Because there isn’t enough written about Harvey Weinstein…
“What decent men can do in response to #MeToo” (CNN) is a good example of one point of view from Plato’s Republic (see Harvey Weinstein gives Americans a teachable moment regarding Plato and the Myth of Gyges?) and, for those who think that Glaucon was right, a good example of the “fundamental attribution error.”
The author describes “male friends — good, decent men.” Plainly most men are better behaved than what has been reported about Hollywood’s most-hated person. But have her “good, decent men” been tested or tempted? What if they had the power and fame that Harvey Weinstein had? Due to their inherently superior character would they have behaved better?
[The article is also good because it is refreshing to see a young person with the courage to consider herself morally superior to old people: “Teach your elders to do better.”]
[Update: buried in the comments below is a simpler formulation of the above, from the 19th century “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” (Lord Acton)]
Related:
- Bill Burr talks about the absurdity of an average person criticizing a celebrity (about 6 minutes in)
I think you’ve (somehow) mistaken Harvey Weinstein for Tiger Woods.
philg,
do you imply that all high powered individuals act as Harvey Weinstein? I gather that he is not the only one, but there are enough high profile industries where top posts are not filled based on who sleeps with owner or CEO although such situations do exist. Or am I a deprolable for not experiencing hidden guilt for deploarable things I did not do but some others did?
On the margin, what you said must be true, but it’s also true that most middle-class people already have plenty of opportunities to abuse others and get away with it; we live in a generally trusting society. If they aren’t already doing it, adding more power doesn’t seem super likely to make them start.
this just in about director of “The Pickup Artist” whose own behavior mimics the script of his own movie: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-mn-james-toback-sexual-harassment-allegations-20171018-story.html
Anonymous: do “all high powered individuals act as Harvey Weinstein”?
First, I don’t know how high-powered individuals act. I’m not a high-powered individual and I don’t know any movie stars, sports stars, directors or producers of blockbusters, etc.
Second, I don’t know how Harvey Weinstein acted. I have seen accounts in newspapers anxious to get clicks and sell ads. These accounts seem to be primarily based on reports by people interested in publicity or extracting cash from Weinstein (net worth > $200 million).
My point was that it is likely hard to predict how the average person would act if placed into Harvey Weinstein’s position. That seems to be the conclusion of the experimental psychologists. A lot of what looks like a stable personality is in fact simply a constant set of circumstances. I take a walk every morning, year after year. You could conclude that Philip’s fundamental nature is to take walks. Or you could attribute this behavior to the fact that we have a dog.
Marshall: Can you explain what opportunities a middle-class person has that are comparable to the banquet of young flesh that a top movie producer like Harvey Weinstein would have been presented with on a nightly basis?
[Separately, let’s go back to the Roman emperors, a class of people who were freed from most constraints and about whom histories have been written. I don’t think we can argue that they were genetically distinct from other humans of the time. Yet their reported behavior was reprehensible, as those guys Bill Burr was quoting put it!]
Both Weinstein & Toback are physically unattractive, leading one LATimes commenter to inquire: “Ok, so we have two ugly guys being accused. Any good looking ones, or did they not have to harass to get what they wanted….”
Weinstein is RETARDED to think that he can apologize, supposedly get “treatment” and be forgiven. He is not and it’s just pointlessly pathetic.
At this point he is better off being the unapologetic ass hole and saying that, yes, I used power to influence woman to have sex with me. I cast woman who sleep with me and I don’t cast woman who don’t. I had the power and I used it. My morality is not your morality and I don’t care if you peons like it. I was able to make everyone shut up and play along for all these years, so am I not the baddest dude you can think of? I have never raped anyone, have sex with under aged women or did anything illegal. If you say I have, it is upon you to prove it and I have the baddest lawyers in the world and I will destroy your bullshit cases one by one. Welcome to the Dark Side. Ha ha ha!
Dwight Looi: Sexual harassment *is* illegal and his behavior also looks like a violation of the fiduciary duty he owed to The Weinstein Corporation; I doubt Mr. Weinstein’s lawyers would approve of your plan.
Then he is screwed anyway. Being pathetic doesn’t help. Better go down as a villain defiant to the end. At least that’ll earn him some respect (in jail).
