To point out that Martin Clunes is a twat of the first order?

[Battleax]

www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/4776183/martin-clunes-actress-flirting-accusation/

What he had said is accurate, not true of all women but true for some. His timing could be better though and he certainly shouldn’t be linking it with the HW case.

"it is perfectly normal for men and women to present their best version of themselves to the opposite sex be it socially or in the workplace"

What the fuck? No! Just No!! In the vast majority of workplaces, the "best side" of someone does NOT involve flirting - because that is completely unprofessional and actually detracts from the skills and talents an individual is bringing. Is your DH Peter Stringfellow?!

More generally, part of the problem here is that we have a very poor verbal and moral vocabulary for situations that involve power. Personally, I don't think coerced sex ("Sleep with me and I'll give you a job") is fully consensual. It's an exchange of favours for rewards. It's not the same thing as rape, but it's worlds away from a fully consensual, adult sexual encounter between two partners of equal power where pleasure is the only thing being swapped. For the record, I think the same thing about prostitution - I wouldn't class it as a choice or as fully consensual. I think a more nuanced language which is capable of capturing a sliding scale of gender-imbalanced sexual exchanges is needed to really calibrate what is going on here. And, again, I think the answer is to ensure that power imbalances that run on gendered lines are removed.

Oh, and these women are not "predators" - they are victims. The harm isn't as great as those who have been assaulted or raped, but they are still victims in my book.

He rightly said it is perfectly normal for men and women to present their best version of themselves to the opposite sex be it socially or in the workplace. This generally involves a degree of flirtatious behaviour or to use his word “fawning”.

What? Your DH is NOT right, and it's a shame you think he is. I've never flirted with anyone in my work place, and I have a very good job at senior management level. My 'best side' is actually the skills I have that contribute to the job I perform. What bollocks your DH talks.

My daughter served him once, said that he was very chatty with her, tipped well, and incredibly rude/awful to the woman he was with... who may or may not have been his wife. Daughter quite liked him - until she saw the look of horror on my face as she was relaying some of the conversation and realised that he'd been trying to chat her (20 at the time) up and that no decent man tells their female dining companion to "shut the fuck up and eat your pasta"...

So, yes. He is a twat of the highest order, not to mention a pervy creep himself.

Sorry, should probably add that my daughter served Clunes.

He says how on earth are men (and women) going to operate as we move on from the Weinstein, and other similar cases

Its really quite simple. I've managed an entire career without shagging my subordinates, I recommend men do the same.

Wasn't it Clunes who was involved in stories about abusive behaviours to women some years ago - or am I mixing him up with someone else? There are so many.

It's really not that confusing flower. He has been asked about Harvey Weinstein and rather than say how ghastly it is that 69 women have claimed he sexually harassed, assaulted or raped them (women of different jobs, nationality, different countries, different film festivals, different venues BUT all describing a modus operandi which is consistent across all the complainants).
Instead of addressing that, he turns around and says 'Ah but look over here. Here's a woman draping herself over him'.

He was being asked about Harvey Weinstein. He goes on to do the equivalent of Not All Men - in this case #NotAllWomenWhoSleptWithHarveyWereVictims

That could well be true - but to say it in direct response to being asked about the allegations negates the 69 women who WERE victims.
By saying Well, some allowed him to... changes the narrative from Harvey as an aggressor to Harvey being preyed on by all these women wanting a step up. Poor Harvey.
As Ashley Judd would say 'That's deny, attack, reverse the order of offender and victim'

Sorry, I absolutely do not accept that women who consent to sex to further their careers "foster" an environment where other men force women into sex against their will. Both problems start with men seeing sexual compliance from women as a precondition of professional advancement. The fact that some women accept this system and willingly have sex with men they otherwise wouldn't is not an excuse for other men to assault or rape or coerce women who don't.

Yes, this.

I also thought the expression 'of the first water' was quite common, but maybe a little old-fashioned these days?

Like 'I say, old chap..'

In workplaces I've been in I would say I have known women use their sexuality to get ahead. Be it the PA who was hell bent on getting the MD to leave his wife for her or the junior who shagged a senior manager to make sure she got the good work and promotions. The fact it worked says as much about the man as her.

Overall though I have seen far more predatory behaviour by men though.

There will always be women who will do things that ultimately harm other women. Being a woman doesn't stop you being a dick. However, it is the person with the power who is ultimately in the wrong here - jobs should not be allocated according to their personal needs being met or not. It's not that hard

And he WAS referring to Harvey in the comments ''Some of these actresses, there are some draped over him in a club''
Him = Harvey

(as it happens I know of one photo he could be referring to and the actress in question hasn't spoken out but so fucking what. We aren't talking about the one actress he knows might have consented willingly (and slut-shaming her to boot) we were talking about Harvey as the predator with 69 complainants who did not consent to him getting his cock out.

