fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #5250 ]

[ SECRET POST #5250 ]

⌈ Secret Post #5250 ⌋

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

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

[Lux-Pain]

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08. [WARNING for discussion of underage ships]

[Jujutsu Kaisen]

__________________________________________________

09. [WARNING for discussion of gore, rape]

[Evenicle]

__________________________________________________

10. [WARNING for discussion of sexual harassment]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #751.
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

10. [WARNING for discussion of sexual harassment]
https://i.imgur.com/GVIvitY.png

Edited 2021-05-21 21:11 (UTC)

Well... This is kind of a hard secret to respond to. All of those things seem pretty good in principle to me, although the actual implementation might be tricky, especially if you're trying to do them in a way that's visibly transparent. Like, I don't think this is how Yi meant it, but it would be easy to treat those things like a checklist to tick off and then it's all done, like some kind of very Catholic idea of absolution. And that'd not be great. But again, I don't think Yi meant it that way and I do think those would generally be good things for Rogen to try to do.

Idk I mean I guess if you feel uncomfortable with it you feel uncomfortable with it

I was on board until "hire survivors" like wait what, so like go ask people to disclose their history of trauma and then hire them over people who have not? Umm...

Yeah, that one gets a "wtf no" from me. If what she meant was "Give people who have come forwards with their experiences the same work opportunities as you would any other person; don't treat people as less hirable because they accused someone of assault," then yeah, absolutely, 100%. But if that's what she meant, then she needed to say something in that vein, not just "hire survivors."

I took "hire survivors" to mean "don't discriminate against people who've talked about Me Too experiences in the workplace because you're afraid they're touchy/gonna sue, etc."

Which is a real thing these people experience, being painted as dour SJWs who cause trouble over an overheard slightly risque joke on set.

It's men who still do most of the hiring.

It may also mean "Be careful in blacklisting women as "difficult.'" Harvey Weinstein managed to get Mira Sorvino blacklisted. Peter Jackson was among those who passed her over as a result, and now he says he regrets it.

I don't mean to be snippy, but this and what ayrt suggested are good ideas, but substantially different from "hire survivors". Either Yi worded it very, very poorly, or both of you are very kindly putting a more reasonable spin on a very awkward suggestion.

NAYRT

You're right but also I think the point that anons are making is a really important piece of context.

Because it is unfortunately the reality in the entertainment industry that there are a lot of people who have had their careers destroyed as a result of this stuff, often quite publicly. So in that context, I think it makes a lot more sense: don't blacklist people for having dealt with creeps or being smeared as "difficult", and not only that, but affirmatively go out and do projects with those people who have been smeared.

I do get where you're coming from, it definitely is a tricky thing. But I think it's less tricky for Seth Rogen putting together projects in Hollywood than it would be if, like, you were taking applications for an office job and 3000 people were sending in resumes and you were asking them to disclose it.

Possibly, but at some point in order to hire survivors, he's going to have to obtain knowledge about their trauma and... well, how is that going to be accomplished? The one avenue I see is to hire people who are known to have spoken publicly about #MeToo, which is good. But what about the people who haven't stepped forward for their own personal reasons, such as not being ready to handle the fallout yet? It's not exactly like a regular job, but the process is comparable. If your end goal is to hire survivors, where, when and how do you collect that information?

Also, when you consider the people doing the hiring... is this a process we think they're qualified to oversee?

you're interpreting a lot into three words. like you can't get upset at her for your own interpretation of that when other anons have offered much saner ideas than what you're thinking of

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2021-05-22 17:22 (UTC) - Expand

Yeah, that... I mean I can see how the basic idea sounds good but how do you do this IRL? Are you seriously going to quiz people about their trauma as part of the interviewing process? It seems awful to put people into a position where if they want the job, they have to leverage their past trauma to get it.

Yeah this.. and like... I'd hate to think I only got a job because of a part in my life I'd rather forget and definitely do NOT want to be defined by.

The "hire survivors" thing also weirds me out because it feels like it's drawing parallels between survivorship and racial identity (I say this as a DV survivor + a minority). Not that it's like, a bad thing to say, or a bad thing to do (well, aside from anon above's concerns) but the wording is ... offputting, I guess? As in, the thought of my heritage and the worst thing that's ever happened to me holding comparable weight in my identity is extremely uncomfortable, even though I realize this is probably not Yi's intention.

I do not think a guy who has just made a big public mess about shitting on survivors should go out of his way to put himself as the boss of more survivors.

