Gender Equity is the cure for Sexual Abuse in the Entertainment Industry

the Structures that Nurture rape culture and Those That Could Move its Resolution

Meissa Hampton

In the past several weeks, the press has focused considerable attention on the pervasive sexual abuses infesting Hollywood and the Media industry more broadly. It feels like an important and potentially transformative moment that may affect real change, not just in the media industry but more broadly throughout our social and professional spheres. To those ends we should not just investigate the scale and degree of sexual predation surrounding celebrities and power-players, we should consider the role the Media plays in shaping our national and global cultures.

While the current firestorm over sexual abuse feels like an important and potentially transformative moment that may affect real change, there is a danger that dealing with these individual instances of sexual predation will serve as a panacea for the underlying cause of such abuse — the dramatic power imbalance that pervades the Media.

It is by now widely accepted that gender inequity is driving sexual harassment and abuse. It plays out similarly in Politics. We see this imbalance of power in Hollywood not only emboldens predators, but it perpetuates perspectives of women that, in turn, encourage predation, discrimination and abuse. When women are disempowered and de-valued, they are much more vulnerable to predation. It is for this reason that the horrors of Harvey Weinstein and James Toback and Matt Lauer, while graphic, are also in fact unsurprising. These horrors are the inevitable consequence of the way Hollywood sees and represents women to the world.

These conceptualizations of woman in Hollywood are also unsurprising given who directs Hollywood’s conceptualizations. Most of the media industry is run by men — heads of networks, writers, directors and media makers are all predominately men. Film and media crew — the Directors of Photography, the gaffers, the Assistant Directors, the electricians — overwhelmingly men. This creates a “boys club” atmosphere on most working sets. According to The Hollywood Diversity Report from the Ralph J. Bunche Center — UCLA, at the helm, only 8% of theatrical films are directed by women and only 13% are written by women. The decision makers and content creators are male. While an estimated 70% of actors are female, only 29% of principle speaking roles in Hollywood films are available to women. Fewer roles are available to women of color. The competition makes chances of success similar to those of winning the lottery.

As a result of these inequities, Hollywood’s and, as a consequence, our society’s conceptualization of women is marginalized, hyper-sexualized and de-valued. Of the roles available to women in any given year, roughly a third involve nudity or sexually revealing attire. This is true for more than a third of actors portraying characters aged 13–21. Female performers who are not willing to portray these objectifying roles are excluded from the scant opportunities that exist and potentially from the business entirely. Nudity and sex simulation are very much understood as a rite of passage for female artists who express themselves by acting for the screen. If you track the career of any successful actress you would find it difficult to nose out one who didn’t have to agree to these terms. Actresses will often hear at a seminal point in our careers that the breakout role we’ve been offered involves nudity and that if we are not comfortable with it, we are quite welcome to understand that our opportunities end there. We must agree to submit to our own objectification. This choice is typically presented after we’ve invested in bachelors, sometimes masters degrees — years of theatre studies, years more of bit parts, side jobs and rejections. As we agree to play these roles, one might suggest that we have been complicit in our objectification and perhaps we should hold ourselves accountable to the larger, figurative role we play in the objectification of all women when we agree to play these objectifying roles, but you can see that the ‘choice’ with which we’ve been presented is further from an autonomous choice and closer to coercion or blackmail.

An actress may choose to use nudity to tell her character’s story and there can be artful stories told about sex and sexuality that would naturally include those elements, but we work in a business where the phrase “nudity required” not only exists in job postings, but is so prevalent it is included on casting sites as a tick box.

This is a business where an employer can require nudity of skilled, unionized professionals as terms of employment. Submitting to our own objectification and hyper-sexualization has become a job requirement. The normalization of harassment and even assault has not been far behind.

Actors are freelancers. We have no job security and no HR. If we say no to these objectifications, to sexual advances, if we speak out about harassment and assault, we may find ourselves conspicuously and indefinitely out of work. This highly competitive trade can easily move on from someone that has been described as “difficult” and as simply as that, we lose our investment, our means; our dreams.