Platonic male friends? Lol. Like comedian Chris Rock said: men are only friend-zoned with women they haven’t fscked … yet, and women only have male friends ’cause you never know…
The article is also good because it is refreshing to see a young person with the courage to consider herself morally superior to old people: “Teach your elders to do better.”]
So I guess that this statement can apply to anyone who criticizes the behavior of someone else.
“I don’t think we can argue that they were genetically distinct from other humans of the time. Yet their reported behavior was reprehensible”
It is true that almost everyone is genetically capable of truly horrific behavior, and almost everyone is actually capable of much more “reprehensible” behavior than we would rather admit to ourselves or others. Yet society persists in erecting all manner of social and legal barriers to all manner of “reprehensible” behavior, and most people manage to stay within those limits most of the time. I don’t see how this is relevant to Harvey Weinstein’s behavior. Are you claiming that it unreasonable, unrealistic, or unwise to expect people in positions of power in a workplace to refrain from using that power to obtain sexual attention or sexual favors from others in that workplace?
“Can you explain what opportunities a middle-class person has that are comparable to the banquet of young flesh that a top movie producer like Harvey Weinstein would have been presented with on a nightly basis”
Here is an example of “young flesh” which proved too great an “opportunity” for their (probably lower middle-class) restaurant manager:
https://twitter.com/astone2agraser/status/920723703327051781
Yet many restaurant managers actually do somehow avoid taking advantage of such “opportunities”.
Neal: I think your example of the complaint regarding the restaurant manager’s behavior reinforces my point. He couldn’t handle the temptation presented by an ordinary waitress. Just imagine how bad his behavior would have been if he had been presented with a parade of starlets!
[Separately, how do you know that “many restaurant managers actually do somehow avoid taking advantage”? Given all of the #MeToo postings, isn’t the most reasonable inference that any kind of workplace that includes men is hazardous for women?]
@philg: I don’t think I (or Ms. Stamp) said that the kind of behavior Harvey Weinstein (or that restaurant manager) engaged in is particularly rare. Again, are you claiming that it unreasonable, unrealistic, or unwise to expect people in positions of power in a workplace to refrain from using that power to obtain sexual attention or sexual favors from others in that workplace?
The point that I was trying to express in my original post is that the young lady’s “good, decent men” might not be inherently superior moral beings to the movie producers and directors that have been operating casting couches. Her male friends may simply have been differently situated.
@philg: I would agree that this could certainly apply to at least some of the “good decent men” the “young lady” is thinking of, but I expect others of them have in fact encountered “opportunities” which produced temptations of comparable severity to those experienced by Mr. Weinberg which they managed to resist suggesting they could do so even if they were similarly situated. That just means that the circle of “good decent men” referenced in the article is somewhat smaller than the author imagines. Perhaps it is worth pointing out, but it doesn’t really introduce a fatal flaw into their argument.
“Temptations of comparable severity”? Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Weinstein#Selected_filmography
and consider that Mr. Weinstein hired every actress who appeared in every one of those movies. Then consider that for every actress who was hired maybe 5 or 10 were interviewed? That’s literally thousands of young actresses (like most tech employers, Hollywood certainly wouldn’t want to hire anyone old!), all of whom were eager to ingratiate themselves with Mr. Weinstein (if we can believe the press reports, there were varying degrees of eagerness).
Other than Roman emperors, how many people on the planet have been exposed to a “temptation of comparable severity”?
@philg: If you are claiming that every man in Harvey Weinstein’s situation would behave as he did, I will demand very strong evidence simply because in my experience different people in similar situations often behave very differently. Women of comparable beauty and “eagerness” to those on that filmography are not uncommon, and a woman’s beauty (or acting talent or “eagerness”) isn’t the only parameter affecting temptation. Suggesting that Harvey Weinstein would have needed superhuman self control to avoid his current predicament is kind of ridiculous. Read the account by Lupita Nyong’o and then tell me that even in a similar situation you would have any trouble at all refraining from the behavior Harvey Weinstein engaged in.
Neal: I didn’t realize that you were asking about my personal character. That’s easy! Of course, due to my superior moral character, if I were a leading Hollywood producer I am sure that I would behave admirably! I would serve milk and cookies at my parties. Guests would be encouraged to discuss their favorite Bible stories. Casting would be done strictly according to merit as determined by an impartial AI Meritometer.
