The Online Harassment of Olivia Wilde
It is fascinating to watch a specific name trend almost every week due to the same thing. Unfortunately, that is what I have been watching happen for a while now with actress and filmmaker Olivia Wilde. Whether it be her chosen name, her birth name (turned insult), or the hashtag #TimesUpOlivia, Wilde cannot escape the vitriol levelled at her.
Interestingly, in researching the topic, I found some things that I agree were callous to say, misjudged or ignorant actions, and something worthy of critique. Critique — not a pile-on. It is also significant that the people that participate in the pile-on and get her name trending on Twitter are fans of Harry Styles. Why is this significant, you may ask? Because Harry Styles fans, or ‘Harries’, have a pattern of harassment levelled at any girlfriend or woman he is linked to.
It is for this reason that when people say that they “hate her”, that they want her to “stay home and shut up”, or claim that if they saw her in person, they would “tell her she’s funky looking to her face”. This throws into question Styles’ audience’s motivations for disparaging Wilde. While some people may genuinely be upset, hurt, disappointed or disgusted by some of the things she has said — and we will get to those, believe me — there are bad actors within the fandom that aren’t using this ‘evidence’ as an honest, heartfelt condemnation of her actions. Instead, it is fodder to justify for the long upheld tradition of cyber-bullying Harry Styles’s girlfriends.
His fandom’s parasocial relationship with Styles is strong, cultivated over years of Simon Cowell’s direction. Further sculpted by Jeff Azoff, Styles’ career has gone from strength to strength, withstanding controversy and the relationships infuriating his base. Eventually, he got cast as the character of Jack in Wilde’s psychological thriller Don’t Worry Darling, and the two began dating. Or hooking up. Or it’s a stunt. Or it’s real, and they’re getting married, and she’s pregnant. Either way, they’re holding hands in public and oh my god(!) it’s too much.
Thus began the online barrage that Wilde has been facing. It started with nicknames. On Twitter and Tumblr, the most common is “fauxlivia” or “Cockburn”. The first because she is ‘fake’ — a criticism never levelled at Styles, though if you believe that they are in a PR relationship, he, too, is being ‘fake’ — the second because of a mispronunciation of her surname. Olivia Wilde was born Olivia Cockburn, which is pronounced ‘co-burn’, but that doesn’t allow for STD jokes or calling her “cockface”, so that fact is ignored.
The attention on Wilde then turned to her every action and statement, as documented online by herself or others. There seem to be several factors surrounding the creation of this attack atmosphere. The first is tabloid media. Following the decline in print media, tabloids turned to online content where often, more is more. There is little quality control because there is little quality, to begin with. Major publications do not care about accuracy or journalistic integrity, just the potential profits from writing three articles on the same set of paparazzi pictures in one day.
Another major issue seems to be some adults’ encouragement of harassment, which teenagers often perpetrate. Several accounts on Twitter seem to, for lack of a better phrase, be leading the charge. Almost every hour, you can find them tweeting yet another claim about Wilde that holds little weight once you look it up. However, the nature of the Harries’ parasocial relationship with Styles likely means that they won’t check whether or not the thing they are about to regurgitate is true because they feel betrayal at the very notion of the man they ‘love’ potentially loving someone else.
This clear in their current harassment of Olivia and the harassment of previous girlfriends, one example being Camille Rowe. The model and actress was called a “whore”, a “slut”, a “paedophile supporter”, a “neo-Nazi cult supporter”, and a “homophobe”. The reasons given for this were that she had done nude photoshoots; she had dated musicians; she said she would have liked to be around during the height of her father’s (René Pourcheresse) restaurant to meet celebrities like Mick Jagger and Roman Polanski; there was a photograph of her holding a book on, by or related to Charles Manson; and in an editorial video for i-D she was seen ‘getting married’ to her (female) best friend in Las Vegas.
Rowe was sent death threats, which she brought up in an interview with a French magazine. An example of violent threats Rowe was sent can be seen when one Instagram account replied to Rowe’s Instagram story when she was travelling with:
Hahaha thanks for posting this. I’ll be waiting for yo[ur] dumb ass at LAX to have a small talk;) its gon[na] be easy af since yo[ur] pathetic self can’t even afford a bodyguard
How do I know this? Because they screenshotted it and posted it to their Instagram with the caption:
Haha just to scare a bitch off
Furthermore, a Tumblr user was sent multiple rape threats for defending Rowe:
This is why you deserve to get raped ❤️
So are you one of these lifeless bitches behind the flop camel updates acc[ount]? Lmaooo get raped with a knife bitch😂😂
Charming stuff.
This indicates a pattern of online harassment and abuse I will detail regarding Wilde. Still, it was necessary to detail to set out the Harrie handbook: hate her because she’s dating (or “dating”) Harry Styles, find ‘reasons’, harass her online — but with justifications, of course: usually rooted in misogyny. That is until it negatively affects her mental health and/or their relationship. Then, when the inevitable breakup happens, celebration.
With Wilde, we are currently on Stage 2: harass her online.
TPWK
Before I take you on an adventure into the many, many claims made against Olivia Wilde, I would first like to address TPWK. For a phrase that means “Treat People With Kindness” and has become somewhat synonymous with Styles’ brand, it is ironic how hypocritical its use has become.
For example, an account on Tumblr put out the following statement when she came on the receiving end of some criticism:
… [I]t is not necessary to harass and pour hatred on everyone, this is an indication of immature behaviour … TPWK, [name]
The account had come under fire for the repeated harassment of Wilde, in one case stating:
… No matter how hard she tries, her film is doomed to failure, because she is a useless director who does not know how to use her opportunities rationally. A mediocre actress who, instead of gaining more experience in this industry, promoted her fame through PR relations with more famous men 🤡 …
In a separate instance, stating:
… But I still believe that BUA [break up album] will come before the release of the film, because it will be beneficial for both of them. That some “drama” will fuel interest in Harry’s new album, as well as draw attention to her shitty movie … TPWK, [name]
This is not hypocrisy confined to the actions of a single person. It can be found in all online spaces that Harries inhabit. Even in the bio of an account that liked a tweet implying that Wilde should “Flack herself” (a reference to television and radio presenter Caroline Flack, who committed suicide in 2020), there was #TreatPeopleWithKindness.
