fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #4053 ]

[ SECRET POST #4053 ]

⌈ Secret Post #4053 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 16 secrets from Secret Submission Post #580.
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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

ayrt

After I had looked into it, I was amazed and appalled, because that story just wasn't really talked about. I thought, at some point, a few years ago, that more people knew about it, but then Whoopi Goldberg said the most ridiculous thing - that it wasn't rape rape - and I realized that no, a lot of people don't know. It was rape in so many different ways - she was unable to consent because of her age, she was unable to consent because he'd plied her with drugs, and she said no. And it's not like he could point to laws in Poland or France, because an adult having sex with a 13-year-old is and was illegal in both (even if there was that gross French petition against the age of consent laws).

He was a 43-year-old man who drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl and I have to believe that some people didn't realize.

But what I fundamentally don't understand is *why* people - men, women, people who frankly should have known better, and people who've spoken against rape in other situations (i.e, Streep) - stood with Polanski and signed the goddamn thing.

I just can't believe all those people who sighed the petition - including women who've confronted Weinstein and people with kids of their own - just thought child rape was okay. I don't understand why they did it for any other reason.

NAYRT

It's not that they thought that child rape was OK. It's that they didn't think about it. They didn't allow themselves to think about it at all, or they refused to really think about it and consider the details and convinced themselves that they could just assume what happened must not have been that bad. Because they didn't want to think about it, because they just wanted to convince themselves that it was probably fine, and if it wasn't going to be fine someone would have done something, and he was their friend or peer or coworker, so therefore it must be fine.

I get the feeling that kind of sheep-thinking, closing ranks, and blindly supporting a group member or a revered/respected figure who did something terrible isn't unique to Hollywood, either.

Not at all.

And there's also, I think, a problem of people instinctively not wanting to *believe* someone they like and respect (an idol, a family member, a colleague, or a friend, for example) did something terrible.

(cf. Joe Paterno, Lance Armstrong, any number of public figures who did something unambiguously awful but nevertheless had loud and vocal defenders)

I suspect it's psychologically easier to side with an accuser if the accused is someone you are ambivalent about, don't know, or never liked in the first place.

As an example, I was completely willing to believe charges against Roy Moore from the start.

Then there were charges raised against George Takei, and my initial response to seeing them was hoping that it wasn't true.

Then I realized that I was looking at Takei differently because I already respected and looked up to him, and letting that cloud my judgement. Someone with different politics than mine would likely have the same situation in reverse, and be predisposed to see Moore as a victim and Takei as guilty.

So I think personal bias can influence a person's response to allegations.

I guess it's just that I'm *surprised* by some of them, because some (like Streep, who supports #MeToo, and GDT, who often deals with themes of victimized people empowering themselves and fighting oppression in his films) genuinely appeared to have a better grasp of social issues and the necessity of fighting that kind of behavior, especially these days.

I just struggle to understand that the man who made a powerful, heartfelt work about a disabled woman, a gay man and a woman of color fighting oppression in human and societal forms, a man whose work has been a source of personal strength for me, defended a child rapist, and why he could or would do so.

People like Tarantino I wasn't surprised by. The above two I genuinely was, because they seemed to be on the right side with those issues, at least these days.

So I guess I'm let down. Part of me hopes at least some of the people who signed it (including Streep and GDT) realized they made a mistake at some point, although looking into that might disappoint me further.

ayrt

I don't know. There are people who don't want to believe that someone that they respect could have done anything quite so bad, so they listen when he says something like the charges were trumped up, or he was railroaded, or the facts were distorted, or whatever.

Why does anyone work with Mark Wahlberg (racially motivated physical assaults)? Do they believe that he's changed or reformed or paid for his crimes? I don't know. Why are people okay with Dr. Dre (assaults and battery)? With Christian Slater (assault and sexual assault)? With Jay-Z (stabbed a guy)?

Relevant song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ergcxC1tcAE

That "rape rape" comment was one of the things that made me suspect a lot of people were forming assumptions based on partial information. They vaguely knew he was in trouble for something involving sex and an underage girl, but they weren't going to jump to the worst case scenario because people generally don't with someone they have no reason to dislike. Instead, they assumed best case scenarios.

ayrt

Yeah. And regarding the petition specifically, the wording in it presents his arrest as 'a case of morals'.

So why did people like Streep, del Toro, Portman, etc., who otherwise seem sensitive to issues like this, sign the petition in the first place?

