Jill (formerly Twisty) of I Blame The Patriarchy takes on the peculiar cast of characters defending convicted rapist Roman Polanski has an aura of childlike naivete. She says the answer is that basically all the nominal progressives who called for him to be left alone are all just really bad people and we’ve just been too dumb to notice. Taking aim at Whoopie Goldberg
Wait! No! Not Whoopi, the affable Center Square who’s black enough to be hep, but not so black that she scares the honkys?
...
Possibly Whoopi views Polanski’s violent crime in this seriously fucked-up way because in Hollywood — patriarchy’s primary misogyny propaganda unit — rape is nothing but a plot device
I think that’s going both a little too hard but also way too easy on them.
Instead I think it’s because in Hollywood people use, um, “leveraged” sex as even more of a medium of currency than most other places do. It’s not just about the “casting couch” thing but an outright demonstration of a combination of power, fealty, and “committment” to a person or project. Where it’s sort of a given that giving a producer a blowjob when it’s known you like giving them or even just don’t mind isn’t nearly as valuable as giving one when it’s the last thing on earth you want to do.
And so by that way of thinking, which I’m guessing Goldberg just sees as the cost of doing business, what Polanski did to a 13-year-old was just “over the line” and not “rape-rape.”
And I’m just thinking that unusual suspects are standing up for him not so much because they like the system or look forward to being on the receiving end themselves but because to acknowledge it in Polanski’s case would mean having to confront what they themselves have submitted to, or at least steeled themselves for in case they had to, as their own “cost of doing business” in Hollywood.
And by the way, that’s not to excuse the “rape as a plot device” business they grunt out on a daily basis. Quite the opposite. You see a lot of the same sordid plot devices in regular print and comic publishing, but you don’t see that “if you want it you’ve got to show me how badly you want it” sort of thing that goes on in Hollywood.
Bottom line: it’s not so much “rape-rape” culture as a culture of sexual harassment on an industrial scale. For an insider to stand up to it requires acknowledging that he or she has participated in, and possibly “benefited” career-wise from it, as aggressor or victim or both.
%@!#%W
For the record I think sex is just great. And while I’m not a fan I’m not opposed to fee-for-service sex. I seriously have it in for sex as leverage or obligation of any kind, though.
Submitted by 3245 (not verified) on Thu, 2009-10-15 18:36.
My favorite is "God, not Natalie Portman, photogenic girl?" Because, god, you know what those good-looking women are like. Probably totally airheaded and submissive and sexualized and self-centered, you can tell just by looking at them!
But as a Hollywood escapee, I don't think that Polanski-defending (which, incidentally, I do find completely reprehensible) is about a culture of sexual harassment. I think it's about a culture that's so tight-knit that it instinctively defends its own no matter what. Celebrity is a pretty small club and everyone knows everyone--to a big-name actor or director, Polanski is one of us, he's family.
Have you ever had the opportunity to show a police officer a news story about a cop caught in wrongdoing? 9 times out of ten, the officer will start passionately arguing why the cop's actions weren't that bad and probably didn't happen that way and this is only an issue because non-cops don't understand. He isn't saying this because he's corrupt or he endorses corruption--he's saying it because he puts himself in the place of the accused. He's used to being in "us versus the public" situations, and fellow cops, no matter the circumstances, are "us."
Likewise, celebrities are used to defending their own through scandals, often sex scandals, and the desire not to break the Thin Glittery Line can be stronger than the common sense to realize when a scandal is a crime.
(Also, it seems like some people believe it was consensual and the only issue is age, I'm not sure if the forcible rape part of the story is widely known. Even CNN referred to Polanski as having "unlawful sexual intercourse" with the girl.)
Submitted by 3245 (not verified) on Thu, 2009-10-15 19:48.
"I seriously have it in for sex" ?
I'm going to have to assume that this sentence is either incomplete or else it's some kind of bizarre grammar failure.
[Yup. Teach me to answer the phone mid-post! :-) I've fixed it. And thanks for the head's up, Nightfall! --fl]
Submitted by 3245 (not verified) on Thu, 2009-10-15 21:58.
I agree with Holly. I think it's plain, old-fashioned wagon-circling that you see anytime someone prominent or well-liked within a certain crowd gets accused of doing something bad.
Submitted by 3245 (not verified) on Thu, 2009-10-15 23:44.
try "i seriously have it in for sex-as-leverage."
[Great minds think alike, Nekobawt. That's what I wrote after Nighfall pointed out that I hadn't finished the last sentence. Thanks! --fl]
Submitted by 3245 (not verified) on Fri, 2009-10-16 02:40.
I think a lot of it comes down to the fact that a lot of people, don't quite know what a rape sort of "looks like". And I think a lot of movies, TV, novels, etc. sort of portray it in a false way. Generally, they don't directly justify the crime or put out the "she asked for it" so much anymore. But I think there's a tendency to make it look more erotic and less violent than the reality. Or it's mostly the aftermath that gets talked about, again in a rather vague way.
Usually they have an attractive woman playing a rape victim, for example. Often the show requires to play up the business of the public accusing her of "asking for it" for dramatic purposes.
And I think this affects the whole culture and not just Hollywood. But in "Tinsel Town" I think people just spend more time dealing with these media images. And for some people that distorts the sense of the reality.
Submitted by 3245 (not verified) on Fri, 2009-10-16 12:02.
nekobawt: It didn't say that last time I read it. He must have fixed it now.
Submitted by 3245 (not verified) on Fri, 2009-10-16 14:06.
I think it's similar to how friends of a rapist defend them. Society has created a one dimensional image of what rapists look like so when people find out that someone they know or admire has raped they can't assimilate their image of the person with their concept of what a rapist is. Oh but he's so clever, handsome, caring, successful. People seem to forget that while rapists may do monstrous things they are still people who are multifaceted and may otherwise appear good.
Submitted by 3245 (not verified) on Fri, 2009-10-16 14:59.
Seems ta me that if Polanski gave somebody drugs in order to have sex, he is a bad man. Even if he was convinced that she was a woman at or over the age of consent, the fact that he gave her 'ludes and then had sex with her demonstrates that he was a predator. In local circles, I hear (politically) conservative people tut-tutting about how liberals are defending Polanski, as though liberals believe everybody should be allowed to have sex with anybody. The liberal view of sex, though, has much to do with the notion of "consenting adults." Polanski claims he thought she was of legal age, but the fact that he gave her drugs means there would be serious question about her ability to consent even had she been an adult. The fact that she was 13 means that neither the 'consenting' part nor the 'adult' part was satisfied, and (I never thought I'd hear myself using the term) "Hollywood Liberals" are missing a bushelful of facts when they say Polanski ought not be prosecuted.
[Yeah, funny about the Quaalude thing. It's certainly one gigantic difference between then and now -- then it was at least as likely that *both* parties would have taken them. Which *possibly* is another reason at least the old-timers would be defending Polanski. I mean, the line would be, who the heck can be responsible when they're on Quaaludes? Which is, of course an excellent defense... or would be if it didn't simply transferring the point of responsibility to the decision to take the fucking things knowing you were very unlikely to make competent decisions. Same, of course, with the girl he gave them to as well. As you say, nowadays we correctly call it sexual assault when you have sex with someone who can't make a coherent decision yes or no. Back then it was just "boys will be boys and she didn't scream... or if she did nobody heard." Which was bullshit, of course, but that's why folks like Andrea Dworkin had to be as extreme as they, well, had to be. Thanks, Mike. --fl]