(Separately, if you’re referring to https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/19/opinion/lupita-nyongo-harvey-weinstein.html our Boston circle has already concluded that the story of the encounter at Mr. Weinstein’s mansion (complete with kids) is obviously false. Some women pointed out that the “domestic staff” generally reports to the wife and therefore Mr. Weinstein wouldn’t have been able to trust the “domestic staff” referred to by the actress/masseuse to keep quiet. Stories about encounters in hotel rooms were considered more credible. )
@philg: There are people who think there was a secret that the “domestic staff” would have had to keep?
@philg: I did consider the possibility that Mr. Weinstein’s wife didn’t know about his behavior when you accused her of waiting to file for divorce until she qualified for alimony. I decided your explanation was more plausible. The alternative means believing that the famous bully Harvey Weinstein cared enough about what his wife thought to work hard to keep his activities from her and somehow pulled it off even though half of Hollywood knew. Then we need to consider what motivation Ms. Nyong’o would have for lying. I suppose she might think it could help her career. However, she is already fairly famous. Whether or not her account is accurate, the incremental value of any publicity would seem low compared to the considerable risk of drawing the attention of the presumably still rich and well lawyered Weinstein. From her account, it seems clear that the presence of the children was critical to convincing Ms. Nyong’o that it was safe for her to accept Mr. Weinstein’s invitation.
I doubt that effect was lost on Mr. Weinstein. The fact that you would apparently never consider using children in this way supports my contention that it is in fact possible for merely mortal men to avoid pursuing even a woman as attractive as Ms. Nyong’o the way Harvey Weinstein did.
According to the Journal of Popular Studies, Ms. Chapman (the wife), was in the dark until enlightened by the New York Times:
http://people.com/movies/how-harvey-weinsteins-furious-and-embarrassed-wife-marchesa-designer-georgina-chapman-is-coping-with-sexual-harassment-scandal/
“Georgina talks about the incidents like they happened before they were married. Still, it’s very sad and disappointing to Georgina that Harvey has behaved like this. It’s not anything that can just be forgotten, or forgiven.”
The article also speculates on the source of her pre-litigation financial success:
Despite Chapman’s talent as a designer, the source says success in her industry often comes down to connections. “Georgina didn’t have those connections for Marchesa to be successful, but Harvey did,” says the source. “Georgina is in a tricky situation now. She truly loves her life.”
A day later, Ms. Chapman had finished evaluating her options:
http://people.com/movies/harvey-weinstein-wife-georgina-chapman-separating/
What could Ms. Nyong’o have gained from embellishing her tales of interactions with Mr. Weinstein? Fame, for sure. There are people who were familiar with various Hollywood actors, but not her. A Google search with “site:newyorker.com” suggests that this was her first New Yorker article. A lot of writers work hard for decades trying to get published by the New Yorker.
See also http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13218719.2015.1055854?journalCode=tppl20 , “The Psychodynamics of Factitious Sexual Harassment Claims”. From the abstract: “Factitious sexual harassment claims are those in which the plaintiff’s wish for victim designation is a major driving force behind the claim.”
Why wouldn’t Ms. Nyong’o want to be a victim in a country that valorizes victimhood? (see https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-rise-of-victimhood-culture/404794/ ) Absent this New Yorker article, it probably wouldn’t have occurred to too many folks that the 65-year-old 350 lb. Weinstein would have been able to chase down the 34-year-old Nyong’o.
(This is not to say that I agree with my Boston New Yorker-reading friends who say that they are sure Ms. Nyong’o is lying. I personally try to avoid speculating on what might have happened between two other adults in the privacy of a hotel room or semi-privacy of a fully staffed mansion’s master bedroom. And I don’t imagine that there is some process, absent an audio or video recording, for establishing what actually did happen.)
philg: “Georgina talks about the incidents like they happened before they were married” doesn’t actually state that she didn’t know what was going on. Of course we can’t know what the truth is, but while I’m having trouble seeing why Lupita Nyong’o would have written that Op-Ed if she didn’t consider it accurate, it is easy to see why Ms. Chapman would want to publicly (and privately and internally) downplay her knowledge of her husband’s behavior.
“Why wouldn’t Ms. Nyong’o want to be a victim in a country that valorizes victimhood?”
Because it puts her in the cross hairs of a rich man with lawyers.
@Neal: So true. Women always go after the poor guys because they want justice, not money.