On top of that, Mr Clunes' treatment of his ex wife and his 'rotten' marriage is toxic so yes, I can think he is a twat and you can think he is a national treasure. I suggest we agree to disagree.

Is the key to this who we all think MC means 'these predators' to be in his disjointed 'interview' ?

I took him to mean Weinstein and others like him..

He is still a twat but degrees of twattishness depend on whether you think the women , according to Clunes, are the predator or prey.

Some women use their sexuality to get on in the workplace.
Yes true, but what the heck has that got to do with HW raping and sexually assaulting women?

MC is an idiot to mention the two things in the same conversation. Unless he added “of course one has nothing to do with the other”.

If powerful men didn't give out plum gigs to women in exchange for sexual favours, no women would be 'prostituting' themselves to get them.

I resent completely this attempt by MC to redirect the blame on women. He is a knob. Of the first water.

The Clunes comments are incoherent anyway. But they sound like a man who is desperate for this to be somehow all the fault of women. Which usually suggests some level of guilt about his own behaviour.

At least Tarantino had the courage to say: I knew this was going on, I minimised, I should have acted differently. And anyone who claims they didn’t know is lying.

Isn't it awful the way women prostitute themselves and the helpless men just have to go along with it? I mean how can they be expected to act like thinking human beings rather than brainless dick-led automatons?

LeCroissant

Isn't it awful the way women prostitute themselves and the helpless men just have to go along with it? I mean how can they be expected to act like thinking human beings rather than brainless dick-led automatons?

Who said the men have to go along with it?

I find it awful that women choose to prostitute themselves, and I find it awful that producers choose to act like their clients.

I think we all remember Clunes, first wife, sexism etc so he is clearly just trying to stand up for men. He is very wrong on this. Yes some women particularly in the film industry may use their sexuality - indeed how you look gets you roles much more so than other jobs - but the Weinstein situations are entirely different. For a start he probably made it clear women might suffer if they did not hang off him (just see what others are saying about Weinstein and his various insistent demands).

The CLunes saying "you are an embarrassment" to a wife chimes with the lady's daughter above serving Clunes at table with Clunes saying something equally nasty to his wife. www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-61099329.html

I was being sarcastic flowerpot. If men didn't expect sexual favours for advancement, no woman could ever 'prostitute herself'

LeCroissant

If men didn't expect sexual favours for advancement, no woman could ever 'prostitute herself'

If women didn't prostitute themselves and offer themselves for sale, they'd be no customers.

Hollywood is a cesspit. Men and women alike.

Yes, women might use their sexuality to advance their career.

Why are so few people also then asking about about why do they feel the need to do this and instead label them whores or prostitutes? Why aren't the 'kerb crawlers' called out too?

Isn't it because women feel this is the only can compete with men and have the same opportunities? Is it because being good at their job is not sufficient? Is it because men will take them up on the offer rather than promoting the best person for a job?

Do men feel the same level of need to do this to advance their career with female bosses?

If women are doing it, is it perhaps because they are judged and valued differently to men and think this is the only way they can 'level the playfield'? They feel they have no choice if they want to advance their career.

At which point you ask yourself, just how free is that 'choice'? Is it really a choice or surrendering to a certain culture of expectations if you want to be successful. Why aren't these male bosses saying 'no' and picking the best person not just the one that flatters them? Lets not try and paint men as being used in any way at all.

Ask the right questions. Don't just follow and believe the narrative you are told. Think critically.

Who is printing this? Why? What's their agenda?

Its The Sun, who are also suggesting today that they are about to valiantly about to expose a bunch of MPs for sexual harassment of women. How long have they sat on the stories? Who knew what and for how long and why were they 'protected' is what you should ask.

The Sun are about to do a number here in a variety of ways. It will bring in profits and give them power. Yet they twist the same issue to create poor victims they can cash in on whilst at the same time vilify them and effectively say they 'knew what they were getting into' and were 'manipulating their sexuality'.

Put yourself in the position of an aspiring young actress (or indeed any career I guess):
You are desperate to get into this industry, acting is all you have ever wanted to do, you paid your way through drama school, you know you are talented and people have told you so and that you genuinely could go far. You are super excited to get an audition/meeting with a super powerful exec and you know this could be your big break and you are ready to show him your acting skills....
And then he tells you that if you want to part you have to suck him off, and if you don't he will ensure that things are made more difficult for you round these parts.
Would you do it? Or would you walk away and give it all up?

The problem with criticising these women is that implies that this is just 'how things are' and if they don't fancy doing horrible things with horrible men, then good for them and they should be championed, but they should remember that this will also mean sacrificing their careers. After all, women can't expect to get ahead and only be judged on their non sexual merits can they?

In a way, Clunes has a point. Of course, the feminist view of prostitution is that it is a fundamentally abusive industry that women "choose" to enter in the context of a misogynistic society, and that it isn't really a choice at all, but a response to a lack of choice and power.
I'm again disappointed but not surprised to see other women queuing up to blame women for this.