The power behind sexual harassment

Bombshell

In 2017, the #MeToo movement triggered by the Harvey Weinstein sexual assault case quickly swept the world. Against this background, "Breaking News" used a news report-style approach to adapt it based on the real incidents of the news tycoon Roger Ailes's sexual assault, focusing on the highly controversial topic of sexual assault. The film also showed the subtle connection between the parties and the US election, and it was released before the new US election, which made us have to think about the political power behind it.

PART ONE: Definition and controversy of "sexual assault"

First of all, it is necessary to make a definition of "sexual assault" to understand its controversy.

The "sexual assault" or "sexual harassment" we are talking about corresponds to the English "sexual harassment", which is different from the rape "rape", which is basically limited to workplaces, campuses, and public places, mainly acquaintance relations, and is related to sex and gender. , The infringement of the sexual act occurred or did not occur in substance. Broadly speaking, it can be extended to non-acquaintances, including acts of sexual or gender-based violence. Although the development of the #MeToo movement has a clear tendency to be victims of women, let's put aside gender and return to the definition itself, because in reality there are indeed cases where men are sexually assaulted by women or homosexuals.

According to some real cases shown in the movie, sexual assault can be divided into three levels:

The first level: verbal/visual offense. For example, it is mentioned in the film that Trump compares women to fat pigs, dogs, sloppy ghosts, calls Megyn Bimbo (big breasted beauty), and Gretchen accuses Roger of implying "oral sex" and so on. It also includes looking up and down the body of the harassed object.

The second level: physical touching. In the film, Kayla talks to her superior Bill Shine in the conference room. Bill deliberately closes the curtains and knocks on Kayla's leg at the end of the conversation.

The third level: having sex. In the film, Kayla admits that, at Roger's suggestion, she had sex with Roger in order to "get a place for herself."

Controversy of sexual assault:

From this, it can be concluded that chivalrous sexual assault refers to the purposeful and initiative initiated by the party in power, who uses power to lure or coerce the other party to accept different levels of sexual harassment. On the whole, this process is often a gradual transition from the first level to the third level. The difference between it and rape is that when the opponent explicitly refuses at one of the stages, those in power often do not force sex, but Threaten with power (for example, after Megyn recalled her rejection of Roger, Roger asked her when the contract expired). Why should we define this? Because rape cases actually have relatively clear legal boundaries, and the reason why sexual assault is controversial lies in the controversial nature of the definition. There are two key points in this, that is, those in power must have "active" and "coerced". condition.

First of all, "active" is the easiest point for those in power to fight back when they face allegations of sexual assault. They often pointed out that the plaintiff was purposeful and deliberately approached and tempted him in exchange for benefits. Faced with Gretchen's allegations in the film, Roger's reaction was the same. He suggested that when he was casting a cast, the eyes of these candidates actively expressed interest in him. And these women who accused him, to some extent, did get "benefits", such as becoming anchors. Such counterattacks often make the prosecutor a target of criticism, and it also creates a reality that many victims are unwilling to make public. On the other hand, is there any person in power who passively accepts sexual invitations in reality? Of course there are, such as power and sex transactions, and when the transaction is unsuccessful or after the transaction is completed, the people in power are accused. This has become the most criticized place of the #MeToo movement, including Trump also publicly stated that this is against powerful men. Is unfair.

Second, the controversy over whether "coercion" occurs often lies in the difficulty of obtaining evidence. For example, out of "leg control" Roger's personal preference, Fox's requirement that women wear short skirts will definitely not be written as a company rule, but a hidden rule. When someone refuses a request for sexual harassment from a person in power, the company will never use this as a reason to expel him, but use other 10,000 reasons. For example, Roger proposed that Gretchen left because of her decline in ratings. This is why the previous female anchor was expelled after refusing to be sexually harassed, but the complaint failed.

