Ashley Judd Confirms Weinstein Harassment
Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 4:30PM by Ilich Mejia
In 2015, actress Ashley Judd spoke to Variety as part of their Power of Women issue and declared a powerful studio head sexually harassed her during the making of 1997's Kiss the Girls. She detailed how he invited her to his hotel room and, once there, ordered her around while making her uncomfortable.
This morning, The New York Times reported that Harvey Weinstein, co-founder of prestige production companies Miramax and The Weinstein Company, has been confronted with several sexual harrassment accusations from underlings and colleagues that have resulted in at least eight out-of-court settlements...
The article includes a revelation from Ashley Judd, who confirms it was Weinstein who harrassed her when she was a budding star. The article also numbers models, assistants, and other actresses as victims of Weinstein's lude behavior.
Implications of Weinstein's inappropriate, casting-couch friendly behavior have been whispered about for years. Tina Fey and Amy Poehler even based a bit around his notorious promiscuity while they hosted the 2014 Golden Globes. Previous confirmations of his indiscretions have been voiced explicitly, but not often by women. Presumably, victims had been intimidated by his great impact in the industry and even beyond Hollywood. Recent reports of his company's financial woes have compromised his power and made him vulnerable to his past.
The Times reports that Weinstein has hired Lisa Bloom—who has, in the past, represented harassment victims like Janice Dickinson—to advise him during this time. In response to the article, he issued a statement to the same publication admitting his guilt and apologizing. In it, he ill-advisedly blames is behavior on coming of age during the 1960s, when harassment was not regulated. As of now, he has decided to take a leave of absence from The Weinstein Company and revealed his intentions to fund scholarships for female directors at USC.
Weinstein's actions should invite a necessary investigation into the insidious ways men in high-ranking positions abuse their power. Despite championing sensible, female-centric projects like Carol, Frida (co-starring Ashley Judd), The Hours, and the Kill Bill series, Weinstein participated in misogynistic behavior and got away nearly unscathed for close to two decades.
Until the next shoe drops, The Hollywood Reporter has reported that The Weinstein Company has picked up the rights to adapt Lisa Bloom's book about Travyon Martin's case for television.
Reader Comments (48)
I remember Howard Stern bringing this exact thing up to Weinstein in an interview a few years ago with Weinstein laughing it off and saying "those kinds of things don't happen anymore."
It didn't sound convincing then and his "statement" doesn't sound convincing now.
Why am I not surprised? Harvey Weinstein is a douchebag, a bully, and a cocksucker.
Ronan Farrow is writing an additional expose about it for the New Yorker, likely with at least one huge name attached. His BF Jon Lovett wrote "Watch your heads, other shoes will be dropping." on Twitter after the NYT piece was released.
Can't wait for this serial abuser to be taken down and for his likely countless victims to have some sense of justice.
Didn't actress Rose McGowan state that she was raped by a 'studio mogul?' She was offered a $100,000 settelement? She needs to talk...
This is going to be a controversial post but here goes.
You say "Weinstein's actions should invite a necessary investigation into the insidious ways men in high-ranking positions abuse their power." Which is 100% true. There's an intrinsic relation between sexual assault and power. How it's calculated, done and perpetrated by men and often protected by that same structure that gives these men power. Let alone the motives behind why they do as demonstrations of power of which I won't get into here.
But you see, it happens because these systems that give these men so much power are enabled by us. Because women are punished by coming forward and men are given a pass. We are happy to look away as long as what? Weinstein makes money for Hollywood and entertainment to us. It struck a chord reading this deservedly angry post from you because it immediately brought back to mind something you said months ago regarding Affleck.
"I know not everyone was happy about Casey Affleck winning but as someone who firmly believes in separating art from artists (I mean, I can't keep up with all their personal lives, can you?, plus I don't even want to in most cases) and someone who thinks the performance is pretty great (not Best of the year, but almost) I was okay with the win"
And I'm sorry but that's how these men are able to get away with it "nearly unscathed." I would take out the nearly as the man here (Affleck) was winning the biggest honor a man in his profession can. Don't see where the damage part came in since his career peaked.