And with that pointed out, we set out on our journey to find out: why do people hate Olivia Wilde?
The Meh
What I have termed the ‘meh’ claims are those that tend to be circulated with the highest frequency, and they are usually the ones in which Wilde’s words have been read uncharitably to criticise her every move.
The ‘No Asshole Policy’
In a discussion with Emerald Fennell in 2021, Wilde explained that she’d established a ‘no asshole policy’ after firing Shia LaBeouf on thw Don’t Worry Darling set. Because of this ‘no asshole policy’, when it became public knowledge that Matthew Libatique, the cinematographer for Don’t Worry Darling, faced a potential four years a Polish prison, many were quick to call her a hypocrite.
In 2018, Libatique allegedly physically assaulted a paramedic who had arrived on the scene after he had collapsed in a hotel in Bydgoszcz, where he was attending a film festival. However, there are reports of Libatique being drugged, which Libatique also believes, and on top of which, he claims he has no memory of the alleged encounter. In addition, there has been some suggestion that he was defending himself in a racially motivated attack, which I could not find evidence for or against.
As one Tumblr user said:
… [T]his sounds to me as though you’re finding extra reasons to dislike her that may or may not actually be warranted.
Furthermore, there have been some who have taken this allegation and twisted some of the details. Namely, changing the allegation from physical assault to sexual assault.
The murky details of the events themselves mean that I don’t have a solid stance on the actual allegation. However, the changing of the type of assault is, in my mind, an incredibly calculated move by fans of Styles, not to smear Libatique but Wilde. Libatique seems to be collateral damage in the campaign to smear Wilde.
This will not be the first time that allegations of sexual assault perpetrated by men will be used to paint Wilde as a bad person. This is, however, the least serious occurrence of this type of online attack, as the claim of sexual assault is conjured out of thin air.
The Real Director(s)
The next one doesn’t need much dissection: it’s just strange.
Based on a blind item sent into DeuxMoi, an anonymous Instagram page publishing celebrity gossip, some say that Wilde became so infatuated and distracted by Styles while on-set that the cinematographer Matthew Libatique and star of the film Florence Pugh had to take over.
This has no substance to it. Moving on.
The Thank You
Following the wrap of Don’t Worry Darling, Wilde took to Instagram over several days to thank the cast and crew of the film. The day before she posted her ‘thank you’ to Styles, she was criticised by Harries for not doing it fast enough, but when she did post it, the post came under intense scrutiny.
There was one specific word that came under inspection: “allow”. In the uncharitable reading — which was the one she got — people took deep offence to the idea that Styles would be “allow[ing]” Florence Pugh to “hold center stage”. Indeed, on the surface, the idea of praising a man who allows a woman to do her job is odd.
Therefore, it is here when we pause on our little adventure, and I start lecturing about the English language.
There are several definitions of the word “allow”: (1) permit, (2) admit/concede. These are the definitions I believe people had in mind when reading the post. With this definition being the only understanding you have of the word “allow”, it is understandable that this would lend to an uncharitable reading of the post.
However, the two definitions I have presented are only the definitions of “allow” when used as a transitive verb. When used as an intransitive verb, the definitions broaden. ‘Permit’ becomes “to give an opportunity”, with examples by Merriam-Webster being:
She worked on the project here and there as time allowed.
This should take 5 minutes for 1 strength-cardio circuit combo. If time allows, repeat once more …
This plan is being implemented in phases as funding allows.
This is still not the definition applicable to Wilde’s post.
When an intransitive verb, ‘admit’ becomes “to make a possibility” when used with ‘of’. E.g.:
… evidence that allows of only one conclusion.
Yet again, not applicable to Wilde. However, the very last version of “allow”, as an intransitive verb, is “to give consideration to circumstances of contingencies — used with for”. This is the type of “allow” Wilde used in her post.
With this definition in mind, the reading of the post becomes one in which you can tell she is praising Styles for being a supportive cast member.
English language lecture over.
The “Blackface”
In December 2010, Wilde posed for a story, punily titled “Wilde West”, with a theme that seemed to track along the same lines. Upon seeing the photographs attached to a Tweet, my initial thought was that they must have been photoshopped to make her look worse. But, no. The magazine either had her tanned or photoshopped her themselves to make her skin much more tan than it usually is.
Taken at the beginning of the tanning fad of the 2010s, these photographs are examples of the ‘trend’ which had its roots in the profitability of looking ‘exotic’ and ‘ethnically ambiguous’. However, the first thought that comes to my mind is questioning the artistic choices of the photographer and styling team for the magazine — not Wilde. It is likely, given that it is a magazine spread for publicity for the 2010 film Tron: Legacy, that she did not choose to be styled in that way.
Is it jarring to see someone so tanned when it is clear it isn’t natural? Yes. Is this an example of blackface? No. The American origins of blackface can be traced to minstrel shows when white actors would “routinely use black grease paint on their faces when depicting plantation slaves and free blacks on stage”. Previously and contemporaneously, blackface has gone hand in hand with the dehumanisation and mockery of black people.
Therefore, it would be more accurate to suggest that the styling team aimed for some form of ethnic ambiguity. Though because of the theme (Wild[e] West), they were more likely going for a latin or indigenous ‘look’ than one that evoked blackness. This is, of course, still an issue, as the appropriation of cultures and physical attributes that are otherwise mocked for capitalist consumption is an ongoing issue.
This is a strange photoshoot that is uncomfortable to look at, so I understand why Styles’ fans find it so. However, it has me cautious of the team behind it rather than Wilde.