Therefore, Gretchen's accusation against Roger in the film can be said to be a textbook case. After Gretchen was dismissed, the evidence she had was only the recording of Roger's verbal harassment. Based on these alone, she would definitely be refuted because of insufficient evidence of "active" and "coerced", or received very low compensation. But Gretchen is not a media person. She uses the media's operating methods: first accuse Roger of sexual harassment, let Roger publicly deny "active" and "coerced", and at the same time cause his reputation damage to Gretchen, which will provide Gretchen with greater compensation in the future. Then she waited for the testimony of other victims and added audio recordings to confirm that Roger’s previous denials were cheating, so as to gain an advantage in public opinion, which not only satisfies the “active” conditions, and at the same time completes her dismissal and sex. The connection between the two things is the evidence collection of "coercion". The most important thing is that she sued Roger personally rather than Fox, thus cutting interest groups, using the conflict between Roger and the Murdoch family to defeat him, thereby obtaining a huge compensation of 20 million.

However, behind this successful case, Gretchen once faced a huge risk that no other victims would stand up, and an indispensable condition to reverse the situation is the "power behind power" mentioned by Megyn on the 8th floor at the beginning. Imagine if Megyn had not acted as the "undercover" of the Murdoch family and encouraged other victims to testify, Gretchen would probably not have succeeded. So just as another topic alluded to in the film: behind the controversy over sexual assault is nothing more than a game of power.

PART TWO: Equality and Feminism

Although in the previous content, we have always used the name "in power" to avoid gender-oriented descriptions, we still inevitably lead this topic to confrontation between the two genders. The reason is simple: those in power Most of them are men, or in other words, it is now a patriarchal society. When a society is dominated by a certain group, it will inevitably trigger resistance from other groups. In essence, contemporary feminists’ resistance to patriarchy is tantamount to slave society’s resistance to slave owners, feudal society’s peasants’ resistance to landlords, colored people’s resistance to racists, sexual minorities’ resistance to sexual discrimination, etc. Pointed to a common voice: equal rights.

Why is there a demand for equal rights? Yuval Harari’s "A Brief History of Mankind" points out that the reason why Homo sapiens can defeat Neanderthals, who are stronger, is because of collective associations. Therefore, individual people are always labeled with different labels and divided into different groups, which constitutes the basic way of thinking of human naming subjects. Individuals choose their own different labels and stand on different teams under different environmental pressures, which forms a political group within the environment. For example, in the film, there is a small team centered on Megyn. They are an interest group in the workplace, and when Roger deceives employees that he will lay off other people when he steps down, the men in this interest group choose to be divided into gender groups. Formed a different camp between men and women, Roger and Murdoch. Similarly, when we discuss feminist issues today, many men may stand on opposite sides, but in reality, when these people use the family as a unit to fight against external oppression, they may in turn support the interests of their wives and daughters. Therefore, the essence of equal rights is the process by which different human interests collectively balance each other. The word "loyalty" is repeatedly mentioned in the film, which requires individuals to strengthen their camp. In fact, the essence of equal rights is the process of collectively balancing the different interests of mankind.

The film mentioned the Fox company’s slogan "Fair & Balanced". The most critical sentence in Kayla’s answer was "Roger gave those who have no right to speak, thus balancing public opinion." There are two meanings: one is that the US news industry plays a role of balancing power, and the other is that the process of equal rights is actively implemented by those in power. This may be an expression of the nature of equal rights and the free power advocated by the United States. On the one hand, public opinion can make various voices, and on the other hand, the initiative is still in the hands of those in power.

The whole film is about such a process of redistribution of power. The space of the film expresses two levels of power transfer.

The first level of power transfer is the redistribution of power by the incumbent Roger through sex trade, Gretchen’s resistance to Roger, on the surface, is a victory for feminism, but in essence it is the transfer of power from Roger to the Murdoch family. Handed over to a more powerful owner, the male power has not been changed, and even other male bosses who have been sexually assaulted have not been involved in any way. This is the reason why Kayla was disappointed and left, and also the reason why her lesbian friend put away the photos again.