They get to do it because people like to look away, as you did. I'd say even in this post you do it. Throwing in a bit like "Despite championing sensible, female-centric projects like Carol, Frida (co-starring Ashley Judd), The Hours, and the Kill Bill series" does it. Whether it is because it's supposed to be shocking that the man who pushed those female led projects or because hey, he made great movies it's a line that kinda self-explains how he was able to do it for decades. Whether intentionally or not. As in Affleck's case, alleging that what matter is the performance and the performance alone to win an Oscar (and we all know that's not the case) does it. As an Oscar does open up new doors (and thus, gives power). That's how these things keep happening.
The point of this post is not to shame anyone but to attempt to bring to light how ingrained these systems are. And how when women can't come forward we're all complicit in this system. Being outraged at Weinstein's behaviour when we decide to look away Affleck's is part of the same problem.
@thevoid99 -- Boo for using "cocksucker" as a slur. It's not an insult, nor does it sound at all plausible in this case.
Sadly, Harvey was enabled to do these things because he was so powerful. On the one hand, he could help you get an Oscar, so people sucked up to him, and on the other hand, he could break your career so people were hesitant to call him out on his behavior. He had the wealth to silence anyone who dared to make a fuss. I also know that he behaves one way when he is around big talent like a Judi Dench or Meryl Streep (he sucks up to them), and completely another way when he is alone with an actress that he feels that he can victimize. Sad, but I believe in transparency and respect, so it's good that it's all coming out.
Agreed with Steve. We all should separate artists from their art, but we as a collective have a tendency to minimize the offense if the art is to our liking.
I feel nothing. I rather have Hollywood itself penetrated so women could have safe agency to speak freely and be as difficult as the men without concern for losing their position.
"I've brought on therapists" -- what a douche!
Steve_man!! I was getting ready to post the exact same thing, but you (more eloquently) beat me to it. Although I believe the quote was from a Nathaniel post. But you are so right. And that quote still bothers me because there is a difference between "personal life" and harassment. Particularly in Affleck's case, when he was the director, and I believe a producer, coming from a position of power to harass women who worked for him. And women who would face professional backlash for coming forward. It's really no different from Harvey. And the industry awarding him their highest honor is for sure a part of condoning and allowing this predatory and misogynistic behavior to continue within the industry.
@James from Ames-Suck my dick!
When I read this news this morning, I could think of only two words: Gretchen Mol.
A+ Steve_man, completely agree.
I bet this is the guy who harassed Charlize Theron when she was younger. Apparently when she was new she showed up for a meeting at a famouse producers house, he opened the door in his bathrobe, she figured out what was going on, laughed and walked away.
I for one am SHOCKED and STUNNED that a egotistical studio executive has been revealed to have sexually harassed a large number of women. I just don't know how we didn't see this coming.
"What a shit week," said Sgt. Catherine Cawood.
But thank goodness for journalists, and especially the courage of the victims to come forward. I, for one, can no longer separate the artist from the art, especially in light of despicable actions.
Unfortunately, the entertainment industry is not alone in protecting the mighty and powerful, allowing these types of abuses.
It's increasingly harder to raise daughters not to be man-haters.
Ultimately, there's no divorcing the work from the person because the work is what gives the person the wherewithal -- namely money, fame, and influence -- to act without penalty in the first place. If we keep treating criminal activity like mere character flaws, this will continue in every industry (see also Bill Cosby, R. Kelly).
Troy H. - 100000% agree. Continued support for abusers (even if only in a professional context) only enables them to continue their abuse.
Steve, S and Troy- couldnt agree more.
This site is part of This larger, sistematic problem as well.
Being ok with Affleck, Championing and celebrating Woody Allen and Polanski.
@S You're correct! When I posted my comment Mejia wasn't credited as the author so I just assumed it was Nathaniel. But my post and point remains.
@Steve, you hit the nail on the head. Any of us who chooses to separate the "art" from the artist is complicit, it's as simple as that.