The Open Legs Comment
A video from behind the scenes of another InStyle photoshoot in 2020 was sent to an Instagram page dedicated to calling the ‘Holivia’ (Harry/Olivia) relationship fake was further shared on Twitter. The caption attached to the video reads:
This is what feminism means to her … Like… how can you tell young girls that spreading your legs is what a woman should do to be powerful. F**k you, Olivia Wilde, you are such an ugly woman for saying that. …
Except that isn’t what Wilde was saying. Once again, in a similar fashion to the previous incident, this is an uncharitable interpretation of Wilde’s words. For those of you who haven’t or aren’t interested in watching the video, here is a transcript of the moment:
Wilde stands in a ‘power stance’. One leg up on a box, elbow resting on the leg.
[Woman 1]: Are you surveying powerfully?
Wilde: Yeah, can’t you tell?
[Woman 2]: (unintelligible)
Wilde: You’ve gotta spread your legs as wide as possible.
[Woman 2]: (laughs)
Wilde smiles.
[Woman 1]: (sarcastic) That’s how I did it.
Wilde: (sarcastic) That’s where your power comes from. (laughs)
That’s it. That is the moment that makes her an “ugly woman”. A moment in which she is being sarcastic.
For this, she was accused of “set[ting] women back 50 years”. The irony of Wilde being criticised for not being a ‘real’ feminist for joking about a common stereotype applied to women while those attacking her do so from a place of internalised misogyny is not beyond me, nor to some replying to these comments. For example, in reply to the comment claiming Wilde “set back women”, one Twitter user wrote:
you’re setting women back with your internalized hate bc she’s dating harry …
The “Too Old To Be A Lesbian”
Part of the criticism that Wilde is lesphobic originates from an interview that cannot be found in video form on the internet and has been characterised as:
… once in an interview she said she was “too old to be a Lesbian.”
According to this Harrie, this meant:
… She’s implying that only young people can be Lesbians, and when they grow old, they’ll grow out of it because it’s just a “phase.”
Were this statement true, this would be an example of Wilde being lesphobic. However, this is not what Wilde said.
Thanks to 9gag, I found a post that was a series of screencaps from said interview. Here is the transcription:
Wilde: I told Justin Bieber, “Put your fucking shirt on,”… with love.
A screenshot of a Tweet from Wilde’s Twitter appears. It reads: Bieber, put your fucking shirt on. (unless you lost all your shirts in a fire in which case my condolences and please purchase a new shirt.)
Wilde: … they didn’t realize it was said with love, and I got a lot of interesting feedback from his fans.
Interviewer: Like how many people responded?
Wilde: About 35 million people. And they had some really great notes, and I have some for you. One of them was “r u a lesbian or r u too old?” It’s great because it’s a question I’ve never asked myself before, and I was wondering, “Am I too old to be a lesbian?” because I did just have a birthday, so I may have missed my window.
She wasn’t being lesphobic; she was being sarcastic and making fun of a ridiculous reply she got on Twitter.
The Dancing
This one is pretty harmless in the grand scheme of criticism, both on the part of Wilde and the Harries. But, essentially, this criticism boils down to a specific group of Harries becoming incensed when they see Wilde dancing in the pit at one of Styles’ concerts.
They then talk about it on whichever social media platform they use, sometimes attaching photographs or videos. Sometimes this goes hand in hand with them claiming that Styles chose to ignore the side of the stage Wilde was on or that she was just there for attention and to be photographed. But, of course, if she was, she succeeded.
However, there is one glaring issue. Whenever Wilde appears at a concert, there are the “[i]sn’t she supposed to be taking care of her kids???” comments, like Jason Sudekis — said children’s father — doesn’t exist and isn’t likely taking care of their children. This perpetuates the sexist idea that once women become mothers, their lives revolve around their children. That just isn’t — or shouldn’t — be the case.
Ultimately, this is just an example of nitpicking and sexism by Harries. Let the woman dance.
The “Obsession”
Wilde has garnered criticism every time she steps out of the house or likes an Instagram post. It is practically a meme at this point that she is ‘always’ wearing Styles’ merch, which is either put down to her “relentless need for attention” or her “obsess[ion]” with Styles.
One example of this criticism came when Wilde commented on the actress, producer and UNICEF Ambassador Gemma Chan’s Instagram post, also featuring Styles. While Chan is also in Don’t Worry Darling, the picture of her and Styles behind the scenes of the Marvel movie Eternals, which Styles is in for 1 minute.
Wilde commented that she was “[w]atching now obviously🙌🙌🙌”, which immediately got flooded with replies calling her an attention seeker, amongst other things. Chan tried to limit replies, but the comment had been replied to hundreds of times, and almost all of the replies were negative. Then the comment was deleted.
Many Harries took to Twitter to claim victory, delighted at the thought that Chan deleted the comment in a “power move” that meant that:
… Gemma is a larger & more relevant star. It shows that Gemma is not threatened by her, nor feels obliged to humor her insanity…
However, in the delight over the “best thing that [has] happened today”, the Harries seem to have forgotten that Wilde could also have deleted the comment. Even if Chan deleted the comment, how could anyone be sure of her motivations? She has said in an interview with Elle Canada:
… I jumped at the chance to work with Olivia. I think she’s brilliant … She’s acting in it as well as directing — and I just find that incredible; I’m learning so much from just observing her.
However, that doesn’t add to the “funny” narrative of everyone hating Wilde, so, like the correct pronunciation of her surname, it is ignored.
After this incident, Chan limited her comment section, a move that has also been blamed on Wilde.
The DUI Instagram Story
As of writing this article, the most recent incident to spark outrage was when Wilde posted outtakes from taking ID photos. This was presented on Twitter as: she was “making DUI jokes”. The widely circulated take was that Wilde was specifically joking about driving under the influence.
When presented with the actual image, it didn’t strike me as a joke about driving while drunk (which wouldn’t have been funny); it seemed to be a joke about her appearance looking like an “unfortunate DUI mugshot”. So, I guess this one is a make-your-own-mind-up kind of transgression.
The Parenting
I don’t feel the need to spend much time on this section because it is so utterly banal. Wilde and her ex-fiancé Jason Sudekis have two children together, and it seems that every time she leaves the house, people start screaming, “won’t someone think of the children!”
When Sudekis is papped with their children, he is an “attentive father”. When Wilde is papped, she is “using” her children for more fame and attention. Ah yes, the smell of sexism on the wind; my favourite.
