Terry Gilliam: misogynist

I'm not having this discussion with you Goose, because actually, that's not the position I'm starting from on this thread. You took a small part of my post and are now trying to have the discussion you want to have. You can do that with any of the other people on the thread who have made that the big plank of their argument- my point was that Gilliam, in saying that the powerful have no incentive to give up their power and may well find new and creative ways of holding that power via 'identifying' as something other than who they are, is correct. If you want to talk about that idea, go ahead, but I'm not in the mood to be pressed into a discussion defending a position I'm not arguing here.

I'm not saying that women are purer souls than men. The fact that you have chosen to spin my statement that way indicates that you still haven't grasped the issues that get many of us exercised about this.

I grasp what you are saying, I just think you are missing an important part of the picture. And it is absolutely about a sense that women cannot be as mercenary as men.
Yes, all kinds of women are caught up in a system in Hollywood where there are pressures and expectations that are unhealthy and unfair. This is not only caused however by men who demand sex for roles. If it were universally the case that no women were willing to make that exchange, it wouldn't get very far, no women would be in films? Not a likely outcome.

But it does not take that many who are willing to create a system where you either do it, or it makes things harder for you. In a small industry, highly competitive, where large numbers of newcomers are desperate to succeed, there are always new people who will go farther, who have more ambition.

That is not just men throwing women under the bus. It is people of both sexes who want what they want, whatever it means to anyone else, creating a transactional market that affects everyone.

The only way to ignore that some women are not only complicit but happy with this system, prop it up and participate in creating it because it gives them an advantage, is to believe some fiction that women do not have those kinds of behaviours.

NearlyGranny
We aren't talking about women who traded sexual favours for film rôles though, are we?

But yes, we are. Women who have voluntarily traded sexual favours for film roles are being discussed too, and are included in much of the conversation. From the quote in the OP's post, it is surely clear that Gilliam is referring to these. That's why I can't at all understand the OP's strange conclusion which they reached from his words and I've asked them about this.

I'd be interested to see what other information the OP has in order for them to make their accusation.

I'm not saying that women are purer souls than men. The fact that you have chosen to spin my statement that way indicates that you still haven't grasped the issues that get many of us exercised about this. Coercion is a complicated, not straightforward thing, and women who are subject to it may make 'choices' in that context that are detrimental to themselves and others. To suggest that I am positing the existence of women as 'purer souls' is completely missing that women are human beings, inherently more vulnerable physically than men, and part of a society in which men have engineered a gender system in which that basic biological difference has been used as a springboard to set themselves as the powerful players.

If a woman can only achieve what is classed as success in a system by trading her body for what a man is in a position to give her, then there is a clear and obvious power differential and this 'exchange' is not occuring in a neutral setting.

We aren't talking about women who traded sexual favours for film rôles though, are we? We're talking about women who said no to that 'deal' and were sexually assaulted by a man who took what he wanted by force when it was not available on demand.

So he is in the position of informing us who is a victim .... oh ok do you not think that many living inside the Hollywood bubble could identify men and women who make deliberate choices to further their career?

I know it within my profession... my private life too.

Some women did/do make that choice with men they knew would accept the transaction. Vice versa too, power corrupts after all.

That such a transaction is possible is as old as humankind. We need to educate both sexes to eradicate it.

The stuff about Hollywood being a place where men exercise power and women trade sexual access for things is a bit victim blamey for sure,

But here is the thing, is it victim blamey if it's true? Is it really that hard to believe that there are some women who are quite prepared to trade sex for something like a great role in a film, even apart from pressures or expectations to do so?
Women aren't purer souls than men, some of them are not good or nice people, and don't care what the implications of that behaviour are for other women.
It's a small industry, and his point as I see it is that it attracts and gives success to the most ambitious and driven people. And people like that are not always nice and not always caring about metaphorically screwing over other people who might be better actors but are less willing to do anything to get a role.

Gervais ripped them to shreds, talking about how many perverts were in the room and so on. I enjoyed it, and actually, I thought he was relatively tame in terms of personal digs. I am reading that he's been accused of 'punching down' because the successful Hollywood elite in that room might have money but are still marginalised or some such bullshit. Frankly, if anything, he treated them with kid gloves and I am sick and tired of the pussyfooting. It was bloody refreshing to hear someone call perverts, perverts, and astounding that the very basic statements excoriating moral vacuums self serving and congratulating themselves for it, has to be couched in 'outrageous comedy' clothes.

Not that I have an opinion.

Relevant to the topic - what was Gervais' Golden Globes speech like? I've seen a report about it but haven't seen a subtitled version so I don't know what the text was.