I mean, if you object to 45's (reprehensible) rhetoric, then for God's sake don't support, patronize, enable, award, etc. the big-time, like-minded, two-faced "liberal" Hollywood producers, moguls, filmmakers, etc. who sexually harass, assault, abuse, etc. women with impunity. Their artistic output doesn't merit commercial success in the presence of predatory, manipulative, humiliating or dehumanizing behavior toward powerless people. Trying to rationalize such Is empowering the very monsters who should be shamed and frankly be blackballed from the industry.
@Tom, the Rose McGowan revelation is right there in the New York Times exposé: nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/harvey-weinstein-harassment-allegations.html
Steve & Troy & Mareko & Pam & Amanda etcetera...
Sorry that you feel i'm part of the problem but I am doing the best i can as a person and I just dont believe that I am in a position to judge every single person involved in the arts nor is it my duty or desire or expertise to examine court documents or do investigative research on the moral sexual or political character of creative people before watching the art they make. Hundreds of people worked on just about anything any of us consume -- so there's basically a zero percent chance that anything any of us love (albums, tv, movies, whatever) wasn't at some point touched by someone of questionable moral character.
Reality check: people are flawed. I am flawed. You are flawed. Maybe not as flawed as Harvey Weinstein, but flawed.
I am of the opinion -- based on the last few years of internet and real life -- that it is damaging to the soul to constantly be thinking the worst of other people. I see it all around me now and I'm just not interested in this dystopia everyone's so eager to live in where the most unifying activity is hating / shaming / getting-people-fired / making sure they never work again. Sometimes two of those four things are necessary (shaming and getting-people-fired) but the zeal with which all four are performed suggests something much different than a desire for a better and safer world.
Harvey Weinstein is gross. I agree!
Also gross: purity test impulses (we see where that got us in the last election)
Nathaniel, I just feel like it's a worthwhile conversation for you to engage in and perhaps not react so defensively. And I love this site! But, we all have space to learn from each other's experiences, hear where they are coming from, and see if we can perhaps be more supportive of communities in crisis. So I am a straight, white female. I will never know what it is like to exist as a person of color or different sexual orientation/ identity. So I do my best to really listen, to see what in my own behavior I can do to be an ally, and not contribute to systems of oppression. So I would say to you, as a sexual assault survivor, and as someone who has experienced sexual harassment in the workplace, supporting men and giving no consequences to them has allowed this culture to thrive. I never even said that Casey Affleck should be shamed, or never work again, merely that awarding him the highest honor in his industry is just another example of the voices of women not mattering. AT ALL. And I am exhausted by it. I would prefer to ignore it and check out. But almost every woman I know has had these experiences. Trust me when I say the psychological and emotional damage is real, and can be overwhelming. And as to "pouring over court documents", maybe you can just listen when women tell you? Part of the reason harassment like Harvey, Ailes, Affleck, 45, etc is so insidious is that it often just sets up the woman's word against his. And we as a culture are always looking for what the woman did wrong, did she invite it, she's probably just a liar. And so it continues in every industry. I know because I was asked those questions, it began to make me question if it all was my fault. What I really needed was just someone to hear me, and believe me.
Brava, S. Well said.
Nathaniel, we love you! It's not flawlessness or perfection that is sought, or hate that motivates; it's justice for victims of sexual crimes by serial predators in positions of power. They should not be awarded or certainly rewarded by their peers or public, but that's just one opinion. Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Bill Clinton, etc. can and will work again, but some memories are long and allegiances deep with women across decades and oceans who matter a helluva lot more than art and politics.
Mareko, beautifully said " allegiances with women across decades and oceans". Nathaniel, you say you see the unifying thing to be to hate, etc and not making a safer and better future. In these cases I see the unifying aspect being women,who previously felt alone and voiceless, precisely to hoping for a better and safer future, where men, particularly in power, are not let off the hook for making women feel unsafe, abused, ashamed and powerless. That is certainly the future I desperately hope for, and strive to create. Yesterday a woman on Twitter started a conversation (and I am usually of the mind not much good comes from "Twitter conversations") for women to share their "First Harvey Weinstein." Not their only experience with predatory men, but their FIRST. One women shared her first experience, at the age of 14 and expressed her heart break that she is now 68, and nothing in our culture has changed. Reading it was harrowing and cathartic. I sobbed, not even out of sadness, but actually relief. Relief in knowing I wasn't alone. It's not a purity test. It's not unifying around hate. It is trying to gain back some empowerment that is regularly stripped from women of all ages, races, socioeconomic bracket, etc.