Praising a man for being with his children while attempting to tear down a woman for her mothering, whether or not she is with her children, is an old and tired trope. Furthermore, it is also blatantly rooted in internalised misogyny, as it plays hand in hand with the “they have a ten year age gap (!)” horror. Never mind that Sudekis is also with someone ten years younger than him — of course, that’s only okay when the man does it (!).
You know nothing about Wilde’s parenting or their family’s private life, and it is ridiculous to act as though you do from a few pictures and videos. This whole criticism is plainly sexist.
The Oh
The ‘oh’ category is what I would describe as criticisms of Wilde that I can see having a basis in actual occurrences of offence. Unlike the ‘meh’ section, here I will focus on Wilde’s blunders, errors and solecisms and not as much on the mistakes or wilful misunderstandings made by Harries.
Do I believe that this means she is worthy of the type and volume of harassment she receives? No. I do not.
The Lesphobia
In the 2012 Vulture write up (‘Olivia Wilde Said a Great Many Things About Her Vagina Last Night’), the author writes according to Wilde, following her post-divorce “sex bender”, she felt so lonely that she considered (direct quote from Wilde) “a soft kind of lesbian relationship, just gentle kissing and scissoring.” That is, of course, until she met a man — Jason Sudekis.
The implication of wishing to become a lesbian — keyword: become — implies the long-held and perpetuated stereotype that all a lesbian needs to become straight is the right man. Yawn.
[Author’s Update: There have been some that point out that Wilde does not label her sexuality, so for this sub-section and the next, it is important to view it within that context. However, given the context of this particular source in which the “soft kind of lesbian relationship” is dropped at the introduction of Sudekis, I believe this point still stands.
As I point out in the next sub-section, I have no strong feelings either way, and I believe it is down to you to decide how you feel. There is, however, a validity to some of the critiques surrounding the comparison.]
The Homophobia
In a similar tone to the ‘I wish I could be a lesbian’ comment in the Vulture article, in 2019 Wilde was interviewed for the TV series Off Camera With Sam Jones, in which she said that she:
This comment led to some divides between people, with one saying:
Another said:
… probably not a good comparison but it’s not ‘disgusting’ or ‘homophobic’ …
It is a bizarre comparison; coming out and changing careers — while liberating — are not equitable.
This is a form of implicit homophobia, which Wilde may not even be aware of, and my feelings on this hover between the two comments expressed above. I acknowledge that Wilde has been an advocate for LGBTQ+ rights, but surely that means she should be more aware of and careful with her analogies?
The Racism
At the 2016 Oscars, Wilde and actor, comedian and writer Sacha Baron Cohen were on stage to introduce two Best Picture nominees. Despite being asked not to appear as one of his characters, following a 2012 ‘Dictator’ stunt, Baron Cohen and his wife Isla Fisher hid in a bathroom as he applied the makeup for his satirical character Ali G.
A parody based on Tim Westwood, the character of Ali G is “a fictional stereotype of a British suburban male “chav” who imitates inner-city urban British hip hop culture and British Jamaican culture…”. The character thrives on its controversial statements, and this time was no different.
On stage ‘Ali G’ said:
… I know what you was thinking when I walked on. Here comes yet another token black presenter. But it ain’t just m[y] brethren that [has] been overlooked; it is all people of all colours. How come there’s no [Oscar] for [them] very [hard] working little yellow people with tiny dongs? You know, the minions. …
Now, the structure and nature of this joke is subversive: bring up a racist stereotype about Asian men, and subvert expectations — even though, in the case of Ali G, expectations are that it will be subversive — by making it about something people don’t necessarily expect. So, I am made uncomfortable by the joke, but I also think that’s the point. It’s not my type of humour; it’s not for me. Would it be said at the Oscars today? I don’t think so.
Wilde took no part in the joke on stage, just standing next to ‘Ali G’ and smiling as the rest of the audience laughed. It is her tweet in response to the backlash Baron Cohen got later that Harries are using as an example of her being racist:
For the record, Ali G is a perfect gentleman. The whole thing was a hilarious and welcome surprise. Haters, lighten up.
This is not a great take, in my opinion, as there is a direct correlation between the normalisation fo stereotypes through ‘jokes’ and ‘humour’ and the continued racist abuse of a marginalised group.
It is now when I ask, why are the Harries not criticising Baron Cohen? I have seen quoted variations of the actual words across Twitter, and this tweet linked while people call Wilde “racist as hell”, but no criticism of Baron Cohen. So why is her support of him worse than the words he said?
I can understand the discomfort with her support of him following that statement. However, I would suggest that the backlash in 2021/2022 is yet another example of sexism by the Harries, as solely criticising the woman in the situation where there is also a male instigator is sexist.
If you want to critique the situation, critique them both — critique, I said, not death threats.
I couldn’t find more examples, so either they have been removed from the internet, or the claims of “many” instances of racism have been exaggerated for justification and effect.
[Editor’s Note: if there are more, let us know, we will update the article.]
The Ableism
PSA
The example used most often when referring to Wilde as an ableist is her part in the video for World Down Syndrome Day, in which she acts out narration that is spoken over the video. The voice is that of AnnaRose, a young woman with Down Syndrome, of whom Wilde has been playing the neurotypical version. The video ends with the question: “How do you see me?”
The intent behind the video is that people with Down Syndrome can have fulfilling and rounded lives and personalities, that they aren’t or shouldn’t be defined by their disability in the eyes of others. A compelling intent.
However, there is an issue here.
Fellow Medium writer David M. Perry made a great point in his 2016 article: The Problem With The New Down Syndrome PSA Starring Olivia Wilde. That the “artistic choice to suggest that AnnaRose sees herself as a neurotypical woman” sends the opposite message. He talked to Dominick Evans, filmmaker and activist, who told him:
#HowDoYouSeeMe reinforces the ableist ideal that disabled people would rather imagine themselves as not disabled, and that they can only be beautiful, wonderful, and successful without a disability. Rather than present an idea that is so obviously the non-disabled ideal for how disabled people should see themselves, we need to work towards integrating people into a society that currently sees disability as something that is horrifying, ugly, and not acceptable.