Most actors are not famous, not rich or glamorous. Most of us work for a living. We work in supporting roles, are day players, character actors, background players, off-broadway performers, Independent film actors. We are voice actors, we host industrial videos and the occasional commercial. We work hard. We make ends meet. We occupy the same spaces as the celebrities who have spoken out these past weeks. It is not just the Weinsteins of the Industry that have and abuse power. We meet the same aggressions, but wait with greater uncertainty about our next opportunity to create. We have no access to the press. And yet some of us, many of us have said no. Some have spoken out. Many of our careers have suffered for it.

The diminution and objectification of women on screen has contributed to a culture of sexual abuse and harassment. It has contributed to rape culture. Similarly, those women in the industry who are speaking up can contribute to diminution of that culture and the silence that nurtures it.

The response to the #metoo movement has been overwhelming and we are hear new accusations nearly every day. The courage these women have shown in sharing their stories with the world is heroic and inspiring. The stories themselves are alarming. But we should be careful to note that this heroism may betray the reality that most women are still terrified to speak out against predators who hold positions of power in their lives and in their workplaces. The risk of retaliation is still very real and rewards for speaking out are scant or non-existent. We are left with no real defense against predators. Accusing our abusers typically only results in greater trauma. We want careers, not lawsuits.

Unfortunately, the very institutions that could reverse this trend — the ones with the power to organize toward a change — are asleep at the wheel. While the Screen Actors Guild (SAG-AFTRA) has done extraordinary work to standardize base wages and ensure the general safety and suitability of the work environment of its members, the reports of harassment and assault in Hollywood that have surfaced in recent weeks demonstrate that they have not adequately addressed discrimination, harassment, assault and ultimately inequity.

With the input and support of my peers, I authored a petition to the Union three years ago about this issue with a proposal to address gender inequities and the culture of sex abuse holistically. At that time, we asked that the Union convene a targeted committee to address inequity, discrimination and assault. In addition to our petition, I offered an extensive list of actionable suggestions to move the needle on gender inequity. But, the Union was largely unresponsive. Though I did meet with some leaders of the Union on behalf of our petitioners, no real action resulted. The Union has committees that represent the interests of minority groups, and when I met with leaders from the Women’s Committee, I met not only with disinterest, but real hostility, bullying and seeming annoyance at having been called to action. The tenets of the patriarchal order are known to reward women who conform to male expectations. It similarly rewards those who sympathize with the male perspective. Perhaps this reaction was driven by Committee members’ acceptance of the limits of their power to fight the established patriarchal order. None-the-less, we have understood the response from the Union as not just a de-prioritization of the issue, but a real contribution to the culture of silence that has emboldened these crimes.

This culture of silence is also now coming to light. As these stories of abuse proliferate, so too does the faint murmur of muffled voices saying ‘everyone knew he was like that,’ it was essentially ‘an open secret.’ What is now becoming clear is that the relevant players and organizations with power and the means to intercede knew. There are agents, directors, casting directors and assistants who knew. The Union knew that women were being harassed and assaulted under their jurisdiction and made a clear choice to not address the problem proactively. It is their stated purpose to provide these protections. They betrayed that promise.

SAG-AFTRA has a duty and a responsibility to address this issue, not only because a reversal of gender inequity in Media is a necessary precursor to ending sexual predation, but also because the media that the industry produces influences the way America, and the rest of the world, conceptualizes the role of women. When women are marginalized, hyper-sexualized and excluded from leadership, the established overwhelmingly male perspectives on women that make it to our screens only reinforce women’s suppression and exploitation. With our attention attuned to the misconduct in our Industry, the Union has been presented with a great opportunity to affect real change.

It is for this reason that SAG-AFTRA must take bold and decisive action. The Union is in a position to:

· Reaffirm a commitment to be an effective vehicle for a culture shift toward greater equity and a proactive force against discrimination, harassment and assault.

