Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'Sexual favours were the norm in music industry'

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 643 posts

Re: 'Sexual favours were the norm in music industry'

#211

Post by tabtab »

Communitivity wrote: post #129

I saw comments talking about a hypothetical utopia where no one needs to go hungry and where talent gets notice without having to sell their body or soul. As with many things, the problem is not technological. We have the technology to create such a utopia (there would still be other problems, but the world would be utopian from those aspects). The problem is sociological. In order to do this we need to both all work…

Re: Texas had the money to buy snowplows. They didn't. Texas had the money to winterize wind turbines. They didn't.

They worship tax-cuts and D.I.Y. social Darwinism (survival of the fittest). So when the weather gets bad, many there are okay with social Darwinism per survival. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/17/texas-mayor-...

Note I didn't say all are happy with it, but enough that they tend to lightly fund infrastructure.

Re: 'Sexual favours were the norm in music industry'

#212

Post by mnouquet »

simonh wrote: post #23
jonathanstrange wrote: post #16

Everybody involved has always known and assumed that so much that it's almost a cliché. I mean, people were warning about predatory record producers since the 60s or so. Since I'm not against prostitution either, I can't really be angry about this old hat. (Not that I think it's good.)

Entertainers can work their whole lives to break into the business, investing their heart and soul into it, only for one gatekeeper to hold all of that hostage. They hold incredible leverage. That's in no way similar to offering someone a few quid for sex.

It's exactly the same, as long as someone will want to go the extra inch to make anything more than their competitor, this behavior will stay.

Re: 'Sexual favours were the norm in music industry'

#213

Post by jalla »

nabla9 wrote: post #13

It makes perfect sense. Music industry is a economics of superstars. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1803469 Very few stars get huge profits and after that it's long slim tail. Talent or high work ethic is not enough for success, "getting discovered" aka someone likes you and invests the initial money and effort is another factor. If personal effort is not enough and the artist has nothing else, selling your ass for an…

Your argument doesn't make sense at all. You don't invest in an idea or people if you don't believe you can profit.

Re: 'Sexual favours were the norm in music industry'

#214

Post by [deleted] »

leetcrew wrote: post #149
eplanit wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it said they were forcibly raped; but that the sex was in exchange for something of value, like opportunity or promotion. So long as both parties are adults and in agreement, the "not willing to engage" part doesn't apply. Maybe it's still unethical, though.

the point is that even if the participants are okay with it, it still harms people who are unwilling to participate. if I'm a sex worker, my work is sex. nothing wrong with charging money for that. if I'm a software engineer, my work has nothing to do with sex, and my career progression should not be impeded by my refusal to have sex with my boss.

[deleted]

Re: 'Sexual favours were the norm in music industry'

#215

Post by tabtab »

In other words, other "skills" can partly substitute for looks. One generally moans with their eyes closed.

One thing that bugs me is that it's often said "men are animals" in that they lack self control. Yet many women wear provocative clothing at work to gain favors. Such women want it both ways: the ability to tease and taunt, but a magic lid on those when they don't want advances.

They want to play with fire BUT not ever get burned. Sorry, that's being too choosey. If you don't want to get burned, don't play with friggen fire! It's like wanting to taunt tigers at the zoo all day, but saying they should never try to break their cages. Both sides are at fault. Don't taunt the hungry tigers in our pants and expect 24/7 self control. You already know tigers are dangerous, so don't aggravate them.

Re: 'Sexual favours were the norm in music industry'

#216

Post by ookblah »

mathgorges wrote: post #194
mensetmanusman wrote: post #61

The internet is enabling a new norm in reducing the cost of calling out behavior. Some of this is good, e.g. calling out sexual abuse. Some of this is bad, e.g. cancel culture that has no means of forgiveness.

I've seen this take quite a bit lately with respect to cancel culture and I'm a bit confused about it. Since HN is amazing, I'm hoping someone here can help me understand without it turning into a flamewar. I don't understand how "cancel culture" is substantially different from what we used to call "boycotts", just with the internet for more social lubrication. I suppose theres a risk that the allegations at the cent…

i think boycotting a business or having a highly visible public figure (aka celebrities) face social consequences isn't "cancel culture". it comes with the territory, so to speak.

for me, personally, it's when your average joe gets the other end of internet mob justice and they suddenly seek to ruin everything about your life above and beyond what you would normally face.