I have seen a lot of comments in the world wide web that seem to be blaming women (either because they were victims that did not speak out soon enough, or because they were famous women that HW worked with and they seemed to be friends with him and/or like him). I wish people would focus more on HIM. Blaming multiple women for one man's bad behavior is just so ... wrong.
Nathaniel, I agree there's no need to be so defensive.
Ok, it's not needed-or possible- to look at everybody 's court records, but how can you - or anyone- rationalize or turn a blind eye to a case such as Polanski's? He was convicted and is, to this day, a fugitive from justice. And that wasn't his only victim. There are three more,at least. How can we be lauding and praising a man who drugged, raped and sodomized a thirteen year old and expect to improve as a society?
You may argue that Allen's case is more questionable, since the alleged victim was only eight years old at the time and the case didn't go as far as Polanski's. You've made it clear that you don't read court files but if you had done, you would have been more informed On the case and supporting him and his work would make you, at least, uncomfortable. It's a CHILD we are talking about
Cases such as this, of men like these Being lauded, awarded, celebrated and having their asses perpetually kissed is that informs women that their voices don't matter, their stories don't matter, their well being is not important. That they don't matter. That they are not important. That rich white men will always win. Because Nate Parker didn't receive the same amount of good will.
Can you imagine how it feels for rape victims, sexual abuse victims, and women ate large to see society rewarding these man again and again and again?...
And may I say, you are not as tolerant and "on the fence" as far as Mel Gibson is concerned.
Nathaniel, do you really think excessive outrage at sexual assault is what got Trump elected? I think reactions like "No one's perfect!" and "Can't we all just get along?" to outrage at sexual assault are more responsible for the outcome of the election.
They're also partly why sexual assault is so underreported, especially when a man with power is the perpetrator. I pretty much guarantee that many of your favorite actresses, and many women who could have become great actresses, have been assaulted by powerful men like Harvey Weinstein. This is a serious issue that affects the people you care about in an industry you care about. Saying "Who am I to judge?" over and over doesn't make you high-minded. It makes you complicit.
And if "hating / shaming / getting-people-fired / making sure they never work again" bothers you so much, it's all the more reason to believe and support the women who report sexual assault. The careers of these women, especially those who accuse powerful men, are in far more danger than Harvey Weinstein's is or ever will be.
Funny you should mention Nate Parker, Amanda. I seem to remember The Birth of a Nation getting excellent reviews before stories of his alleged rape resurfaced in popular media. Then the reviews got lukewarm.
Separating the art from the artist is the "I don't see color, I see people" of film criticism. It's a myth without basis in fact.
'lude behavior'-- isn't that Bill Cosby's thing?
Yes Percy. What about the women's careers? What about ALL the nameless and faceless women who didnt say anything because their careers were threatened? Because they were told they would never work again?
What about the careers of women such as Rose McGowan and Gretchen Moll? What about women like Abigail Breslin, who had rape stories to Tell before she was old enough to drink and.vote?
Percy - you wrote:
I quote this because that is 100% not what I was implying or anything I believe. I never used the phrase excessive outrage. Nor do i think outrage about sexual assault got Trump elected. I feel EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. Where was the outrage then? I thought bragging about assault would torpedo him... until I realized that i was right early in the season when I said on twitter that I thought he had a good shot at the election because he was the perfect avator of every gross thing about America that is still valued (sexism, racism, worship of wealth, worship of ignorance, etcetera)
I see that I didn't speak with enough clarity and have been misunderstood.