Anon: The Op-Ed does nothing to advance a legal claim and introduces substantial risk. If Ms. Nyong’o was after money it is unlikely her lawyers would have let her publish it.
philg # 5:
I do not understand why are you finding attribution error in someone trying to tell his/her kids that Harvey Weinstein did wrong based on available information of course. I highly doubt that average pop star has six settled sexual harassment cases. I also doubt that Harvey Weinstein has a pop star status. I coud ignore 1/10th of reported behavior in Jim Morrison but Harvey Weinstein is not a creative individual like late Morrison was and not putting his life on stage nightly. And Weinstein is a moralist who teaches everyone right and wrong, unlike late Jim Morrison, and hobnobs with even more immoral and probably criminal politicians who do the same. There are plenty of people who worth $200 Million + who do nothing like this and I have communicated with people worth at least 8 $ figures, they do nothing like this and in some cases are ascetic and visit church/synagogue/temple regularly and do public service themselves, in person. Don’t you think that some middle class people remained middle class because they did not want participate in Harvey Weinsten’s lifestyle and environment? This is not right. Do you also think there is attribution error when rather poorer criminal looks at a rich person without problems and says that he/she would be civil if they were rich? If yes, we have a contradiction between two attribution errors, both attribution errors can not be universally true at the same time.. If no why? Many people say just that and it is way more common case. I persoanlly think this attribution error staff is complete BS to keep peons in line, attribute immoral behavior to innocents and at the same time impower immorals on top of society to do as they wish (and their wishes are caused by what they had for breakfast).
In present situation, loosing divorce lawsuit to his ex-wife can be Mr. Weinsteins best bet to pass some of his money onto his children.
Anonymous #31: You raise a brilliant point. If Harvey were to stay married, all of the couple’s assets could be stripped away by actress-plaintiffs. If he settles the wife’s divorce lawsuit quickly by giving her substantially all of the assets he accumulated during his career then plaintiffs will have a tougher time (they could argue fraudulent conveyance on the theory that California is a community property state and Harvey wasn’t likely to have lost his premarital savings, except to the extent that they could be siphoned off gradually via child support and alimony).
I found http://info.legalzoom.com/can-division-divorce-fraudulent-conveyance-25747.html with a quick Google search, but there are no caselaw citations. Here’s one with a link to case:
http://www.assetprotectionfl.com/2013/08/court-calls-divorce-asset-distributions-a-fraudulent-transfer/
but in that situation there was already a judgment against the divorced guy, not just the possibility of a judgment in the future.
(separately, note that California is a no-fault divorce jurisdiction so there is no need to bet on whether Harvey would lose a divorce lawsuit; he would be guaranteed to lose in the sense that he would end up divorced whether or not he wanted to stay married)
Anonymous #30: I’m not sure that I fully understand your argument, but one piece of evidence that supports the Fundamental Attribution Error is that most of the allegations against Harvey seem to be from the time when he was most successful. And we haven’t heard about him asking women for massages or sex lately. He’s the same person, right? So if his behavior could be attributed to his fundamental characteristics rather than circumstances, why wouldn’t it be the same now compared to 10 years ago? Another way to look at this is to ask “What if Harvey Weinstein had worked for his entire career in a tire shop? How would he have behaved?”
@philg: I took a look at the Psych Psych & Law article linked to in #25. It claims the existence of a class of false sexual harassment claims, driven by “the plaintiff’s wish for victim designation”, which it labels as “factitious”. This sounds reasonable and while this is just one paper in a field undergoing a replication crisis, I’ll readily stipulate it is true. The abstract indicates the paper contains a framework for evaluating whether specific claims are “factitious” using the concepts of “repetition compulsion, displacement, denial, misattribution and reaction formation”. Unfortunately the paper itself is paywalled so the proposed method is not available.
Absent access to the paper’s methodology, I reread the Lupita Nyong’o Op-Ed looking for the concepts mentioned in the Psych Psych & Law abstract. To my untrained eye, the paper read more like “This is what happened” than “I am a victim”. Except for the phrase “sinister pattern of behavior” used once in the introduction, Mr. Weinstein’s behavior is generally described in a factual manner. When she does attribute motive, she is careful to qualify that attribution as her own impression, not as fact (e.g. “strategically, it seems to me now”). The article includes detailed descriptions of her own feelings, thought processes, and rationalizations which she takes ownership of even though in some cases they seem to have contributed to her vulnerability. Basically, I don’t see much evidence of “displacement, denial, misattribution and reaction formation” in the Op-Ed. I therefore conclude that absent additional evidence or analysis that the Op-Ed by Lupita Nyong’o does not represent a “factitious sexual harassment claim”.
philg #30,
you do not know how Harvey Weinstein behaves now but any sane criminal would become more careful when in spotlight. We know that he checked into rehab, not that I enjoy hearing about him.
