Case (
case) wrote in
fandomsecrets2017-08-31 06:49 pm
[ SECRET POST #3893 ]
⌈ Secret Post #3893 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.

__________________________________________________
02.

[Valkyrie]
__________________________________________________
03.

__________________________________________________
04.

[Joss Whedon and ex-wife Kai Cole]
__________________________________________________
05.

[Alyson Hannigan, "Fool Us"]
__________________________________________________
06.

[Wolfenstein: The New Order]
__________________________________________________
07.

[Anne, the new Anne of Green Gables reboot miniseries]
Notes:
Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 07 secrets from Secret Submission Post #557.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

no subject
(Anonymous) 2017-09-01 12:49 am (UTC)(link)no subject
HOWEVER, you can't get around the fact that he was in a position of power in that he had the decision to hire, fire, and then hire them again for another one of his projects.
Plus, people seem to forget that there was a period of time where Joss was a pretty big deal in the television landscape. As in, someone where you don't want to get on his bad side.
I'm just saying that you can't assume that all of the "willing" weren't weighing their willingness off against what they may have seen as an implied threat.
This is a huge grey area, and Joss (or any other boss for any other job) has no business waving his dick around at people who were essentially his employees. If you're going to cheat, at least go after people who know they've got nothing to lose if they say no.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2017-09-01 01:26 am (UTC)(link)I'm just going to quote this whole thing because OH MY GOD THANK YOU for speaking sense about this. Like, is people's desire to think the worst of Joss really this strong that "he cheated with people he worked with" automatically equals, "He coerced powerless young women"?
And I mean, his wife is claiming he said "beautiful, needy, aggressive young women." Yes, that description is cringey. But presuming she is quoting him directly and he did actually say those admittedly cringey words, lets not overlook the word "aggressive" here. Nothing about "aggressive" implies that he was pressuring or coercing these woman. In fact, it implies quite the opposite.
no subject
The reason why we tend to look down on sexual relationships where there's a professional power differential isn't because those relationships are automatically non-consensual. It's because those relationships tend to create a professional conflict of interest.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2017-09-01 02:08 am (UTC)(link)Say Singer had thrown parties where influential money men hooked up with barely legal aspiring actors - but there was no pressure to attend said parties, and even if you did attend your career wouldn't suffer if you decided not to have sex with anyone. In that hypothetical case, I honestly couldn't fault Singer. Because the problem with transactional sex isn't that it's transactional. The problem is when one person is being coerced into being there, or coerced into agreeing to terms that don't satisfy them.
no subject
So to use another example, I have no problem with Hugo Schwyzer, former male feminist talking head, losing his feminist credibility and tenure for fucking both adult students and research subjects. As far as I know, there was no question of consent, but having crossed that line, both his objectivity in evaluating students and in conducting research in his chosen field was questionable.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2017-09-01 02:48 am (UTC)(link)I don't know Schwyzer, but the way you've described the situation, I do have a problem with him losing his feminist cred. Because unless he pressure them, harassed them, or coerced them, it's just not a feminist issue. Judge him for thinking with his cock (and them for thinking with their pussies)? Sure, maybe. Bad call, guys. But it just doesn't affect their feminism at all IMO.
Two coworkers choosing of their own volition to have sex while knowing it might create a difficult professional dynamic for one or both of them is impulsive, perhaps foolish, and perhaps against the rules of their workplace. But it's not misogynist.
no subject
Then there are questions about if some types of women get preferential treatment on the basis of sexual availability, how does that affect the labor of women (such as older actresses) who don't get preferential treatment? If quid quo pro sex gets you more professional opportunities in a highly competitive labor market, does constitute a form of systemic economic pressure?
Which is why it's a feminist issue, and why those of us who work for a living generally have ethics guidelines prohibiting that kind of conflict of interest.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2017-09-01 05:53 am (UTC)(link)You keep saying that as if you assume ayrt doesn't.
no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2017-09-01 12:42 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2017-09-01 04:16 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
But I'll tell you what stalker anon, let's run an experiment. I'll be nice and polite in discussions where the indefensible is defended with phrases like, "stupid as fuck" and we'll see how it goes.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2017-09-01 05:01 pm (UTC)(link)Nah, don't answer that. It's pretty obvious without your input.
no subject
Also, those are not honest questions, as I'm sure you're aware. Gods bless and have a nice afternoon.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2017-09-01 05:41 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2017-09-02 04:44 am (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2017-09-01 01:44 am (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2017-09-01 01:22 pm (UTC)(link)