What I meant by purity tests was the zeal with which everyone needs other people to believe exactly the same things and to condemn the exact same people no matter how confusing any claims are against them. I've seen it happen to so many Democratic politicians who would have been far better for the country (however flawed they were) than the GOP elected in their place. Hillary Clinton was vilified for decades, often falsely. Sometimes the complaints were accurate since everyone is flawed. And so many people just bought all the "she's not progressive" "she's just like Trump" she's racist (because she once used the term "super predator" about criminals -- never mind all the work she did for POC before and after that) and she's sexist (because she didn't support the women who accused Bill Clinton -- never mind all the work for women she did before and after any of Bill's problemss) etcetera .
So I was talking about Hillary Clinton. Not Donald Trump. Obviously purity tests don't hurt him. He's too polluted for anyone to use anything like that against him. I'm more talking about the way basically decent people attack other basically decent people if they don't agree with each other or agree, but not in the same ways, or don't rally around the exact same injustices, etcetera. Or attack people who are willing to appreciate the talents of people and try to ignore their character. (which doesn't always work and isn't always helpful, true)
That's what I mean by purity tests.
The tea has been spilled about him for years...you didn't need to be a Hollywood insider to know. Just read some gossip blogs with those not-so-blind-items. Frankly, so far, he has gotten off easy...some of those blind stories are quite hair-raising.
Nathaniel, I totally get what you mean in regards to the group think that takes over for people who create lesser offenses but *must be punished* until they are just a shell.
When it comes to powerful people being bullies, I have little sympathy. But I also don't like this thing of blaming actors not speaking out. It's a personal choice, and if they were assaulted, they can take all the time they want to figure out what they wish to say.
Bia -- agreed, well, about him being a known bully. But i can't say that I knew or had intuited about the sexual harassment stuff in his particular cases. So many famous actresses fawned on him at awards shows that I always assumed he treated them well and just treated everyone else like shit but I guess that was not the case.
in re: to blind items. I try to avoid them. You never know if the writer is just making shit up for a column (like they're own secret fiction) because there's no way to fact check or even intuit check since you dont know who is being talked about.
I agree with everything you said about politics, Nathaniel. I have no patience for people who preferred Hillary over Trump but didn't vote for her. But that's not the same as never letting the horrific acts of actors and producers influence our experience as moviegoers and film critics "because everyone's a little flawed."
Nathaniel, So you say you thought trumps assaults would torpedo him, as did I. But do you not see how supporting Polanski or Allen financially because you like their art is the same as people who still supported Trump because they liked his messaging? Both are cases of excusing powerful men of their wrong doing. It's not a purity test for you, but I am here to tell you this all contributes to the same culture that covers for powerful men. I am curious how the Trump thing is somehow different than financially supporting or awarding men in the film industry who have also abused women?
https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/8/17/16156902/roman-polanski-child-rape-charges-explained-samantha-geimer-robin-m
And This is a wonderful article:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-do-young-stars-like-selena-gomez-work-with-woody-allen
Exacly, S. Its all parte of the same culture.
The fact that some of you think that my admission that I enjoy the movies of one man who has been accused of something once but never went to trial for it (Woody who always pops up in these conversations even though the actual conversation is rarely about him and his exact case is wildly different than literally every other name that pops up in these conversations) is worthy of the same scorn as people who elected a man who has confessed to sexual assault (AND BRAGGED ABOUT IT!), attacked gold star families, demeaned an entire country as "rapists" and supported Neo Nazis as "very fine people" and who has destroyed people's livelihoods with his numerous refusals to pay for work they did under contract for him, and has put billiions of people in jeopardy with his arrogance and racism and loose lips and also endangered the lives of thousands of LGBT people around the world and in the US military all within less than a year of holding office...
...it is...
... it is... words are failing me.
Let's just say this is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that purity tests are gross things and do harm to the world and our empathy for each other. They make reasonable conversation between basically decent people difficult [For clarity: I think of myself as a basically decent person and I suspect most of you are, too, or you wouldn't get so worked up about injustices or the deep sexism / racism of the patriarchy].
People who go to Woody Allen movies are not ruining the world. People who support Trump or anyone who won't vote against gun control (say, Bernie Sanders fans) are.
But back on topic.
Weinstein is gross and I applaud the former employees and collaborators who have come forward with their stories.
Meanwhile, and this is important, and what gets me so worked up, I will not shame those who don't come forward with their stories (their choice) or those who choose to continue enjoying classic films with Weinstein's name on them or those who opt to work with him in the future after he takes his break if they believe he's made amends (the most alarming thing for me about the shaming culture is the absolute conviction that noone can ever be rehabilitiated) . Because If you're paying any attention whatsoever to the shaming culture around us, that's the next step! To proclaim that people loving any Miramax / Weinstein movie are complicit in all of his past crimes.
Be careful with these scorched earth policies unless you watch to erase the history of all art from any time frame or in this particular case the history of 90s cinema, several entire years of Oscar history, and many ahead of their time classics about queer people and people of color and tons of great films about women. PARIS IS BURNING, CAROL, THE CRYING GAME, THE VELVET GOLDMINE, THE PIANO, THE ENGLISH PATIENT, the list goes on and on and on and probably includes some of your all time favorite films.
P.S. Once you're done depriving yourself of good movies realize that you have still not solved sexism or racism or homophobia. It's still there even if you refuse to watch every movie that fails your purity test. The only solution is to stop shaming other decent people who haven't used the same purity test whenever you get angry and focus your anger more productively on specific cases of injustices or get to work electing politiciams who might work to dismantle systemic sexism, racism, and homophobia.
Ok Nathaniel you've spoken about Allen. But what about Polanski????
And to make things clear- I have dual citizenship, but I AM not a US Citizen. I dont vote in the US. I have nothing to do with Trump being elected. Would have never, ever, voted for him.
And I am deeply and profoundly dissapointed with actresss who choose to work with Polanski. Not to say disgusted.
Ughhh!! You seem to be the one scorched earth policing now. Nowhere have I seen anyone suggest that you shouldn't watch anything you might have a the smallest of problem with. I've certainly never said you can't or shouldn't watch and enjoy a HW produced project. I certainly will. You refuse to see the nuance in this discussion. It is not scorched earth to ask that men in positions of power be in some way held accountable for their actions. Frankly it's too soon to see yet what will happen with Harvey, and if he actually takes actions to atone. The point is that this behavior is ignored, and these men are propped up by the mechanisms of the industry, which includes people who fund their projects, industry awards and, yes, journalists who also ignore their behavior. As for Allen, are you saying because there is no conviction he is innocent, despite testimony from the victim and her family members? Do you even realize how hard it is to ever achieve a court victory in cases of rape and abuse? And that's not even addressing the every day harassment that women experience and often have no legal recourse. My rapist wasn't convicted, but that doesn't made what he did and what happened to me any less real. Again, PLEASE Nathaniel, listen to victims when they speak up. Believe them. You say people who support these men aren't making the world worse, I am saying the systematic apparatus that refuses to hold them accountable does make it worse. It speaks to your privilege that you don't understand how it does. It contributes to a society that makes women feel unsafe and unheard. It contributes to abuse on women's bodies. It contributes to the continuing pay and employment disparity. I don't think this is a purity issue, or scorched earth. For example, Susan Sarrandon drove me crazy the last election cycle, I will still pay to see her movies. By all means I don't shame people for enjoying the past work of Harvey, Allen, Affleck, Polanski, (I mostly still do)etc, but we don't have to support them financially, or through industry acclaim, while never holding them accountable for the women's whose lives they have fundamentally altered. I also never suggested shaming actors who have worked with them. However I am well within my right to be disappointed when actors I love, who have the financial and fame ability to not work with them still do. Which is not to say I wouldn't watch a Kate Winslet film, of course I will, but I will be disappointed and not watch her in a new film directed by Allen. And frankly your final post script is bordering on condescending to the people, including myself, who have tried to point out how we are all complicit in these men facing no consequences for their actions.