Absolutely get educated (by paying one or more survivor-centric organizations for their work) and commit to doing better, and stop holding survivor status/speaking out as a mark against in interviews ...

... but, fuckin' oy vey.

I guess I'm extremely cynical about how much good the education is going to do, because A Certain Kind Of Person just tries to blast through any and all education without it making much of an impact on their preconceived notions, and a dude in that state has no business setting himself up as the Now I Know Everything boss of a certain kind of group.

I mean it's fairly obvious in context that, for example, "hire survivors" means "quit blacklisting 'difficult' women who speak out about this shit." Context matters, even if some people in this thread have decided to go all "All lives matter" about it for their own personal reasons.

No it's not that, it's like... how do you find out they're survivors? By asking them very personal questions, very much unlike for example, race which is usually visible up front?

Being like, "don't blacklist survivors" is different from that contextually. It's just an awkward way to phrase it.

Plus this anon had a good point: "I do not think a guy who has just made a big public mess about shitting on survivors should go out of his way to put himself as the boss of more survivors." Yeah...

How is it NOT obvious that "Hire survivors" means "Hire people who have spoken out on their own before about being survivors" (of which there are plenty), and not "Ask every candidate to share their background as part of the interview process"? It really is deliberate obtuseness and derailment of the point to even entertain that it might mean the latter.

Ahh...so I didn't get the context, but reading the thread, this makes much more sense. Uh, Charlene Yi should reword it because more than a fair number of people didn't know the context.

I agree that Seth Rogen has the power to push back on the normalization of blacklisting actors for "being difficult" and he should call people out when they try that shit out because it's fucked up to mess with someone's career/livelihood.

DA - maybe try reading the secret again, because all the context you need is right there. I'm not saying it's worded well or that it's necessarily a perfect suggestion, but the context is pretty darn clear and some people are being wilfully obtuse in how they're interpreting it, imo.

So your theory is that Yi worded it poorly, then. Because I agree that not blacklisting women who speak out about sexual harassment in the industry is a great idea. But that's not the same thing as "hire survivors".

So your theory is that not blacklisting women who speak out about sexual harassment, which literally means hiring women who have been sexually abused at work and have spoken out about it, is somehow different from hiring women who have survived sexual abuse?

Charlene Yi has good intentions, but I don't think these are exactly good ideas.

Like, no, don't make "surround yourself with victims* so you can be educated" a thing. Don't fucking place the responsibility on victims to "educate" others. Don't turn "sexual assault survivor" into some sort of demo for work diversity. =(
*I use "victim" because we're all victims, not all of us will become "survivors"; learned recently that using "survivor" can offend some victims

It's already a lot to mentally prepare myself to discuss sexual assault as a general topic...I know we need to de-stigmatize sexual assault and stop victim blaming/letting abusers get away with what they do, but a blanket idea of "protect and hire survivors" isn't it.

For me, it's "if your friends are DMing teenagers don't turn it into a fucking joke". I don't want Seth Rogen to "champion" sexual assault survivors. I want him to stop predatory behavior when he sees it, call out a buddy when he's being a creep instead of being like "Franco's private life is his, if he's hitting on teens like, gross bro, but I don't do it so whatever".

Someone I'm close to came forward to their family about their sexual assault and seeing how their immediate and extended family make excuses for their abuser, victim blame them, or disregard their trauma...like, victims stay silent because the world punishes us so harshly. Like...damn...I don't know how I can express how difficult it is to live in a world that is so fucking cruel to sexual assault victims but I likely will never be very vocal about it.

IMO, real ways for people to "fix" this whole "oops I defended/was a sexual abuser" thing is:
-stop participating in damaging behavior, narratives, etc in which we allow sexual predators to be glamorized/normalized; same goes with narratives that blame victims for what happened to them
-advocate for mass education on PTSD, toxic masculinity, misogyny (including internalized misogyny), sex education
-learn not to place responsibility onto the hands of the sexual assault victim, that includes thinking you are owed a story or explanation; if someone said "something bad happened to me, that's the most I want to say" LEAVE IT THERE. I don't fucking get why some people think that a story needs to be told for them to really "have an opinion" about what happened to the victim

Wow, people are really tying themselves up in knots over a bunch of suggestions that boil down to 'educate yourself and do better.'

So...if you've been fortunate enough to not have been a victim of sexual assault, does that mean your resume should be thrown in the trash?

Yes. If you make any effort to stop discriminating against any group, you have to actively discriminate against people with privilege. That's why there aren't any white, straight, cis men in movies anymore.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only