(I don't know who wrote the speech but it's reportedly criticised Hollywood's SJWs and their hypocrisy on a number of issues. Including Epstein and MeToo .)

I haven't read the article because I cant get it to load, but from the quotes on the thread, it looks like he's saying very similar things to Ricky Gervais, actually.

The stuff about Hollywood being a place where men exercise power and women trade sexual access for things is a bit victim blamey for sure, but I read the focus on that as "Why should men give up their power willingly?" not as an advocation of that being right, but as a description of reality.

And, tbh, it's an argument I've read on FWR a lot, and I agree with it - men are at the top of the tree, what is their motivation to lose those privileges so that women can be liberated? It's one of the reasons I don't trust white knighting or male feminists - I don't think I've ever met a man who I believed was enthusiastic about giving up his power to improve the lot of women, which is precisely why so many men had a conniption fit at the Gillette ad and wave NAMALT around like a light saber.

Because he is also laying blame on women

Hollywood isn’t the only place that men can abuse their power and for some women to fall into that trap. It’s playing down the MeToo movement and the importance of the movement

So he is in the position of informing us who is a victim .... oh ok

But it’s smart it’s smart, funny Terry so that’s ok

I can't understand the OP.

Yeah, definitely the woman’s fault for choosing to be assaulted. Yikes

Where did he say that?

“There are many victims in Harvey’s life,” he adds, “and I feel sympathy for them, but then, Hollywood is full of very ambitious people who are adults and they make choices. We all make choices, and I could tell you who did make the choice and who didn’t"

OP, where do you get the idea from that he said definitely the woman’s fault for choosing to be assaulted???

That crosses my mind quite a lot of the time, Goosefoot

The flattening of things...

I am well aware of who he and because who he is he is being excused of putting forward an intelligent argument

That we have already heard over and over again usually spouted by some privileged white man unsurprisingly

Can imagine the likes of Farage, Ferrari and Morgan coming out with the same trash just not be as clever with twisting words and it be trashed rightly so

That's par for the course with anything a 'celeb' says, isn't it? They will be boring to many.

Oh dear! I think some have forgotten what Gilliam is... He's a long practised social obsever, commentator, piss taker, parodier, surrealist...

More and more progressives (don't know what else to call this group) remind me of Biblical literalists. Layers of meaning don't exist, thought experiments, metaphors, allegories, paradoxes, koans, or absurdities. People mean just what they seem to say on the surface.

He hasn't made me think. He has bored me.

Oh dear! I think some have forgotten what Gilliam is... He's a long practised social obsever, commentator, piss taker, parodier, surrealist...

He has, as he often does, made people stop and think... and if he is an entitled rich white man defending himself and others, well, they aren't a universal evil!

How about you fuck off

He's ridiculing that logic though, not agreeing with it.

I don't think he thinks that makes Weinstein any better (or that those who enabled him can't also be victims) just that the picture of sexual exploitation and abuse of power in hollywood is nowhere near as simple as some describe.

I think that's very much his point and it frustrated me about Metoo as well, and IMO is why it will totally fail to reform Hollywood.

The reason Hollywood is so able to be home to such terrible exploitation is that it is full of people - not men, people - who want something very badly and are willing to go very far to get it. Including trading sex for what they want - which they practically do outright in some films, anyway.

When you have those people on both sides, making these deals and trades and compromises, willing to walk over others and even in a lot of cases their own mental and physical health, the whole system is quickly toxic for everyone. People who would rather not do any of it have little choice but to be exploited by the exploiters because there are others who have no qualms waiting to take their place. The only people who can get out of it have something else to offer, generally something worth money. Or they are really lucky.

And for anyone who thinks no one would make that kind of deal, look what people do on reality tv, or do to their bodies in professional sports, or even actresses (I don't know f any actors do it) who make cash "dating" the extreme rich for a night or a week.

I don't even think its all about the money for many of them, fame makes people do some crazy things. And when it's such a small industry with so many wanting in, the least principled will do well.

"I might as well be a lesbian then"

How about you fuck off

I do too - tedious bloke harrumphing about how unfair it is that men are being held to account for their behavior is my takeaway. Nothing insightful or even unusual about it.

I agree with AF

He is twisting words to make his point seem more intelligent and sadly because he is who he is many don’t want to accept he is just another entitled man telling women well you are to blame too

But the message is clear the MeToo movement has gone too far

He's just another entitled man whinging about how hard it is to be an entitled man post MeToo.

He ought to be more original than that. Another disappointnent.

The journalist seems to think Catholics are offended by Life of Brian. Erm, no. I know lots of Catholics who think it is hilarious!