Harvey Weinstein, George Clooney, and Tropes that Don't Serve Us

I just read the Daily Beast article with George Clooney’s statement on the Harvey Weinstein fiasco. For context, Weinstein is an Academy and Tony Award-winning movie mogul who cofounded Miramax, and produced Pulp Fiction, Good Will Hunting, and Shakespeare in Love among many other popular and critically-acclaimed movies. Five days ago, on Oct. 5, The New York Times reported a bombshell that Weinstein had paid off his sexual harassment accusers for decades. (As I write this, more and more women are speaking out against Weinstein and sharing their own sexual harassment experiences with him, including actors Angelina Jolie and Gwyneth Paltrow.) I won’t repeat what’s already been written in the news, but there’s a testament from actress Ashley Judd, a settlement involving actress Rose McGowan, and this reflection from another woman regarding Weinstein’s disturbing requests and sexual advances: “It was so manipulative. You constantly question yourself—am I the one who is the problem?”

“Am I the one who is the problem?”
Regarding George Clooney’s thoughts on the Weinstein fiasco, I like what he has to say, and hope that he upholds these beliefs himself and expects them of others in his circle. Here are some soundbites from his interview with the Daily Beast:

“… a lecherous guy with money picking up younger girls is unfortunately not a news story in our society.”

“… we’ve seen this type of behavior in politics, in Silicon Valley, and in corporate America. This is a big problem in our society, that people in power are taking advantage of people not in power—particularly powerful men with young women.”

“… there’s an argument that everyone is complicit in it. I suppose the argument would be that it’s not just about Hollywood, but about all of us—that every time you see someone using their power and influence to take advantage of someone without power and influence and you don’t speak up, you’re complicit.”

Complicity
As writers, with the power to inspire and influence with our stories, let’s not propagate the same tropes that hurt society by promoting behaviors and ideals that lead to inequality. Some of us may unwittingly do this by romanticizing certain personality types and behaviors, perhaps promulgating these traits as highly valued and sought-after. (“Gosh, I want to be just like that rich and handsome psychopath who gets all the girls.”)

Yes, we must write the truth, and shine a light on some of the ugly realities that permeate our society. Yes, we must strive to give an honest account of life, whether it’s uncomfortable or disagreeable to others. But no one can force you to be accountable and “write responsibly,” or pressure you to push a certain moral agenda. Perhaps you’re simply writing something that is completely entertaining to you with no goal to educate or elucidate or “change the world” and bring about “world peace.” That’s fine. In fact, we need those stories! We all have different reasons for writing, and books that are for pure entertainment and escapism have their value. Not everything has to be thoughtful and somber and serious. Besides, who doesn’t want to unwind and laugh to a delicious comedy now and then?

That said, as a writer, I want to steer clear of certain tropes and ideas, as well as refrain from pushing the binary, gendered mindset, which we are discovering more and more to be a mostly social construct, ingrained in us at birth, and almost impossible to break free from. (Note: there is a difference between gender and sexuality, but I won’t get into that here.) Here are some of those tropes, ideas, and portrayals that I will aim to steer clear of:

• Boys will be boys.

• Sweet, dainty, precious, pretty, little girls.

• Strong and silent men, praised for not showing tender emotions.

• The (judgmental-sounding) woman who is portrayed as better than other “gossipy” women because she’s “different,” i.e., she’s less social, feels more comfortable around men, acts more like a “guy” (whatever that means), speaks of her more social sisters with disdain, as if they were lesser. Seriously, what are we preaching here? And what do we think young girls and boys take away from this portrayal?

• Also, and further to the above trope, the not-so-physically-attractive girl talking negatively about her more attractive sisters, like this: “They’re pretty but vacant and stupid and gossip too much and are probably really slutty with their teeny little skirts and big boobs.” Writers, when I read this kind of thing, I only smell jealousy. It doesn’t smell good. And you know how this pans out it real life? Other people may look at a sexually assaulted pretty girl in a mini skirt and judge: “She was asking for it.” Think about that. (Read and wince at what Donna Karan had to say about the Weinstein thing.)

• Billionaire males = a prize for any woman. And, must the billionaire male be young and physically desirable as well? (Let’s get real, here, people!) But I suppose, Escapism. For some.

• Girls and women’s physical appearance being their most salient asset, and referenced in the story ad nauseam.

• Smart or strong or ambitious girls and women portrayed as a kind of Anomaly, and these traits are actually emphasized and punctuated to seem as “Oh wow, that’s kind of different for a girl!” No, it’s not. Let’s get over it.

I could list more, but I think you get my drift.

Repetition > Desensitization > Acceptance
Part of my old day job involved analyzing data and studying people’s online behavior, so I have a huge interest in stats and psychology. One of the things I’m learning is the power of repetition, society’s desensitization upon seeing a repeated behavior, and the consequent normalization and acceptance of the behavior.

Not to politicize, but I’d like to shed some light on our human tendency to believe and even defend a lie we’ve heard too many times, or to tolerate and even accept an unethical behavior we’ve seen too many times. Example: a mass shooting might have shocked us the first time, but shocks us less and less successively, until we feel it has become a norm, and consequently, we simply shake our heads but shrug our shoulders at the whole thing. Data shows us this: the more a certain behavior or sentiment is broadcast, the more society condones, even imitates, this behavior. (If you have kids, you may have heard the argument: “But my friend is doing it, why can’t I do it?”) So if you want see a rise in violence and aggression, broadcast violence and aggression. If you want to divide people among arbitrary lines, show different people from different tribes doing different things, separate from each other (the whole “Us vs. Them” scenario). But if you want to bring about acceptance, inclusion, and positive community interactions, show different people doing common things together. Humans are simple: we all just want to be accepted, and we model after the behavior we’ve been shown to be acceptable, or at least have precedence. (I.e., “Is it ok with my peers if I say this or do that?” Or this: “That guy did it, which means I can do it too.”) Think about what's trending; why is it trending?

NOTE: while the above may be true—broadcast kindness and generosity, and there will follow a proliferation of kindness and generosity—it is also true that Anger and Outrage have their place, and in the right context, can and do bring about positive changes.

Let’s Be Better
My fellow writers, let’s be more aware of our quirky human tendencies and how we influence ideas and behaviors. Let’s never tolerate and accept the behaviors of the Harvey Weinsteins of the world. Let’s show this in our books, the stories we tell, and the work we leave behind. Let’s do better. Let’s be better.