It seems to have been a well-intentioned, poorly executed video. It is ableist. Many at the time criticised the makers and financiers of the PSA rather than the actors featured. It is interesting to see how, when and why that shift has occurred.
‘Hooker’ Monologue
The second example comes from the 2012 Vulture article (‘Olivia Wilde Said a Great Many Things About Her Vagina Last Night’). The write-up of the event, a night of monologues hosted by Glamour Magazine, quotes Wilde’s monologue extensively, as she discusses her divorce the year before and how she would protect herself from the same happening again.
The paragraph, screenshot and shared across social media by Harries is a direct quote from Wilde, in which she states:
I would like to legalize prostitution. Hiring a sex worker in Olivia Land would be as easy, hygienic, and inexpensive as getting a pedicure. That way when away on business or just not in the mood, we could just hire a hooker for our loved one and keep them uninterested in cheating and keep them satisfied. These particular hookers would obviously have to be mute and possibly cross-eyed.
The implication is that “loved ones” aren’t interested in forming long-term romantic or sexual relationships with mute or cross-eyed people. But, of course, as this is a write-up, we don’t and can never know the tone of the monologue. Whether or not it was said in the same glib manner her “spread your legs” comments were, we do not know. Personally, I hope it was.
This statement is ableist, read in and out of context. I don’t know what Wilde was trying to say, but I didn’t like what she said.
The Transphobia
In 2011, the Huffington Post put out an article entitled: Olivia Wilde Talks ‘_’ Makeup, ’60s French New Wave Beauty And More.
The blank space I have left is where the t-slur (used against trans people) features as a direct quote from Wilde. The display of such casual transphobia is not only profoundly uncomfortable but also profoundly upsetting.
I understand the criticisms of Wilde for this comment, as she has not addressed or apologised for it since.
[Editor’s Note: Since the release of the article it has been brought to our awareness that in 2011 Wilde apologised for the comment in a tweet, stating:
I’m deeply sorry. I never meant to offend anyone. Stupid mistake.
We thank the people that brought this to our attention.]
The Pedophile Jokes
I want to preface this sub-section by saying that there is a difference between making jokes at the expense of paedophiles, making ‘jokes’ that you look like a paedophile at your own expense, and making ‘jokes’ at the expense of the victims of paedophiles.
This genre of Wilde’s tweets falls into category 2, making jokes at her own expense. I do not think these ‘jokes’ are funny or the slightest bit acceptable — to my mind, they are one of the worst things a person can ‘joke about — and that is why they fall into the ‘oh’ category of this article.
However, they have been used, by Harries, to suggest that (1) Wilde is a paedophile and that the age gap in the ‘Holivia’ relationship is paedophilic — Harry Styles is an adult man; and (2) that this is indicative of her awareness and complicity in the predatory and abusive actions of people that she ‘knows’, has associated with or claim to associate with her.
Further characterisation by Harries can be seen in this reply to a tweet about why someone “hate[s]” Wilde:
Don’t forget about her many tweets talking about r*ping children!
The flippancy with which paedophilia and rape are thrown around within Harries’ discourse is, in all honesty, sickening. The weaponisation of these topics in trying to justify cyber-bullying trivialises the severity of these actions and is a precursor to the next section.
None of these takes has a basis, so while I will now detail the jokes, this application of ‘logic’ that the Harries use to justify their harassment of Wilde is not accurate.
Waking Up
January 2014:
Just realized I am following a bunch of people by accident. How creepy. I feel like Robert Down[e]y Jr waking up in the little girl’s bedroom.
I had assumed this was a reference to a film that I did not watch; however, upon further inspection (Googling), it relates to a moment when RDJ blacked out from drug use and was found asleep in the bedroom of his neighbour’s 11-year-old son when said neighbours and son came home.
Therefore, while a strange analogy and misrepresentation or misremembering of Downey’s incident, this is a joke that is in no way linked to paedophilia, as represented by the Harries.
The Ice Rink
February 2013:
What are my chances of ending up on a sex offender list if I’m watching kids ice skate while slowly eating this delicious doughy pretzel?
The sound of a dog retching comes to mind
Thankfully people at the time were calling this out for being the “disturbing” and “wtf” comment that it is.
The structure of the ‘joke’, centralising herself, indicates that this is a ‘joke’ at her own expense, not that of the children. Therefore, not indicative of the belief held by Harries that this ‘joke’ is one of “many” about her “r*ping” children.
However, if a man had tweeted this, it would have gotten even more backlash than it already did. Tt is often easier to identify predatory statements — jokes or serious — when they come from the group of the predominant aggressor.
11/11/11
The worst one is definitely, November 2011:
oh it’s 11/11/11????! well that explains EVERYTHING. i relinquish all responsibility for my actions now. hide your children.
This one is genuinely downright horrific. After I read it, I had to sit in silence for a while, and the replies from 2021 from when this tweet resurfaced, “WHAT”, “Dear God”, etc. Yeah. I agree.
This one is sarcastic, but in this case, unlike the “too old to be a lesbian” and the “spread your legs” comments, it doesn’t matter or add context. It hasn’t been wilfully misread. It doesn’t even matter that it’s at her expense. Unlike the two previous tweets, this one seems to indicate of a joke about “r*ping children”.
So while I am still of the belief that accusations of paedophilia and rape are wielded like tools against people the Harries hate, in regards to this tweet, I completely understand the outrage. I hate this one. Fuck this one.
To varying degrees, two of the three jokes being linked to paedophilia given as examples by Harries do not amount to “many”. In this situation, I don’t understand the need to exaggerate. These two are more than enough.
[Author’s Update: There has been some discourse as to whether this one is as bad as I have found it to be. The phrase that “hide your children” is derived from the phrase “hide your wife, hide your kids”, as several people have pointed out. This is, as far as I have discovered, a reference to a song in which the lyrics are:
He’s climbin[g] in your windows
He’s snatchin[g] your people up
Tryna rape [th]em so y’all need to
Hide your kids, hide your wife
If you do not have the same reaction to the tweet as I do, that is well within your rights. I am not the arbiter of Twitter jokes. I, personally, still do not find this tweet acceptable.]
