Les Moonves: #HeToo
I confess that I’d never heard of Les Moonves before the recent accusations of sexual harassment came out against him.
I also have a general attitude against unverified allegations of this type, which I’ve expressed many times before, and it goes like this: I don’t believe or disbelieve people based on the group or class to which they belong. So I don’t “believe the women,” and I don’t “believe the children.” Nor do I believe the men, or the white people, or the black people, or the rich people, or the poor people, or the beautiful people, or the ugly people, or the charming people, or the obnoxious people. I think each case has to be decided on its own merits, and when we have trial by accusation in the press we don’t have a whole lot of ways to decide about the truth or falsehood of someone’s claims. The court system is flawed as well, particularly in “he-said/she-said” cases, and yet it’s better than the gossip system.
So that’s the background.
It is possible that Les Moonves is not only guilty of every despicable act alleged in Ronan Farrow’s latest article for the New Yorker, it’s actually possible that Moonves is even worse than the article says and that these accusations are only the tip of a considerable iceberg of abuse. Maybe even the parties involved don’t know anymore, not exactly and precisely anyway, because tales and memories can morph over time. That said, it’s also possible that Moonves is innocent, or at least not as guilty as the article indicates.
However, the fact that there are many accusers who describe a somewhat similar m.o.—and who apparently have told their stories to friends and loved ones for many years, probably without comparing notes because it was before the #MeToo frenzy began—tends to favor the idea that Moonves is certainly guilty of some very bad behavior of the sexual variety.
But one thing I noticed about the Moonves story—which matches the pattern of nearly all of these stories concerning sexual abuse by powerful men—is the varying reactions of the women. A few tell him unequivocally, right from the start, that his advances are extremely unwelcome. That doesn’t save them from being hit upon, nor does it save them from threats to their careers. But it does make the situation quite unambiguous in terms of what the alleged perpetrator Moonves knew or should have known about whether these particular women were amendable to his—shall we say—charms. Women who make their refusals clear and unequivocal are giving him all the information he needs to realize that his moves are unwanted in their case.
But many of these women Moonves and others hit on give these men very ambiguous or even friendly or jokey reactions. It may be—probably is—out of a habit of affability, and/or a desire to not make waves, and/or fear of the power of the men to end their careers, and/or just plain physical fright. The problem with such cases, though, is that the message of “no” is extremely unclear. And if more women seem affable and jokey about it compared to the women who respond with an unequivocal “No!”, then a man just might think what he was doing was no big deal. In particular, a narcissistic and arrogant man would think that.
From Farrow’s article, here is Moonves himself speaking recently about the accusations [emphasis mine]:
Throughout my time at CBS, we have promoted a culture of respect and opportunity for all employees, and have consistently found success elevating women to top executive positions across our company. I recognize that there were times decades ago when I may have made some women uncomfortable by making advances. Those were mistakes, and I regret them immensely. But I always understood and respected—and abided by the principle—that ‘no’ means ‘no,’ and I have never misused my position to harm or hinder anyone’s career. This is a time when we all are appropriately focused on how we help improve our society, and we at CBS are committed to being part of the solution.” According to CBS, there have been no misconduct claims and no settlements against Moonves during his twenty-four years at the network.
Well, maybe that’s just self-serving BS, or maybe it’s what he really believes. Personally, I think the truth is “both.” People often fool themselves, particularly when many years have passed, into thinking they are more innocent than they actually are.
There are varieties of “no”. “Oh, sir….” in a falsetto is one thing. “NO, you butthead!” Transgressing boundaries, possibly in trying to find them, can get a No of one degree or another.
You have to be a certain kind of jerk to think that a hard NO! in a certain type of situation doesn’t have applicability when a different woman is in that situation.
OTOH, when I was, half a century back, loosely affiliated with the Dean of Students office, I was presumed to know stuff and people should talk to me to find it out. “What do I have to do to get him to make a move?” was a question I heard from one woman or another maybe half a dozen times.