Re: 'Sexual favours were the norm in music industry'

#217

Post by mr-wendel »

mathgorges wrote: post #194
mensetmanusman wrote: post #61

The internet is enabling a new norm in reducing the cost of calling out behavior. Some of this is good, e.g. calling out sexual abuse. Some of this is bad, e.g. cancel culture that has no means of forgiveness.

I've seen this take quite a bit lately with respect to cancel culture and I'm a bit confused about it. Since HN is amazing, I'm hoping someone here can help me understand without it turning into a flamewar. I don't understand how "cancel culture" is substantially different from what we used to call "boycotts", just with the internet for more social lubrication. I suppose theres a risk that the allegations at the cent…

Great questions, and I applaud your ability to approach a sensitive topic with such open curiosity.

Some arguments I'm familiar with around cancel culture are below. My goal isn't to assert them -- just enumerate some of them. People are welcome to reshape them or knock 'em down as they see fit.

- The Internet is a global namespace: now you can have people anywhere in the world outraged. What used to be a localized problem and response can now turn into a localized problem, but global response.

- The ability to go back-in-time is all too easy. That dumb comment you made as a teenager can come back years and years later to haunt you (or people close to you). Maybe you had a massive turn-around already or you were recorded without consent. Often that doesn't matter.

- It is fostering an insidious call-out culture. The focus is no longer on prevention and remediation, but on scoring points and repositioning power towards "the vanguard". Legitimate victims aren't helped to heal and offenders aren't led to improve.

- No room is given to defend yourself, particularly when mobbed upon. Even if the record is set straight later it doesn't matter, as your reputation (possibly friendships, career, and family life) is in tatters.

What I do feel worth asserting is this: no matter what the current norm is, always remember you will be judged according to later standards, right or wrong. The greater the disparity in power the more important this is regardless of role (e.g. boss, parent, etc).

Re: 'Sexual favours were the norm in music industry'

#218

Post by rgblambda »

matkoniecz wrote: post #200
mathgorges wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen this take quite a bit lately with respect to cancel culture and I'm a bit confused about it. Since HN is amazing, I'm hoping someone here can help me understand without it turning into a flamewar. I don't understand how "cancel culture" is substantially different from what we used to call "boycotts", just with the internet for more social lubrication. I suppose theres a risk that the allegations at the cent…

Not an expert, but big difference is that boycotts are against companies/businesses while cancellations target individuals.

The term can apply to individuals as well.

The origin of the term boycott was a landlord's agent called Charles Boycott, who was socially and economically ostracised in response to the eviction of tenants.

Re: 'Sexual favours were the norm in music industry'

#219

Post by bluGill »

rectang wrote: post #122
onychomys wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably a lot less of a problem since so many tech dudes are dudes.

Sadly, that means that the few women in the tech industry experience even more concentrated abuse. Furthermore, there are even fewer people up the tech management food chain than in other industries who appreciate the circumstances of sexual abuse victims.

Sort of. The lack of women in the field is a problem. However programmers are in demand which means that women have some awareness that they can scream and get away with it. A female in the arts who screamed can be unofficially blacklisted and not get anywhere, where as a female in programming can scream and find a different job.

Also a lot of tech companies (but by no means all!) are aware of the issue. You can be reasonably sure a large tech company has as good anti-sexual harassment program and will generally take actions to prevent it. A female is about as safe in tech as any other job: not perfectly safe, as safe as possible.

Re: 'Sexual favours were the norm in music industry'

#220

Post by virtue3 »

csharptwdec19 wrote: post #198

I'll be bold and say it's the media industry has a problem. I remember family members having problems/reservations with Weinstein's behavior back in the 90's . People like Corey Feltman have been speaking up for years. But nobody cares because we're getting good cinema and TV, right? A huge part of these industries are based on 'favors' and 'networking'. Toss in the theory that you have a higher-than-baseline level o…

I mean... Judy Garland was... ugh. Here's a pretty tame snippet: "But it was her draconian weight-watch that made Judy the most abused child in the history of American cinema. Judy was put on diet pills from the age of 12. She was not slowed to eat anything that children enjoy. In the bio-pic on Judy we see how she was not allowed to have cake even on her own birthday. Mayer personally kept reminding Judy of how fat she was when in fact Judy was a skinny under-fed near-anorexic child who craved to enjoy a burger or sip on a cola. Pleasures that she was sternly and often abusively denied. If she broke the diet code she was threatened with immediate dismissal from the MGM roster."
Post reply on HN