The second level of power transfer is: the political power of the US election linked by the media's right to speak. Based on my very superficial understanding of American politics, I will make three background supplements:

First, the United States is an overall right-leaning country. In the movie, Roger said, "News is like a ship. When you release the rudder, it will desperately shift to the left." I made a simple explanation, that is, when talking about Roger's life experience, he mentioned that "he may miss the United States before."

Second, Clinton’s Democratic Party is a leftist and liberal majority. It is said that it will not be the choice of conservatives, but there are many conservative political tendencies in her campaign speech, so conservatives chose Hillary and Tron back then. Generally speaking, it is controversial.

Third, the Democratic Party represented by the former U.S. President Barack Obama suppressed the rightists in political power, which may become an important consideration for the conservative party's choice of party in the 2016 U.S. general election.

The information given in the film includes: First of all, Roger is a staunch supporter of the Republican Party. Before the founding of Fox, he was the PR brain behind the three Republican candidates Nixon, Reagan, and Bush. He helped them become president. He remained in the 2016 general election. Trump supports the Republican Party; secondly, this media building gathers all conservatives in power. From the background of Roger's founding of Fox, Fox's conservative tendencies and support for the Republican Party are actually influenced by Roger's power; Finally, Roger pointed out that the Murdoch family supports the democratic party Hillary Clinton. However, when Trump came to power and the Murdoch family hiding behind appeared on the stage, the old Murdoch connected Trump's phone and called him "Donald", and those in power renewed the alliance of power. As a result, Megyn on behalf of Murdoch in front of the stage criticized Trump for being no longer important. They do not have names for the powerless. They are just weapons and victims of power. This is why Megyn was disappointed at the end of the film.

Dig deeper, this is not shown in the film. Clinton’s remarks in the election back then ostensibly supported women’s rights, but in fact it was still a political transfer of power in order to win over voters, forming an isomorphic relationship with the story told by the film. In fact, the term feminism has always been inseparable from political power throughout history. As early as 1791, France’s Olamp de Guge issued the world’s first declaration of women’s rights to counteract the so-called "human rights" exclusion of women in many legislations at the time, including the U.S. "Declaration of Independence." , France's "Napoleonic Constitution" and "Declaration of Human Rights", she demanded the abolition of male privileges, and was eventually sent to the guillotine. Afterwards, the "Declaration on Feminist Rights" became a weapon of the Communist International to criticize capitalism, including what we know as "women can hold up half the sky", behind which is the confrontation between the world's bipolar powers. Thus, the deconstruction of "Power behind power" is completed.

So, as a weapon of political power, can feminism win? I am more pessimistic. I think that the state apparatus established under patriarchy cannot truly achieve equal rights for men and women, and the feminist movement is nothing more than the redistribution of a small part of the power of those in power. However, even so, I still think that the feminist movement is active and necessary, and it is the progress of social civilization.

In fact, in the last 100 years, women have gradually gained political rights, labor rights, free control of wealth, and the right to participate in social activities. In the film, Gretchen and Megyn both expressed a strong dislike of "materialized women", but in fact women have always existed as male "objects" for thousands of years: under the system of monogamy and multiple concubines in ancient China , A man or an elder wife can sell his concubine at any time, and he invented the "Golden Lotus", a perverted aesthetic with small feet. From "Jin Ping Mei", you can see the low status of women; the West is no exception, to the Victorian period The waistband is still popular, which is extremely damaging to women’s bodies, and the Western version of "The King of Chu is so thin, and many starve to death in the palace"; in the British drama "Upstart", we see that women in Shakespeare’s period cannot be performed on stage. , They are regarded as "people without thoughts" and excluded from the category of citizens. Linda Knocklin’s "Why Are There No Great Female Artists" explains how women are degraded in the profession from the perspective of art history, while Beauvoir’s "Second Sex" makes changes to the historical status of women. Comprehensive interpretation.