The Buck Wild(e)
When mentioning the flippancy with which paedophilia and rape are thrown around in the previous sub-section, I set you up for this entire section.
This is the article section where we get to the severe claims levelled against Wilde. In this section, I detail how Styles’ fans have veered left from legitimate concerns about her actions and statements or petty misreadings of largely inoffensive situations and into blaming her for predatory men and women’s actions trivialising paedophilia, abuse and rape as they do so.
Harvey Weinstein
The proof given that Wilde was either an active participant in or highly knowledgable of the various abuses perpetrated over decades by Harvey Weinstein is flimsy at best.
An article linked by several “Olivia Wilde is Problematic” threads on Twitter leads to the now-defunct gossip blog ‘Defamer’, which put out an open call for information entitled: Tell Us What You Know About Harvey Weinstein’s “Open Secret”. Within the article, they quote a friend of a model who says:
Weinstein told her that if she wanted to act, she should come to his office — at which point he proposed a threesome between the two of them and Olivia Wilde.
It doesn’t take a high level of reading comprehension to see that Harvey Weinstein attempting to wield his power and influence while also name-dropping a well-known celebrity does not mean that said celebrity took part in the abuse. Instead, this just means that Harvey Weinstein was an incredibly calculated man.
Further “proof” of Wilde’s involvement are pictures taken at three events or one-time court-side at a New York Knicks game. The four instances in which Wilde was photographed with Weinstein do not make her party to his abuse. Meryl Streep was also photographed with Weinstein numerous times at four events. Does that mean she actively helped him abuse women?
Of course, Hollywood’s culture of silence meant that women couldn’t come forward and report their stories, leaving Weinstein with the ability to perpetrate more abuses. But does the responsibility for this fall on Wilde’s shoulders? No, of course not.
Her response immediately following the unmasking of Weinstein was an indictment of him and his actions:
1. Lets be clear. What Harvey Weinstein did to those women was nothing short of abuse. I am disturbed, and disgusted. It’s appalling.
2. Though I never witnessed it, I stand in solidarity with his victims, and hope their bravery sends a loud message to all abusers of power.
3. The victim blaming needs to stop. As does the shaming of women who didn’t come forward earlier. They spoke, and we are here to listen.
Weinstein’s abuse was revealed in an article by The New York Times journalists Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey on 5 October 2017. Wilde tweeted her indictment on 10 October 2017. Five days after, not the “two years [it took] to condemn [Weinstein]” that some Harries are now claiming it took. Some Harries even believe that “[O]livia [W]ilde fucked [H]arvey [W]einstein” — probably based on the Defamer call for information. Some even believe she helped him.
Hi, hello? No. I’m sorry, but no. “Harvey Weinstein and Olivia Wilde are the Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell of these times”? No.
While I think it is essential to scrutinise the systems and people within the structures that made Weinstein’s abuses possible, the blame does not fall on the shoulders of Wilde just because you do not like her. So, critique the system, critique her part in it, but for the love of God, do not compare her to Ghislaine Maxwell.
Maxwell was a madam. With all of the women that have been emboldened in their ability to speak out against Weinstein now that people are more likely to believe them, do you not think that were Wilde the Ghislaine Maxwell of this narrative, the women would have mentioned it?
Or is this just part of the narrative in which we blame women for a man’s abuses because of her current position as Harry Styles’s something?
The perpetuation of false narratives surrounding Wilde’s relationship — professional or personal — with Weinstein is deeply misogynistic. I ask that people think very carefully before they continue to spread misinformation and misogyny.
Anthony Kiedis
Kiedis, a founding member and singer for the band the Red Hot Chili Peppers, wrote in his internationally bestselling 2004 autobiography Scar Tissue of a sexual encounter he had had with a 14-year-old Catholic schoolgirl. Twenty-three at the time, he’d had ‘sex’ with her once and, upon learning her age, had ‘sex’ with her again.
I, like many others, believe that there is no such thing as consensual sex when you are a minor, and therefore — though the child may have ‘consented’ — this encounter is not a consensual activity. He is admitting to (statutory) rape.
I also find it necessary to point out here that Kiedis was also a victim of statutory rape, losing his virginity when he was 12 to his father’s 18-year-old girlfriend — which his father set up. His father was also the one to introduce him to drugs and other substances at a young age.
This does not excuse his actions towards the 14-year-old; however, it may explain why Kiedis was so comfortable with doing and admitting it. When something is normalised, especially by a parent or parental figure, from such a young age, questions about its morality (or even legality) likely won’t cross your mind.
In the section on his Wikipedia page about the book, this encounter is not mentioned. Every article or Reddit thread I have found discussing or condemning his actions is from post-2017. The discussion of Scar Tissue was predominantly limited to Kiedis’s drug consumption and subsequent recovery. In 2016, in an interview with The Sun, Kiedis said that he had regretted the book as “there was some pain caused” in the recounting of old memories, but he speaks to the widespread reaction and people’s takeaways too:
… I started seeing the long term positive reverberating. People were reading it in hospitals, in prisons and schools, and it was having a positive effect. I realised that the whole point of writing that book wasn’t for me, but to show that somebody can go all the way down and come all the way back and have a productive, successful happy interesting life.
Why does this matter? Well, Wilde directed the ‘Dark Necessities’ music video for the Red Hot Chili Peppers in 2016. Harries has conflated her working with Weinstein and her working with Kiedis to be her endorsement of their actions. It is possible that Wilde had no idea about Kiedis’s actions because unless she’d read his 2004 autobiography, there was little discussion or discourse surrounding the topic.
We do not know if Wilde read the autobiography. The widespread cultural memory seemed to be positive, so before articles started coming out in 2017, I don’t know if I could fault her for directing the music video. I certainly do not blame her for her actions, nor do I believe that her work with him is an endorsement of his actions or an indicator of pro-paedophilic behaviour on Wilde’s part.
