'Sexual favours were the norm in music industry' • Hacker News Board

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

#261

Post by AnimalMuppet » Wed, Feb 17, 2021, 8:39 PM UTC

tabtab wrote: post #256

grawprog wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah dude...being horny by nature is no excuse for that kind of behaviour. Yes it is realistic to expect people will not sexually take advantage of others just because they're horny and the other person is dressed in a way that 'taunts' them. It happens all the time. There's millions of horny people out there every day not sexually assaulting people.

BOTH SIDES have a responsibility to reduce the problem. Women shouldn't be given a Get-Out-Of-Taunt-For-Free card. Re: There's millions of horny people out there every day not sexually assaulting people. Just because SOME can muster up the discipline doesn't mean everybody can. It's not about "making excuses", it's about solving problems in a PRACTICAL way. (I replied here because the Reply button is missing for unkn…

Everyone can, but not everyone does. Cold hard reality is that not everyone does. Saying that not everyone can is excusing at least some of the men.

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

#262

Post by jacquesm » Wed, Feb 17, 2021, 8:40 PM UTC

bjourne wrote: post #192

chiefalchemist wrote: post #12

It's hard to imagine this is only the music industry. Human use sex as a weapon and a tool all the time. True, it might be more useful in the music industry but why would sex as currency only exist there? Where there are humans, there is sex. The obviousness of how that plays out may differ but the underlying theme is universal.

Perhaps because the music industry is so dependent on personal connections and because talent is very subjective? In academia, doctorate students usually do not have to sleep with their supervisors to get their degree.

This comment probably wasn't intentionally funny.

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

#263

Post by jlawson » Wed, Feb 17, 2021, 8:40 PM UTC

klyrs wrote: post #237

jimbokun wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People getting fired for an allegation that doesn't pan out, but by then their reputation and career are already destroyed. Or comments taken out of context or missing nuance. Or punishment out of proportion to the offense. In the past, boycotts were aimed at corporations. Not buying or consuming a specific product, or protesting that company. Cancel culture is more aimed at individuals. Suing for defamation can be e…

> In the past, boycotts were aimed at corporations. Not buying or consuming a specific product, or protesting that company. Cancel culture is more aimed at individuals. This isn't remotely new, though. For one very visible example in our industry, Lynn Conway got fired for coming out as transgender. Similarly, Turing was canceled for being gay. Politicians have been getting canceled for marital infidelity for most of…

Turing wasn't 'canceled' for being gay. He was prosecuted by the government according to the laws of the time, by police. Cancel culture is extra-legal and does not involve the use of laws or police.

Cancel culture is also distinct from politicians and infidelity because cancel culture targets non-public individuals. Of course politicians and celebrities were always subject to public opinion; the modern era now means that everyone can be targeted this way, even if they weren't known at all before (Justine Sacco is a simple example).

The McCarthy era was again a matter of government action through government processes with at least some level of transparency, democratic representation, and accountability. It was not spontaneous mobs of individuals without leaders or any kind of accountability. (They also targeted communists, not just 'leftists').

It's ironic you say casually that "people today are getting canceled for exhibiting intolerance and bigotry", when cancel culture is itself intolerance and bigotry. The standard definition of bigotry is "extreme intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own." [0]

[0] https://www.thefreedictionary.com/bigotry

It's also always disturbing to encounter people like you who are openly clear that cancel culture is just like historical persecution, but you're totally fine with it because you (wrongly) think it only happens to bad people. As though only people you like deserve to have human rights.

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

#264

Post by bluGill » Wed, Feb 17, 2021, 8:41 PM UTC

vinger wrote: post #195

bluGill wrote: post #188

My understanding is this was more common in years past. Up to the 1950s it was understood a good looking secretary got her job in bed. The really ugly ones got and kept it by being good at the job, with a possible side of the wife doing well in bed. Even then it was understood as not always true, but it was true enough. Secretaries at the time demanded the ability handle boredom as a lot of the job was doing the simp…

It was never true the pretty ones put out and the uglies were good at there jobs. The less good looking probably put out more where the more beautiful could get by on a bosses hope.

You aren't wrong, but I don't think you are correct. There were a lot of "good church going men" who wouldn't sleep with anyone they weren't married to. There were others are appeared that way in public, but wanted some "outside pleasures". The former hired for skill and tried not to care about looks, and in fact ugly could be an advantage as it may limit temptation (but this was still "women's work" so it was her).

The later in theory would hire based on looks, but on on reflection it was more complex. It is a bit tricky to figure out how who will sleep with you in the interview, as those who wouldn't may tell society which would be a disaster for someone pretending to be a good church man. Those who could figure this out would hire the good looking ones. Those who couldn't had to figure out how to make it clear that imperfections in performance could be overlooked in bed and see what happened - I suspect this was more common, and thus biases to the ugly ones.