I am glad that you agree than subject is no star but works with them!
You totally ignored my point that many people are way poorer than they could be based on merit or accident becuase they chose not to lead immoral lifestyles, for example some actresses.
Also you ignore my point that some poor people and our esteemed academics say that if poor criminals were rich they would not committed crimes just as many successfull rich do not commit crimes. This is another “fundamental” attribution! You “fundamental” attribution assumes opposite. These attributions can not be both “fundamental” in any sense. If you take “fundamental” out you have another great scientific achievement that is awaitng its Nobel: some people would behave better when rich and some when poor! “Poor” by US standards means “upper middle class” by developing world standarts. Your point that average person opinion on scandal does not make much sense. In fact. people should talk to their children who hear about Weinstein anyhow and explained how his behavior is wrong and mention that it is important to be good person in any circumstances, environment not withstanding. Whatever environment multi-millioner grew up in, tire shop or software company, he or she will always be target for those who want to share his/her welath, even in tire shop. As a matter of fact luxury cars are big attractions for such clientele.
Anonymous #34: That’s a good point about the spotlight, but of course the spotlight is part of the environment and, again, reinforces the research psychologists’ point that “personality” is substantially a function of environment.
I’m not an expert on crime or morality, but I don’t know of good evidence that there are a lot of poor people who could be rich but they are constrained by good character from doing immoral things that would make them rich. Let’s take drug-dealing, for example. Economists and sociologists have found that it is not easy to make a lot of money dealing drugs, despite the fact that it is illegal, and, of course, many drug dealers are imprisoned. So if you see a person who is not making money by dealing drugs it could be the result of a rational economic choice (not very profitable; does not want to go to prison), not a choice dictated by inherent moral character. (Alcohol is a damaging drug and yet companies that deal in alcohol have no trouble recruiting staff. Marriott was founded by a Mormon and yet its hotels profit from selling alcohol. So it looks like where there is a legal profit opportunity to deal drugs there are few people who will overlook that opportunity.)
philg 35 you are claiming that personality is substantially function of environment but I am claiming that it is not and individual actions and not peronality are substantially function of environment. Otherwise you would expect Mr. Spielberg act as Mr. Weinstein, and it is false.
And you are reporting another Nobel-worthy economic result, that drug dealers do not report their income and are statistically “poor”! Just disregard their latest model Mercedes cars and expensive parties as way how poor people live.
Alcohol is special case. It is dangerous when abused and OK for many when used moderately. In the distant past it was more often positive than not as source of vitamins and nutrients during times when fresh food was not avialble and thus is a base for many dominant cultures. Yo can argue that alcohol used to be an advantage and drinking societies developed and prospered better than totally sober, if you pass judgement that more technology and individual rights are better! Unlike societies that used drugs. Drugs correlated with decline in China, ME (and now Europe).
You just can not equate one thing with other. Why not with sugar or wheat?
Anonymous #36: I hope that I didn’t suggest that inherent characteristics have no effect on behavior. Nor that Messrs. Spielberg and Weinstein have similar behavior (I am not acquainted with either man). Spielberg is a person who could credibly say “I had the option to accept sexual favors from a lot of young actresses in exchange for career advancement, but turned it down X% of the time.” In the case of the “good, decent men” whom I visited yesterday at the Waltham, Massachusetts Costco, they can’t say this.
[Note that Spielberg and Weinstein are not actually in the same environment when it comes to getting massages from young actresses. Weinstein is mega fat. Spielberg is slender. Spielberg may have been blessed with more natural charm than Weinstein. So even if Spielberg had the same goals as Weinstein he might be able to achieve them in a quieter manner.]
See http://articles.latimes.com/2005/apr/24/opinion/oe-dubner24 for some info on drug dealer income, pulling from http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittVenkateshAnEconomicAnalysis2000.pdf
philg 36, given that neither entrertainers we mentioned have to commute 100 miles round trip in traffic and are catching their meals at McDonalds drive-through, their body build is too function of their respect for themselves and people around them.