After the articles discussing the sexual encounter started coming out, I found it jarring that she would make a ‘thank you’ post to him in 2020. Still, I also see that when you Google ‘Anthony Kiedis’, this encounter isn’t part of the suggested searches, nor the first five pages of results. It doesn’t even turn up in the Ranker article ‘Totally Bizarre and Insane Stories about Red Hot Chili Peppers Frontman Anthony Kiedis’, which was based on content from Scar Tissue.
Wilde has not spoken publicly about Kiedis since the 2020 ‘thank you’ post, and she has never stated that they are “friends”, as many Harries are quick to claim. Working with a person does not make you friends. So yet again, this seems to be another case of Styles’ fans jumping at the opportunity to demonise a woman they don’t like for a man’s actions.
And no, Wilde does not “sing[…] his praises every year on his birthday”. One year does not every make.
Bryan Singer
She worked on a TV Show, House M.D., produced by alleged (Editor’s Note: for legal reasons) sexual abuser Bryan Singer. There have been accusations against Singer since 1997.
In 1997, the LA County District Attorney’s Office declined to press criminal charges. In 2014, a lawsuit was dropped, with the claimant’s lawyers stating that he believed his client was lying. Another lawsuit was dropped, also in 2014, at the accuser’s behest. In 2017, Cesar Sanchez-Guzman filed a suit, and a $150,000 settlement occurred, though Singer’s attorney claimed that the decision to “resolve the matter … was purely a business one”. It seems that for these reasons, Hollywood found it was still acceptable to work with Singer and not publicly denounce him.
Finally, in 2019, Singer began receiving the deserved backlash following an article in The Atlantic in which four men alleged that Singer had assaulted them when they were underage. As a result, Singer was dropped from Bohemian Rhapsody, and awards ceremonies either withdrew nominations for the film or removed his name from the nomination.
Why do another man’s abuses once again relate to Wilde? Apparently, she is ‘choosing’ to consort with another abuser because she was cast as a character in House M.D. Of course, by this logic, the Harries should be equally furious with Hugh Laurie, Robert Sean Leonard, and Lisa Edelstein, but none of them is dating Harry Styles, so I suppose their employment doesn’t matter as much.
Woody Allen
The director Woody Allen has had sexual abuse allegations against him since 1992, which have been public information since 1995, and continues to work to this day. However, he has not been officially disgraced by Hollywood, even winning an Oscar in 2012 for Best Original Screenplay. Though he did not attend the ceremony, a personal choice, rather than an indictment of him by the Academy.
In 2007, Wilde stated that he was one of a list of directors she would like to work with, and in 2016 she directed a live reading of one of his works, ‘Hannah and Her Sisters’.
Since 2016 she has not praised him publicly, nor has she denounced him publicly, and yet again, I cannot help but feel that this is not the damning indictment of Wilde that Harries had hoped it was.
In light of the longevity of the allegations against Allen, it is troubling that Wilde would be so comfortable with stating that she wished to work with him. While I do not separate the art from the artist, especially in cases of bigotry and abuse, Wilde may. Notably, she has only been a ‘supporter’ of his work in the softest terms: stating she is an admirer, and directing a live reading with no input from Allen.
Others are more vocal supporters of Allen to this day, yet I see no condemnation for Scarlett Johansson, Wallace Shawn or Gina Gershon from the Harries. Once again, like the other cast members of House M.D., I am guessing that this is because they are not dating Styles.
To any supporters of Allen, including Wilde, I would ask you to question why you can separate Allen, his actions, abuses and allegations from his work. If you should continue to do so — I suggest not.
It is a form of violence against the abuse survivors to continue to support their abusers.
Corrigan Clay
The ex-pastor was charged with the sexual abuse of a minor and arrested in March 2022. It is only recently that the indictment came to light, obtained by The Daily Beast.
Before it was revealed, Clay and his ex-wife Shelley Jean Clay took jobs as “house parents” at an orphanage following a move to Haiti in 2008. In 2009, the pair began a workshop that taught locals how to earn money by making jewellery and handicrafts. Their products were sold locally and abroad, collaborating with brands including the Gap, Donna Karan, and Macy’s.
According to Clay, people who bought the products included Oprah Winfrey, Ben Stiller, Kim Kardashian, and Olivia Wilde. However, buying products from a company before the charges of abuse were brought to light does not make Wilde or any other celebrities mentioned by name a “vocal supporter” of Clay.
This, it seems, is enough evidence for Harries to claim that Wilde is an enthusiastic supporter of yet another paedophile, and yet again, I have to state that this is not the damning evidence that they think it is.
Amber Heard
Like Weinstein, much of the ‘proof’ surrounding their relationship as “besties” are photographs from events. Heard, who abused her ex-husband Johnny Depp, has received widespread backlash online, which Hollywood seems to be ignoring for now.
Pictures of Wilde and Heard can be seen at approximately seven events, and one Instagram post by Wilde, in which she posts a photo of herself at the 2016 Met Gala, with the caption:
Thanks to @ michaelkors (and Amber Heard’s ass) for making this preggo feel sexy for the night.
The rest of the evidence is Heard replying to Wilde’s tweets.
Sorry, but … that’s not a friendship.
If they were friends behind the scenes, we do not, and cannot know, but to claim a friendship over such flimsy evidence? This is what I believe is called grasping at straws.
Gravitational Field or Societal Issue?
Some tweets have claimed that Wilde either attracts predators or is attracted to predators because of the large numbers of predators that have positioned themselves in important positions in Hollywood.
Many people have known and worked with predators, which is not an indication of their character.
For example, I am 21 years old, and I went to sixth-form college with a young man who sexually assaulted his girlfriend and a young man who sexually assaulted his friend. At another point in my education, a young man had belittled, condescended, and harassed every young woman in the classroom, including a teacher. No one (including the other young men) felt they could say anything to a person in a position of authority, unconvinced we would be taken seriously. That is until such a person witnessed an incident of sexual harassment. He was removed from the institution, the only one of these three men I have known to be punished.
