HARVEY WEINSTEIN
Why it Hurt: Because it caused all hell (or at least all of Hollywood) to break loose.
What Happened: Harvey Weinstein, one of Hollywood’s most powerful film moguls, was outted this October by an explosive New York Times article. Since its publication, 50+ women have stepped up to describe nearly three decades worth of horrific encounters with the producer. Accusations range from Lupita Nyong’o’s powerful op-ed about a forced massage to three separate rape allegations.
Why it’s (Extra) Wrong: Weinstein used power, both in terms of social stature and sheer physical size, to dominate ambitious young women who were attempting to break into professional acting. His role as one of the primary gatekeepers to Hollywood’s fame and success allowed him to set a precedent in which such behaviour was deemed acceptable, thus creating an industry culture characterized by rampant sexual misconduct. The systemic extent of this issue has been reflected by the numerous other celebrity assault scandals that have come to light since.
KEVIN SPACEY
Why it Hurt: Because it showed that there might actually be a wrong way to come out.
What Happened: Actor Anthony Rapp came forward in an interview with Buzzfeed regarding an unsolicited sexual advance that Kevin Spacey had made when Rapp was only 14. Spacey responded to these allegations with a semi-apologetic tweet while also publicly identifying as a gay man for the first time. This attempted deflection failed in the face of what is now over 45 rapidly mounting testimonies of Spacey’s groping and other forms of sexual harassment.
Why it’s (Extra) Wrong: Kevin Spacey could not have chosen a more inopportune time to come out. By doing so as an answer to Anthony Rapp’s accusation, he only managed to strengthen the vastly problematic (and false) link that society has invented between homosexuality and pedophilia. Basically, by using his sexuality as a scapegoat for his behaviour, Spacey fuelled one of the most harmful stereotypes that stigmatizes much of the LGBTQ+ community.
Moreover, this wasn’t the only problematic excuse that the actor employed. In his original statement on Twitter, Spacey characterized his actions as “deeply inappropriate drunken behaviour” as opposed to blatant sexual assault. Don’t try this one in Canada, kids – according to Section 273.2 of the Criminal Code, belief in consent is not a defence when “the accused’s belief arose from the accused’s self-induced intoxication.”
ED WESTWICK
Why it Hurt: Because he was our teenage heartthrob.
What Happened: In an unsettling imitation of his most well-known role, Ed Westwick has been accused of sexually assaulting three women in 2014. Two of these cases are said to have been facilitated by a producer friend of Westwick’s who introduced him to the women, thereby making the whole situation even creepier. The actor has vehemently denied all of the claims, which are currently under investigation by the LAPD.
Why it’s (Extra) Wrong: The fact that Westwick is mostly famous for his portrayal of Gossip Girl’s Chuck Bass makes this scandal sting a little more, because it’s a classic “A leads to B” example of how rape culture exists on a spectrum. Re-watch the hit CW series and you may be surprised to learn that Chuck Bass’s character was originally shaped by his attempted rape of both Jenny and Serena in the first episodes. The fact that both GG’s characters and viewers were all too willing to forget this, and instead begin rooting for Chuck as half of one of TV’s most beloved couples, is deeply troubling. The act of forgiving, or worse ignoring, despicable behaviour even when placed in a fictional setting is one way that such behaviour is perpetuated in the real world; Ed Westwick’s actions are proof of that.
LOUIS CK
Why it hurt: Because we thought he was one of the good guys.
What happened: In another New York Times bombshell, five women came forward to give haunting accounts of how he masturbated, or requested to masturbate, in front of them. If you’re in a state of shocked disbelief regarding these accusations against the seemingly progressive comedian, bear in mind that nearly all of them have been confirmed by third parties. The women, each of whom were working in comedy at the time of their respective encounters with CK, discussed how inappropriate raunchiness is often accepted within the industry, but that “the line gets crossed when you take all your clothes off and start masturbating.” Seems pretty straightforward, honestly.
Why it’s (Extra) Wrong: Those who defend Louis CK’s abhorrent actions have argued that he asked first. While this is true in some of the cases described by the NYT’s article, the fact that people consider this a legitimate defense begs for some Consent 101 training. One must also understand that consent is not the absence of a NO – it’s the presence of an ENTHUSIASTIC YES. Louis CK and his defenders failed to recognize this.
Furthermore, while these events occurred in the USA, let’s again use Canada’ Criminal Code as a basic primer on consent. The code states that consent goes out the window when someone is coerced into an activity (i.e. watching masturbation) by the other party’s abuse of “a position of trust, power or authority.” In these cases, the comedian first abused trust by masking his intentions with a collegial façade and the pretence of talking comedy when requesting these women join him privately. He then abused power, continuously getting away with his actions through the threat (explicit or not) that he could easily end their burgeoning careers.