforts. I can't imagine why you are doing that, but it shows a lovely spirit.
I don't follow it, I delete it when you try to post it here. I listened to one and it made me realize there needed to be a word, something like "drivelative" because that's what it was.
DeleteDon't make me call on the top 40 hit of Patience and Prudence because I will if you force me to.
Here's a clue, Sparkles -- I find it hilarious and charmingly ironic that throwaway musical work friends and I did forty years ago is getting recognized today, on however a minor level. But of course, you have no idea why anybody would feel good about that, because you're a bitter twisted old fuck.
ReplyDelete:-)
It's not "charmingly ironic" it's evidence of the decay of taste.
DeleteYou love to think I'm bitter but people who know me know that I'm generally quite cheerful. I've certainly gotten some laughs at your expense.
Excuse me? You're dissing Patience and Prudence, one of the pioneering feminist rock acts of the 50s?
ReplyDeleteWow, am I not surprised.
Gee, Simps, the last time I pulled out their chart hit you didn't think they were good. You got pissed off - I think it was when you were bragging about the cover of one of your band's songs (if such it was) charting. Or some such trivial thing.
DeleteWe get it -- you really don't like women.
ReplyDeleteWe? Would that be the royal a-hole "we"?
DeleteAsk Echidne, she's the one who asked me to write for her blog.
You still writing for Echidne? Wow, must have missed that.
ReplyDeleteI chose to stop writing for her blog, but that's not the issue, it's you doing the Simels shuffle.
DeleteI did tell you it was getting repetitious. You can never make a point that sticks when you're challenged. I think I'm going to go back to ignoring you. It's just too boring.
"I chose to stop writing for her blog, but that's not the issue"
ReplyDeleteOh sure you did. And yes, it IS the issue.
:-)
I can tell you the date, it was June 12, 2011. She never accused me of not liking women, it was a feminist blog. I decided to go back to writing a solo blog. I still comment there, often.
DeleteYeah, sure. I believe you.
ReplyDeleteMillions wouldn't.
:-)
Yeah, the millions as stupid as you are, millions aren't that stupid. Jeesh, you could look it up, I gave you the date.
Delete