· Conduct a climate test — survey its membership to understand the extent of the issue, measure the prevalence and gauge the experiences with which our members are contending. Such surveys are typically conducted by union committees and are standard operations. We have furthered offered to work with the union and it’s women’s committee to fund such surveys (after responses that no resources would be allocated to a survey) and work with top academic institutions to conduct such surveys. The union has rejected those offers.

· The union could have a safe and anonymous way to report harassment, discrimination and assault that explains to members their options with a realistic understanding of the risks and consequences still associated with a report. The union can go so far as to encourage reporting with assurances that member identities will be protected. We need to similarly affect the culture of silence that protects offenders. Currently, victims of discrimination, harassment and assault have been offered a hotline they can call. This hotline does not ensure anonymity and there are no real resources available for recourse or recovery. A complaint to the Union is offered little more than a suggestion to hire outside counsel.

· Members should be given the option and encouraged to report anonymously so that SAG-AFTRA can maintain a database of accusations and identify repeat offenders. If we must rely on the press to address harassment on the heels of repeated reports, the Union has not done its part.

· SAG-AFTRA currently states a “Zero Tolerance” policy for discrimination and harassment, but has no real resources for victims or consequences for offenders. We understand that “Zero Tolerance” means consequences.

· The Union can help move a culture shift by offering workshops and seminars to members that help new members understand what “normal” looks like in the business so that there is a universal understanding that meetings in hotel rooms for example are not a normal or proper way to conduct business. We can help experienced members build new language that promotes a culture of equality and respect for all members. We can help create a new “normal” that is inclusive. We can build language and standards of conduct that are normalized so that our expectations are unified and don’t oblige one member to object to current practices.

· SAG-AFTRA can similarly document and address instances of retaliation and support members whose careers have been affected by harassment and because they’ve made reports.

· The union can address the misogyny that fuels harassment and assault by addressing gender equity holistically. We have a gender pay gap, a lack of resources for maternity leave and childcare and loose or unenforced standards and policies for nudity and sexual content.

· SAG-AFTRA can work with other industry Unions — the writer’s guild, Direcotr’s Guild, Producer’s Guild — to identify offenders and move the culture shift necessary to prevent future crimes.

· The Men in our Union are proactively interested in affecting a culture shift, but also in avoiding offenses. They have been affected by the culture as well. The Union could offer gender inclusive programs and workshops on appropriate language and conduct for the work environment that speak to those concerns.

Again these issues are complex and sensitive. The nature of assault and harassment are often complicated as well. It is difficult for a labor union to react to a legal situation. It is possible for miscommunications to happen. It is common that behaviors are misunderstood. Mistakes can and will be made as we evolve and some understanding is sometimes necessary in order to further our evolution. A report does not necessarily mean that a crime has been committed. We recognize that whether a victim’s perpetrator was a repeat offender is irrelevant to their individual experience, but we understand both legally and it seems socially that there is a difference between a mistake and a pattern of behavior. The Union can take leadership in identifying those patterns of behavior.

We also understand that a “mistake” or “misunderstanding” that is recognized and offers accountability differs from a reported crime that is silenced or meets with retaliation. Those actions imply intent and are further abuses of power.

We have understood our Union’s attempts to silence our petition for support as intent to conspire in the culture of silence. The hostility as retaliation. Inaction is also an action.

What we should understand is how the misogyny that characterizes the media industry affects our culture at large. What goes on behind the camera is reflected in front of the camera and what we see on screen affects our audiences and our norms. The diminution and objectification of women on screen has contributed to rape culture. Similarly, those women in the industry who are speaking up can contribute to diminution of that culture and the silence that promotes it, but they cannot stand alone. The Union can be a powerful, collective voice in that interest. We hope the Union will consider the victims that were affected during the years they’ve been unresponsive and pivot drastically in the coming months to become a leader in the industry as we move toward gender equity and a safer work environment.

These are the ends we must pursue. At any cost.