I only know anecdotes about the delares: while a poor grad student at a college situated in an inner city I was sometimes visiting cheapest diners in a neignboring tough neigborhood with some grad student frends to save on daily meals. At a location nearby mercedeses with some reportedly local street gangsters stopped to pick up take-out lobsters at the most expensive place in the neighborhood. Other people were mentioning that they were drug dealers but I can not of course confirm it. There were many other tough looking people in the same nieghborhood who did not choose same lifestyle. $3 per hour looks fake, do they work for 9 to 5?
philg: I reread Ms. Stamp’s and I realized it isn’t about Harvey Weinstein at all. It is advice to men who want to be “good” and “decent” in the context of their ordinary lives. She makes no implication that the “good and decent men” she is speaking of would behave any differently than Harvey Weinstein if placed in his environment. Since she doesn’t make any such attribution at all, so how could she have made a “fundamental attribution error”?
Simpler formulation from 19th century:
https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/absolute-power-corrupts-absolutely.html
#40, that’s just a saying. It could be that too many no-good people wanted and achieved absolute power. But it is not a law of naiture or a higher decree. In 18th century George Washington refused suggestions of coronation. Or is it a myth? If not he could easily become a soverign using Continential Army, at times when people were used to monarchy. He easily supressed whisky rebellions by experienced guerilla fighters after US won War of Independence.
I don’t understand why this need to be debated, in my opinion, this is really simple:
1) Men or women with power will want more power and will abuse their power bet it sexually or in some other way. Such men or women will get away with their behavior and will do everything in their power to cover up their behavior until when the cover ups cannot be covered any more.
2) Men or women with no-power will give-in to get “power” to advance their lives be it by using their body or intellect or both. Such men or women will keep their “secrete of success” for as long as they can till when “the time is right” or when something in their brain “clicks” and tells them to speak out.
This is in our DNA, it is how and why we evolved and survive.
And to suggest that women in power do not abuse their powers, including sexually, is naive. It’s just that men will not report it as often as women because doing so it makes them look weak. Why? DNA.
“Scientists say women stare at other women’s chests as much as men”: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/scientists-say-women-stare-at-other-womens-chests-as-much-as-men/
“Ellen DeGeneres gets slammed on Twitter over sexist tweet to Katy Perry”: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/10/25/ellen-degeneres-gets-slammed-on-twitter-over-sexist-tweet-to-katy-perry.html
Marilyn Monroe: ‘I spent a great deal of time on my knees’, she recalled without rancour. ‘If you didn’t go along, there were twenty-five girls who would’.
http://filmstarfacts.com/2015/02/24/marilyn-monroe-1926-1962/
Yes, 25 out of 25 millions. What abput other 24 + million? Lacking right DNA mutation? That just enforces my point that most of people locked out of hollywwod acting jobs automatically due to their self-respec and not because of meritts. Sorry for passing judgement, but hollywood has no monopoly on beauty, nor it is in the top 5 places for it. Average joe can travel to a country with sexual mores, but only 1 in 100,000 does that
philg:
“I had the option to accept sexual favors from a lot of young actresses”
SHOULD READ
“I had the option to extract sexual favors from a lot of young actresses”
AND
“all of whom were eager to ingratiate themselves with Mr. Weinstein (if we can believe the press reports, there were varying degrees of eagerness)”
SHOULD READ
“all of whom were willing to ingratiate themselves with Mr. Weinstein (if we can believe the press reports, there were varying degrees of willingness)”
BECAUSE
Using “accept” in place of “extract” and “eager” in place of “willing” incorrectly shifts culpability from the person with power to the person without power.
———
“‘I spent a great deal of time on my knees’, she recalled without rancour. ”
At the time Marilyn was doing her thing it was also illegal for her to marry a black man in much of the country or a woman. I count making sexual harassment illegal as social progress in the same way as eliminating those restrictions on her freedom are social progress.
“This is in our DNA, it is how and why we evolved and survive.”, “absolute power corrupts absolutely”
Modern society is full of social norms, structures, and laws intended to moderate the ability of groups and individuals to exercise of power. I claim it is reasonable, realistic, and wise to expect people in positions of power in a workplace to refrain from using that power to obtain sexual attention or sexual favors from others in that workplace and to establish social norms, structures, and laws to make it so.