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

#265

Post by mgkimsal » Wed, Feb 17, 2021, 8:44 PM UTC

virtue3 wrote: post #220

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…

> If she broke the diet code she was threatened with immediate dismissal from the MGM roster.

And yet... given her level of fame even early on, I think she was far more valuable to keep on the books. But... I doubt she (or those around her) were able to think that strategically in the moment.

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

#266

Post by spoonjim » Wed, Feb 17, 2021, 8:45 PM UTC

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…

Yes, they are equivalent to boycotts, but think about how hard it was to organize a boycott. They were done at large scale to protest things like “black people must sit in the back of the bus.”

Now your career can end because “You encouraged too much forgiveness for a girl who attended the wrong kind of party at 18.”

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

#267

Post by mywittyname » Wed, Feb 17, 2021, 8:46 PM UTC

enriquto wrote: post #252

nostromo wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roman Polanski won an Oscar after pleading guilty to drugging and raping a 13 year old girl. Look at all these vile people applauding this villain, who couldn't accept his Oscar because he fled the country. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXnNOBj26lk In some ways I think we may have over responded (Aziz Ansari is not Harvey Weinstein), but it was shocking what behavior people were excusing from the powerful even in r…

> Look at all these vile people applauding this villain Acknowledging the artistic talent of a villain does not make you vile. Not at all. Imagine a clearer example. Imagine that somebody is on a life sentence convicted of a murder that they have commited. Do you think that this person has the right to write a book? Can this book be sent for participation at a literary contest? Can it win? Does the jury that gives th…

I can see why this might be considered debatable, but I firmly agree with the parent comment here.

People who do vile shit should not be celebrated at all. To me, it's a requirement: if you want to be considered a person of great accomplishment, then you should be an upstanding citizen.

I also think that celebrating vile people is a reflection on the "jury" here as well. If I discover someone celebrates the works of Hitler, Stalin, Mengele, Saddam Hussein, etc, then they are definitely knocked down a few pegs in my book. I wouldn't go so far as to call them vile on that alone, but I definitely question their moral compass.

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

#268

Post by unishark » Wed, Feb 17, 2021, 8:47 PM UTC

mathgorges wrote: post #249

mgarfias wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boycott is me (or you) choosing not to spend your money or do business with a particular entity due to perceived notions about that entity. This cancel culture stuff is about not just "not reading the article and not going to the site", its an active attack against someone that you don't like. A boycott is me saying "buzz feed sux, i won't goto one of t heir urls". Cancelling would be me saying Gina Carano sux, i'm g…

A few people have made the point about boycotts being against organizations and cancels being against individuals. I don’t see the material difference there, what about it being an individual makes you feel it’s different? Your last point is intriguing to me. If I were to simply not watch films with Gina Carano in them anymore, would you still say I’m canceling her?

When it's against individuals it starts to become harassment and bullying, depending on the severity. These are not things we generally care about protecting organizations from, just individuals.

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

#269

Post by enriquto » Wed, Feb 17, 2021, 8:48 PM UTC

kgwxd wrote: post #108

xwdv wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're selling a service, not yourself. There's plenty of people for whom a sexual favor is not a big deal, and they see it as a huge return on investment.

> There's plenty of people for whom a sexual favor is not a big deal And that's their choice. Sleeping your way to the top is a very separate debate. Requiring anyone who wants a job to fuck you is the topic being discussed.

> Sleeping your way to the top is a very separate debate

You keep saying that, but it's actually the same thing. One cannot exist without the other. You need both kinds of people for the phenomenon to exist. If a boss hires only people who have sex with them, and nobody is willing to, they will not hire anybody. Conversely, if a candidate is willing to sleep their way to the top, but no boss partakes in that, then they are not hired.

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

#270

Post by vkou » Wed, Feb 17, 2021, 8:48 PM UTC

enriquto wrote: post #252

nostromo wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roman Polanski won an Oscar after pleading guilty to drugging and raping a 13 year old girl. Look at all these vile people applauding this villain, who couldn't accept his Oscar because he fled the country. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXnNOBj26lk In some ways I think we may have over responded (Aziz Ansari is not Harvey Weinstein), but it was shocking what behavior people were excusing from the powerful even in r…

> Look at all these vile people applauding this villain Acknowledging the artistic talent of a villain does not make you vile. Not at all. Imagine a clearer example. Imagine that somebody is on a life sentence convicted of a murder that they have commited. Do you think that this person has the right to write a book? Can this book be sent for participation at a literary contest? Can it win? Does the jury that gives th…

You can recognize the art, while condemning the artist.

That's the post-war treatment given to studies of hypothermia that came out of Nazi Germany - because the means by which those studies were conducted was by putting Jews and PoWs into barrels of ice water, and measuring how long it would take them to die.

You recognize the results, while condemning every single person involved in the methods.