Somebody said ambiguity made dating fun. But when you have a power differential, you should be very, very careful.
Your commentary about the difficulty of knowing who is telling the truth in these situations is spot on. Very. difficult. Period.
As you state, there are different reactions by different people to various degrees of “sexual assault.” Some women are mortified by being called “Honey” or “Hon” or “Sweetie.” Others don’t bat an eye lash at such terms. Some women are mortified by a man suddenly trying to kiss them uninvited. Others will just tell the kisser to keep his lips off her and mark him down as a dirty old man. They don’t think it’s a big deal.
That people are losing their jobs and livelihoods over such things, which amount to a “he said, she said” uncertain state of affairs is cause for concern. A person’s ability to support him/herself is a serious matter.
What to do about this state of affairs? I confess to have no good ideas. Maybe a campaign to establish ground rules for what is acceptable Surely, at a minimum, men and women should be able to say; “no, stop, or don’t do that again;” with some assurance that their wishes will be honored.
You have covered all the bases on this subject. It is easy to believe the women are being truthful or at least to some degree. It is also easy to believe the men are guilty of taking advantage of females due to their staus as Mr. Bigshot. But we don’t really know.
I am tried of this subject, but then I really am a gentlemen where my demeanor towards women is concerned. I never engaged in ‘locker room talk’. Thanks mom and dad.
Back when Letterman was sorta funny he used to make lots of jokes about Les…brave Dave sticking it to the boss or something. But you never saw the CBS honcho anywhere near the camera.
And maybe it’s just me…but I tend to believe every one of these sorts of accusations out of Hollywood & DC…Same people different make-up. Power corrupts you know.
J.J.:
In the case of Moonves (and many others, although not all), it’s not just that he made some unwanted passes at women. Some of the passes are alleged to have been more than kisses, and border on mild assault (although he always backed off ultimately). But even worse, IMHO, are the allegations that he threatened to fire people or harm their careers if they told on him, or retaliated after they fended him off.
The whole situation (#MeToo, sexual harassment, he-said/she-said, corporate CYA) is completely unstable. Never mind the inventory of past predation or indiscretion. Never mind the insuperable priority of current management to clean this crap up and “move on.” Never mind the inherent weakness of the evidence, often from decades ago and little more than unsupported swearing to what one might remember about whatever one might remember of something that might have happened.
The instability is the metaphorical equivalent of using a lit match to find the exit from a powder magazine.
Too many have been exposed as long time predatory abusers at CBS for Moonves to have long promoted a “culture of respect and opportunity”. The fish rots from the head down.
This subject is sort of worn out for me. Also: I’ve never been a big fan of Ronan Farrow. Back to the Hollywood casting couch — that’s almost always been how young actresses got parts. Not a very pretty business when closely examined.
Moonves was doing what many in power are tempted to do. Those who succumb to using their power to exploit others are scumbags of the worst sort. Moonves may well be a scumbag of the worst kind. I don’t know. That said, how do we propose to stop such behavior? With a Spanish inquisition sort of campaign accusing and punishing all accused transgressors, both the innocent and the truly wicked? So many of these expose’s come from years past (often many years past ) with rumor, innuendo, hearsay (everyone knew!), and long delayed reporting as evidence. How do we separate the wheat from the chaff? Can we put people in a court under oath as happened with Bill Cosby? Or will the accused be tried in the court of public opinion and punished by loss of job? Where are the standards? Where is the justice? Most of what is happening today resembles mob justice. Sad.
People may have wondered why I was so hostile to Hollywood starting from 2007, although for various reasons I wasn’t reckless enough to show it in the open except whenever people would talk about watching movies in the US.
Now you don’t have to wonder. Some of us already knew about this through our own powers and methods. Meanwhile, the rest of humanity merely has to wait until the media tells them what is going on, THEN THEY BELIEVE. Not before.
Back to the Hollywood casting couch — that’s almost always been how young actresses got parts.
Wait until the media tells you about child eating cannibalism and pedos. Then you might start getting worried, but not until then.