I expected that from people like Tarantino (who does show genuine misogyny), but not them as much, since they otherwise seemed to have better moral compasses and them defending a child rapist is jarring.

ayrt

No, sorry, I meant that's literally all the petition said about what his crime was. "His arrest follows an American arrest warrant dating from 1978 against the filmmaker, in a case of morals." It seems like they were trying to represent his crime as something of a moral quandary - like some people might think of it as a crime and some wouldn't and if someone didn't know the details, only the charge of unlawful intercourse, they might have made a lot of very wrong assumptions. The petition itself was against him being arrested at a film festival in a neutral country.

The point that still confuses me is that, for example, Meryl Streep signed the petition but came out swinging against Weinstein, which appears hypocritical.

I don't know much about del Toro besides what I've seen in interviews and articles, but he genuinely seemed like a good guy with a fair understanding of social issues re: race and gender and confronting oppressive forces in society (i.e, Strickland in The Shape of Water is a violent misogynist and an unambiguous villain, and the protagonists are members of oppressed, outsider groups.).

I'm having trouble reconciling that previous knowledge with them defending a convicted child rapist.

ayrt

Well, I think some on the petition could genuinely be concerned about the precedent of his arrest in Switzerland, regardless of the crime, in that they could see that as opening the door to political dissidents and the like being arrested in international venues because of arrest warrants in other countries - like a filmmaker who protests their dictatorial government getting arrested in a neutral country because of an arrest warrant from their home country for making that protest.

But I also believe Streep has shown other support for Polanski, so I don't think that would be her only motive.

Like you said, defending a child rapist is incomprehensible and the only thing that even sort of makes sense it that they were grossly misinformed.

Streep in particular is weird, especially since (IIRC) she's been supportive of #MeToo and criticized Weinstein in particular. I don't understand why she would be harshly critical of Weinstein and supportive of Polanski, given that they're both awful and both committed rape.

Yeah, it was definitely spun as "talented filmmaker victimized by witch hunt."

But, putting your name on a petition because all of your friends are doing strikes me as a minimal-effort political action, along with shooting your mouth off about a political issue on social media. It was wrong and stupid, but everyone has at least one wrong and stupid opinion in their history. I'm not convinced that slacktivism against other people's slacktivism really does anything.

ayrt

Yes, there was spin involved.

Your definition and my definition of slacktivism are different. It's not the most high effort action, but it is action. One that I find meaningful because when you vote, your name is not supposed to be attached to that particular ballot, just that you are eligible to fill out that ballot, and when you sign a petition, you're telling people that you believe in it enough to attach your name to it. And regular petitions can gain notice for a particular subject or even get something on a ballot. But this was a very public petition, meant to get the notice of the world and authorities, it was meant to influence, and since the people signing it are known, they were sort of putting their reputations to it. Did some sign it thoughtlessly? Probably. Did some do it because others were doing it and they thought it would help their reputations? Probably. Should they have done their damn homework and looked up the actual crime? Definitely. But, like you wrote, people can easily make stupid and wrong decisions because they don't know any better. But, for me, signing a petition is activism, it's not a protest, but it's something that is meant to cause change, even if it doesn't actually cause change.

So why did Streep side with Polanski (consistently, as you've said)? She's been on the right side of other situations involving rape and harassment (i.e, Weinstein), so a particular blind spot for her here is bizarre.

ayrt

I don't know. I don't know that's been consistent. The only way to know is for someone to ask and for her to answer. So, ping reporters - she's will be interviewed, she's up for an Oscar. Start a twitter campaign to get the attention of the news media, so they'll start asking people.

Regardless, signing a petition is in the realm of "I think you're wrong" and not something that's personal blacklist worthy on its own.

Yeah, I'm not proud to admit that back a few years ago when the whole case blew up a bit, I heard about it from someone who I trusted, but who was misinformed, and who then misinformed me in turn.

The way I heard it, the girl was fourteen but was an active, working prostitute who looked much older and went to the party specifically for the purpose of having sex with Polanski. Polanski had sex with her, which was very wrong because her age made he unable to consent, but she was, by all appearances, a willing and active participant the whole time. It was only the law, years later, which decided to charge Polanski for statutory rape. Also, Polanski was super fucked up at the time because his wife and child had been killed, which didn't make what he did okay, but the fact that he may have been out of his mind with grief did factor into the situation in a general way.

Because this was the account of things that I'd heard, there was a while there where if someone had asked me to sign a petition I might have, depending on what exactly the petition was trying to accomplish. If it was a petition to absolve him of all guilt, I wouldn't have. But if it was a petition to place him on long-term probation, sentence him to ongoing psychiatric sessions, and award his victim some kind of settlement - but dismiss the possibility of incarceration - I probably would've.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #4053 ]

Re: OP

OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP (cont'd)

OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP