The 'me too' movement

[Bucks5]

A pub painted over their misogynist graffiti after a customer complaint made in the name of the #metoo movement.

http://www.ladbible.com/news/uk-cocktail-bar-slammed-for-grossly-misogynistic-toilet-decor-20190125

[David]

[think positive]

What do you reckon the cops would Do? Probably zilch.

I get where your coming from, I believe it was a screen shot of his comment, and she was not abusive just said it’s not ok. If the guy had not left the crude posts she would have nothing to put him for, and hopefully, he will learn some manners.

Ifyou have seen any of this women’s videos she is never offensive, she just lays out the funny truths of motherhood. His comments were uncalled for and quite frankly disgusting

[David]

^ I believe at least here in Victoria and other places around the world, they’ve started to beef up laws on internet harassment and take it seriously, as they should, though I suspect that America, with its more fundamentalist approach to “free speech”, might well lag behind in this area. I’d hope police would take a case like this seriously if it happened here because it wasn’t just one comment but, it seems, an ongoing campaign of harassment. And unless people are diligent about covering their tracks, it’s not always impossible to trace trolls’ identities (their YouTube handle might be the same as their Facebook handle, for instance).

If it was just a screenshot of the post, then I’m also at a loss as to why anyone would have a problem with that. And I agree that, no matter what’s wrong with the person doing it (not that I’d necessarily presume there is; you never know with this stuff), there’s absolutely no justification for this kind of harassment.

[think positive]

Online bullying and abuse is rife and disgusting. I am often astounded by the things people write, you know darn well they would never have the courage to say it in person. A couple of pages I am on they take it very seriously, thankfully. The main photography one I follow, the woman has copped some ridiculous stuff. Jealousy and ridiculous religious views cause a lot of it!

[K]

Michael Jackson Cast a Spell. ‘Leaving Neverland’ Breaks It.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/28/arts/television/michael-jackson-leaving-neverland.html

"In a new documentary on HBO, two men accuse the star of sexually abusing them as children. Our critic wrestles with their stories, and his own fandom."

By Wesley Morris

Two excerpts:

"It’s here that I should offer the Jackson estate’s disclaimer. It vehemently denies what James and Wade allege, and is suing HBO for $100 million. The movie breaches a nondisparagement clause in a contract with Jackson from the early 1990s, according to the suit. Around 1993, James and Wade told the authorities that Jackson didn’t molest them; and Wade testified in court on Jackson’s behalf in 2005. Several years ago, both men filed lawsuits against the estate that were dismissed because of statutes of limitations. And their suits are now under appeal. Fatherhood and, presumably, therapy have encouraged both men to reverse their stories, acknowledge what they believe happened to them and tell their families that they lied about not being abused."

...

"That brings me back to how crucial it feels to have Stephanie and Joy speaking in this documentary. ... You can’t hear a parent wrestle with this blame question enough, whether it’s being asked in relation to R. Kelly or Michael Jackson, your pastor or your priest: How could they let their child spend that much time with an adult stranger? There’s never a “right” or “good” answer. But faith is usually a factor. And faith entails a suspension of disbelief.

The mothers both mention an early limit they set. For Stephanie, it was refusing to let James sleep in Jackson’s room on that trip to Hawaii. And Joy recalls vehemently nixing Jackson’s request to abscond with Wade for a year. But Jackson ultimately wins, anyway. He gets his way, in part, because he could be as manipulative as he could be affectionate, but also because each woman feels, in her way, maternal toward him. He was, both women more or less say, a member of their families. Both families defended him, in the moment, against detractors and accusers. Both boys denied that they were molested — Wade at the trial and to the news media; James to his mother and to a grand jury. So their sons’ falling under his spell — that required some suspension of disbelief. The mothers had fallen, too.

We all had. It was so easy to fall."

[David]

While, to be honest, it never seemed in serious doubt to me that Jackson was a child molester, I’m still bothered by this trend of film critics declaring guilty verdicts based on documentaries. Surely they should know more than anyone that the documentary is the most manipulative fact-based medium, and that it is very easy to be seduced by its selective narratives and persuasive use of filmic techniques (which is why so many contemporary documentaries are basically just agit-prop).

But more than anything, I can’t shake the feeling that this just isn’t their job: tell us how the documentary constructs its narrative, what techniques it uses and how successful it is as a work of art, not how it proves Jackson’s guilt beyond all doubt. And yet that seems to be the prevailing take on this film.

[think positive]

When I read this I just see two disgusting mothers who put the mighty dollar ahead of their children’s welfare. Clearly they had some idea their children were at risk.

[K]

Reaction:


https://twitter.com/Corey_Feldman/status/1102485661100044289

Feldman: "I FEEL LIKE IF PPL COULD HEAR OUR CONVOS THEY WOULD HEAR THE INNOCENCE IN THEM. NO HINT OF PERVERSION. I HAV A TAPE, IM THINKIN ABOUT RELEASING, WHICH COULD..."


https://twitter.com/JuddApatow/status/1102818710467694592

Apatow: "The Corey Feldman defense that MJ must not have done it because he didn’t do it to me doesn’t quite work. That’s like saying Ted Bundy wasn’t a murderer because I met him at a bar and he didn’t murder me."

[K]

A different take:

What You Should Know About the New Michael Jackson Documentary

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joevogel/2019/01/29/what-you-should-know-about-the-new-michael-jackson-documentary/

"Robson was twenty-seven years old at the time. Four years earlier, he testified at Jackson’s 2005 trial (as an adult) that nothing sexual ever happened between them. Prior to the trial Robson hadn’t seen Jackson for years and was under no obligation to be a witness for the defense. He faced a withering cross-examination, understanding the penalty of perjury for lying under oath. But Robson adamantly, confidently, and credibly asserted that nothing sexual ever happened.

What changed between then and now? A few things:

In 2011, Robson approached John Branca, co-executor of the Michael Jackson Estate, about directing the new Michael Jackson/Cirque du Soleil production, ONE. Robson admitted he wanted the job “badly,” but the Estate ultimately chose someone else for the position.

In 2012, Robson had a nervous breakdown, triggered, he said, by an obsessive quest for success. His career, in his own words, began to “crumble.”

That same year, with Robson’s career, finances, and marriage in peril, he began shopping a book that claimed he was sexually abused by Michael Jackson. No publisher picked it up.

In 2013, Robson filed a $1.5 billion dollar civil lawsuit/creditor’s claim, along with James Safechuck, who also spent time with Jackson in the late ‘80s. Safechuck claimed he only realized he may have been abused when Robson filed his lawsuit. That lawsuit was dismissed by a probate court in 2017.

In 2019, the Sundance Film Festival premiered a documentary based entirely on Robson and Safechuck’s allegations. While the documentary is obviously emotionally disturbing given the content, it presents no new evidence or witnesses. The film’s director, Dan Reed, acknowledged not wanting to interview other key figures because it might complicate or compromise the story he wanted to tell."

[think positive]

There is far too much money and power involved to ever got to the truth.

Yeah i think he was probably guilty, and i think some of the parents had at least an inkling. How could they not? money talks. disgusting.

[David]

I think this question gets to the heart of the kneejerk corporate response to a lot of #MeToo allegations:

[K]

Mario Batali Exits His Restaurants

"A year after reports that the celebrity chef sexually assaulted and harassed women, the Bastianich family and Mr. Batali’s other partners have bought out his stake and regrouped."

(NY Times)

[stui magpie]

Personally I don't get the banning music stuff. If I hear a Gary Glitter song, I don't react by getting heated about what he did, I just listen to the song and enjoy it or not depending what it is. Same for Jacko. I was never a big fan, not my thing, but if it was played it wouldn't fuss me.

But, you're 100% correct in that it's no moral stance by radio stations, it's all about money. If they think enough people will change stations if they keep playing MJ's songs, they'll stop playing them. At least until the heat dies down.

FFS, Bill Wyman of the Strolling Bones was rooting a 14 year old in the early 80's, have we banned playing their songs? (he did marry her once she was 18 FWIW)

[David]

Bowie also had sex with a 15-year-old girl as an adult, and John Lennon was a wife beater. And where do you even start with Led Zeppelin...