The progressive significance of the feminist movement lies in the fact that since the beginning of the 20th century, it has not only won real power for women, but also changed the cultural concept of the patriarchal society. It can be seen from the changes in the status of women in Hollywood films, such as Ilsa in "Casablanca", her choice and actions are completely arranged by fate and her husband. In Hollywood films of the same period, women are often sexy, but It also lacks initiative, depends on men, and relies on the male protagonist to save destiny. Today, the image of the heroine has risen, from Princess Leia in "Star Wars" to Wonder Woman, from "The Handmaid's Tale" to "The Great Mrs. Maisel". This kind of heroine temperament has not only formed The change in the overall social environment also comes from the awakening of individual women’s self-awareness, which is a transformation in the long history of patriarchal domestication for thousands of years, just like Anna in Lessing’s "Golden Notebook" and Kayla in the film, It takes many setbacks to grow up as an independent woman. To this day, there is still a considerable part of women’s self-serving consciousness, attaching themselves to their husbands and families, abandoning their social status, independent financial ability, and even their own emotional pursuits, and perform marriages step by step and in accordance with secular regulations. They are like Songlian played by Gong Li in "Raise the Red Lantern". They are obviously intellectual women, but they are willing to be the fourth concubines. There are still many Songlians in today's society. However, with the progress of society, the proportion of Songlian in the female group will gradually decrease, because sooner or later the dividend of the development of social civilization will expand downward from the center of power, causing women to begin to desire power. Therefore, the feminist movement is historical. inevitable. From an economic point of view, the process of equalization of power is like a transition from a highly centralized feudal society to a company with all employees, which will inevitably stimulate a certain amount of production power and bring economic benefits. From an individual point of view, more and more men in society have a need for partners, gradually shifting from satisfying fertility to spiritual pursuit, and this demand is also demanding more women with independent thinking. So, whether it is a man or a woman, why don't we accept such a change?

Of course some people will question: Is there any overcorrection of feminism and the feminist movement? there must be. The process of power struggle is bound to be mixed with violence and sacrifice. There must be many Roger and Kayla victims. This is inevitable. Did the landlords with good conduct also fight the local tyrants to divide the land? But the result of the struggle is the moderate decentralization of those in power, the increase of the proportion of women in the power structure, the adjustment of laws and public opinion, and the redistribution of power to reduce violence and sacrifices, forming a kind of "Fair & Balanced".

What is feminism?

I don't think that the image of a strong and powerful woman is equivalent to feminism, because just as we talk about fairness, it is impossible to equalize everyone. The power of feminism is still the power of a few individuals, not the whole of women. I think that power and power just represent the way of thinking of male power. For example, in the 1980s and 1990s, Western women had a specific power dressing: high-padded suits, short skirts, and high heels. This is exactly what women imitated under the rules of the male game. .

The feminist rights that I understand are first of all respect for de-genderization and respect for each other's feelings. On the basis of respect, it is gender and sexual freedom, whether the external image of a woman is tough or weak, whether she wears short skirts or pants, even whether she is a company executive or a housewife, and even the part that shows weakness and shows feminine characteristics appropriately This all belongs to individual freedom, not the same as feminism.

PART THREE: News report-style narrative style

Finally, we return to the film itself. Judging from the style of the film, it is a news report-style film. In order to express this, the director deliberately flattened the expression of the characters’ inner emotions with the language of the lens. Some characters even spoke directly to the lens to the audience, creating a “play”. feel. For characters other than the main characters, there is almost no complete outline, drawing references to emotional tendencies. This creates a distance between the audience and the character. It is difficult for you to bring yourself into one of the characters. For this reason, the audience has the right to think calmly, such as:

Did Megyn and Gretchen have sex with Roger?

Was Gretchen's purpose to expose Roger, or was it a premeditated blackmail?

After leaving Fox, can Kayla get rid of or even change the workplace environment of sexual harassment?

Under greater political power, will gender equality be affected?

...

Just like news reports, the film did not give a clear point of view, and it was successful in the sense of its expression, but it made the movie lack emotional resonance, and for me the pleasure of film appreciation was less. This is what I think is a pity.

View more about Bombshell reviews