These abuses by the predators were not indicators of the people around them; they were indicators of a system that perpetuates abuse and protects abusers. These three cases are just the situations brought forward by the young women affected. There is an issue on a global scale.
The occurrences I have listed above are not a Wilde problem: this is a Hollywood problem. Hollywood hides or ignores issues with serial predators they see as talented enough or powerful enough, or rich enough to still be of use to the machine, damaging children, women and men in the process. Until it becomes too much to bear, or the information too much, or someone from the outside publishes a damning op-ed.
Is it surprising that Wilde has worked with so many predators? No, because almost everyone in Hollywood has. Like other positions of prestige and power (like the clergy, teaching, or policing), Hollywood and the entertainment industry attract predators because they see power as a means of getting what they want.
In the 2014 article ‘Why Predators Are Attracted to Careers in the Clergy’, one reason given by Joe Navarro is that:
Membership in a legitimate institution, be it a club, a branch of the military, or a corporation, gives legitimacy to individuals. We are more respectful and trusting when we are told a certain person is a VP or head of sales for XYZ company rather than just a stranger off the street.
Legitimacy also gives predators protection: the idea that this couldn’t be possible because of [insert reason here], their status as [insert job here]. From its inception in the early 20th century, Hollywood has always attracted predators. This isn’t because of satanic practises, as conspiracy websites would have you believe, but because of human psychology. The continuous awarding of predatory people tells other predators that there are no consequences for harassment, abuse and assault. Thus they continue to flock there, using their privilege and status to perpetuate what is an open secret in Hollywood.
There is a way to condemn the actions of these predators and the culture of silence that Hollywood has created and examine Wilde’s part in it — as I hope she does— without claiming that Wilde joyfully supports predators and predatory actions.
The gleeful nature of the online harassment, the opportunity spotted by those who already hate Wilde, is hard to witness. It is disrespectful to the victims of assault and abuse to turn their stories and pain into an attack to lambast a woman you dislike for other reasons — reasons you refuse to acknowledge.
Pick and Choose, or Criticism Hypocrisy
Perhaps what is most telling of the inherent underlying sexism of the critiques of Wilde is that Styles does not get the same level — or any — criticism from Harries for similar or equivalent solecisms. He, too, eats and sleeps and makes racist tweets and jokes about paedophilia (a category 1: a joke about a paedophile, in which Styles’ fans were the implied victims) and sexist comments and never addresses them.
If you are going to critique Wilde, critique Styles too. Don’t tell him you hate him or wish he was dead; just treat him with kindness and let him know that his behaviour is unacceptable. But, then again, by the logic with which Wilde and other women surrounding Styles have been criticised: even if he’s shown himself to be a more developed and mature person now, he did it once, and that’s enough to tell that he is a racist, paedophile joker, sexist and utterly incapable of learning.
One rule for the women and the same rule for him. Right? Right?!
[Author’s Update: The point of this section is not to incite backlash against Styles, the point of this section is to critique the “unproblematic” narrative surrounding him, and the lack of criticism for his actions where Wilde gets death threats. I quite literally said “[d]on’t tell him you hate him or wish him dead; just treat him with kindness and let him know that his behaviour is unacceptable.”]
[Editor’s Note: Because of the continuous harassment of the publication, and the attempt to discredit the entire article, we have decided to unlink the Twitter thread including the video of Styles. However, in order to not be further harassed by those stating the author has ‘no proof’ and is defaming Styles, she asks that we a separate link to the video here: https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1278318144650481668/pu/vid/640x360/AO69OQmvx2EeoKYT.mp4?tag=10]
The Online Harassment
There have been times during this article where I have highlighted some online harassment and abuse of Wilde as examples of what she and some women previously linked to Styles have faced, just via association.
I have included quotes and screenshots of a sample of the material that has been published about Wilde. Still, just to give you more indication, I will now include more examples of abuse that I have read in the evidence-gathering stage of this article.
You may ask, what would be the purpose of including such information in potentially giving this hatred a platform? It is a question I have asked myself in the writing of this article. The conclusion I have reached is, by reading the many posts of the Harries, you may see what I do: that many criticisms of Wilde’s actions, with and without the burden of proof, are rooted in a hatred of her relationship with Styles and is, fundamentally, disingenuous.
All identifying information has been redacted to discourage harassment of these people.
In Conclusion
Wilde has been called an ableist, racist, transphobe, lesphobe, and a supporter of sexual abusers. I hope that this article has brought you a balanced view on the truth, exaggerations, and disinformation spread about each of these claims. This is nothing new for the women linked to Styles, but it’s fascinating that it’s never been nipped in the bud. I am not arguing that you are not allowed to dislike Olivia Wilde. People are allowed to feel however it is that they feel.
However, there is never a reason or excuse for the online harassment and bullying, especially when it reaches the fever pitch of claiming you would or want to physically attack people, wishing violence or sexual assault on people, or telling them they should kill themselves. Unfortunately, this is what the women linked to Harry Styles face daily, and at this point, it seems impossible to argue that the reason isn’t that the Harries are a uniquely possessive and jealous fanbase.
There is a difference between disliking someone because of what she’s done and finding reasons to dislike her because your parasocial relationship with Styles leads you to feel ownership over him.
While I agree that there is value in the fair critique of people’s actions, especially when they are adults and even more so when they are highly influential, I have to ask: why did all of this critique begin when she started dating Harry Styles?
Even on top of her actual mistakes, I have to ask, what business is it of yours who Styles dates? If you claim it is because you didn’t know about her until she was dating Styles, then the claim that it isn’t because of him becomes null and void.
Therefore, it is inevitable that people would conclude that even if you claim you don’t hate her because she’s dating Harry Styles, it is undeniable that you didn’t hate her until she was dating Harry Styles.
Editor’s Note: The tweets, Tumblr and Instagram posts used as examples of the rhetoric levelled at Camille Rowe, and Olivia Wilde have not been linked, nor have any names, icons or obvious identifying factors been included. This is because many Harry Styles fans are on the younger side demographically. We also want to discourage any harassment between either side of the fence. This article is a deep dive, not a call to action.