And another example of it not being a "purity test" is I love this site. I will continue to read it. I will enjoy reading your Oscar predictions and listening to your podcast. I share in your enthusiasm for the brilliance of Carol. But I, and I think the other commentators here, can be disappointed in what I perceive as a real blind spot for you. We clearly disagree. But what's troubling is that you seem to not even allow that these convictions are worthwhile, even if not held by yourself. We all come from different places. Undoubtedly as a gay man you have experienced/ seen homophobia in ways both big and insidiously small that I of course have not. But I would defer to you, I would listen to you, and if not change my position to agree with you, at least acknowledge that I understand your position and not disparage it. You will not know what it feels like to be a women and experience other micro and macro aggression, harassment, and sometimes assault from men in power. You won't see how that behavior is excused and covered up as you are subsequently made to feel guilty, or pushed out of your job/industry for daring to speak up. But this disagreement doesn't mean I think you are a terrible person, in fact I think we would like each other! We would have many similar film interests and could talk about them at length! But it's also ok for your readers to push back, just as I would hope anyone of any other community would push back if I were somehow contributing/ discarding their system of oppression.
I Will say again-Polanski drugged, raped and sodomized an unconcious 13 year old. He pleaded guilty. He fled. He was convicted and never served his time.
There are three other known victims.
How us it that supporting This Men does not make the world worst? Ir doesnt improve it in any way.
Finally, because this is really still bothering me (and frankly the only part of your response that makes me feel "anger")
"P.S. Once you're done depriving yourself of good movies realize that you have still not solved sexism or racism or homophobia. It's still there even if you refuse to watch every movie that fails your purity test. The only solution is to stop shaming other decent people who haven't used the same purity test whenever you get angry and focus your anger more productively"
Besides being condescending and self righteous (and deciding we are "shaming" you instead of simply pushing back/ disagreeing with a position you hold and explaining why, which was certainly my intention), I would like to say that I doubt boycotting the films of known sexual predators is all other commenters have done, and it's insulting. I have tried to become an advocate. I volunteer once a week at a women's shelter in Brooklyn. Despite not making a ton, I give a monthly donation to The Joyful Heart donation, which focuses on survivors of sexual and domestic assault and child abuse. I have become politically active and engaged ( Shumer and Gillibrands numbers are saved in my phone for how often I have called the past 9 months) I see not supporting abusive men financially, whatever their industry, as yet another component of putting my money where my mouth it. It is all part in parcel for how I try, in my own small, personal way to make the world I better place.
Welp. I'm disappointed my post got you so worked up, Nathaniel. I'm even more disappointed you completely, utterly failed to get my point and got so defensive. As literally no one here ever suggested any of the things you got so worked up here. Heck, I didn't even say don't like Casey Affleck's work, I was specifically talking about him winning an Oscar.
It's unfortunate you think every time you're called out on your blind spots or your ignorance your response is defensive. No one here is shaming you (I even SAID IT ON MY POST THAT THAT WAS NOT MY GOAL). That you feel so attacked says more about you than the topic. I'm sorry that you think just because you aren't Donald Trump and his KKK members you have no role whatsoever in the way society is (we all do, that includes me, these little things are a way to call out and improve things). I'm sorry you see these as purity tests rather than calls for learning, listening and improving (is it because you're frustrated you don't pass the "purity test"?). I'm sad you can't see beyond your own privilege as a white cis man, even as part of a minority like the LGBTQ community. I'm sad that because you're not overtly racist or misogynist you fail to see how you contribute to these systems. No one here tried to shame you, nor erase ALL THE ART EVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD as you put out, and no one here is boycotting everyone for purity tests.
Take a moment to re-read our comments and hopefully at least, appreciate where we are coming from. Talking about things like sexism and race is complicated, and it's particularly uncomfortable for us (as men, as white people) because it faces us directly with our own privilege and role in it. It's ok to be uncomfortable and it's ok to make mistakes. Hopefully go from there, listen and learn.
I have to agree with the commentators above me, and I hope you take it as a learning moment Nathaniel as I am. I understand that purity tests suck, but I feel like someone as high up as director such as Polanski, Allen, and Gibson should not have careers and boycotts are completely justified. Give that movie money to some female directors.