When the fix is in

I read many things about the role of misogyny in the 2016 election.

There were items about the higher standard women are held to for aesthetics and demeanor. There was definitely some focus on a double standard for liberals and conservatives, and I do want to get back to that later, but there were many ways in which sexism played a part and it looks different now.

At the time, I pretty much viewed the misogyny as a result of structural sexism; it was so ingrained into our society that it is easy to not even notice that sexism is happening, like with structural racism.

However, one of the more memorable examples of unfairness was Matt Lauer's twin interviews, where he lobbed softballs to Trump and interrupted Clinton while asking her stale questions. Given that those specific interviews were supposed to have a military focus, there could have been some interesting insight from the former secretary of state. Not on Lauer's watch. It was frustrating, but it was also possible to believe that it was just more boorish sexism.

Except Matt Lauer is a rapist. Yes, they mainly talk about sexual harassment, but at least one of the stories about him is something that you have to call rape unless you are specifically avoiding the word in order to not be too sensational (which happens more than it should).

Charlie Rose has sexual misconduct allegations. Les Moonves has sexual assault allegations.

See, I use the careful language too there. It's partly a habit, and also partly a deference to due process, which is not an unreasonable thing.

This post isn't about any one of them anyway; it is about how so much of the media is controlled not by mere sexists but by actual predators.

Funny thing about Les Moonves; one of my most recent Twitter dust-ups was with someone who "works in Hollywood". He was swearing up and down that diverse casting doesn't make money and studios shying away from diversity has nothing to do with racism, just finances. I provided many examples of films making money overseas while being diverse, but those were all cherry picking which is no good compared to actual studies and he blocked me for being closed-minded (which is much easier than providing data).

I had some thoughts about how studies and studios can and do cherry pick data, but it came back to me after reading Linda Bloodworth Thomason's letter to Les Moonves:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/designing-women-creator-les-moonves-not-all-harassment-is-sexual-1142448

How about that? She was making them money and getting critical acclaim too, and yet he still kept stifling her career despite her track record. It's almost as if sometimes they do care about other things than money.

Don't get me wrong; I am positive that he could tell himself that no one would want to watch this if he didn't want to, but these kinds of decisions happen.

With Moonves, he was also on the record as saying that Trump was great for CBS, if not for America. That just sounded like vulgar capitalism. However, when you are someone who benefits from a structure of power that allows you to sexually assault women, it is plausible that there might be some bias against the strong woman getting more power. There could be some kinship with the other sexual predator.

I remember noticing in the CBS lineup a lot of shows with crime enforcement teams made of up rebellious individuals. I found it interesting that they managed to be both authoritarian and anti-authoritarian, which is kind of perfect for adhering to the status quo but still believing you are a rugged individual playing by your own rules.

I didn't think about how many of those shows were procedurals where the majority of the victims were women until after reading her letter, but it makes sense. That goes along with the status quo too.

Think about the power of what you see. That includes the movies and television shows you watch (Weinstein, Spacey, Toback, Moonves, Louis C.K., Ratner), the news you watch and hear (Lauer, Rose, Brokaw, Halperin, Anthony Stack at NBC News had a reputation for protecting predators, O'Reilly though it pains me to call Fox "news"), and it includes the judges who make the laws, though I think that needs its own post.

The question for today is what kind of environment does this create?

Definitely one where rape accusations are considered more damaging than being raped.

It is a world where having wealth and fame and retiring with a large payout, or not getting a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court counts as a life ruined, but PTSD doesn't. Also, anything you do to make things better for people with PTSD - like trigger warnings - will be mocked.

In this world being raped while drunk means it was your fault, but raping while drunk is not your fault.

It is clearly a world with a lot more predators than you see on the surface, it looks like more things will be floating up.

Also, in this world even the men who don't rape and harass still tend to get pretty angry when women talk about the men who do. They should think about why that bugs them.

But mainly this is a world that ignores female pain. That is the accepted price of male convenience and success. That is the bonus for the highest success.

Fight your initial reaction to see this as an exaggeration and just sit with it for a while.

Then you need to be ready to fight it.