There are two videos linked below showing celebrities Russell Brand and Morgan Freeman having multiple interactions with female TV reporters & hosts. The Morgan Freeman video also contains some reported anecdotes of his behaviour towards said women.
I’m interested in seeing an intellectual discussion that delves in to the specific nuances of why Morgan Freeman’s behaviour could be considered sexual harassment, but not Russell Brand’s.
I have nothing to add. I would just like to see such a discussion.
I don’t understand how one is viewed as sexual harassment, and the other isn’t. I could understand if both were, or both weren’t. That’s as close to a view as I’ve got.
I’m keen to hear some explanations as to why one is different from the other, particularly from people who believe it to be so. It’s clearly based on something I don’t understand. I have searched the internet trying to find a discussion on the nuances of this, but couldn’t find anything.
I offer the following as potential explanations for the purposes of playing the devil’s advocate, not to endorse any particular argument:
Russell Brand is not part of Hollywood being, principally, a British celebrity. As such, Hollywood don’t care.
His day may still be coming.
He got lucky to only hit on women who appreciated it. As an fat old man, Morgan Freeman’s advances are less welcome.
Brand may be significantly different off-camera and when the cameras weren’t rolling he was entirely polite and PC. This made it clear that he was simply playing a character.
Freeman has an image as a genial, benevolent angel. Brand has an image as a flirt. Ergo, Freeman gets castigated where Brand does not. See: PeeWee Herman.
Two arguments that I will make though are that:
Life isn’t fair.
Failing to get caught is not the same thing as being innocent. See point 1.
I’m in agreement with Sage Rat, one would have to ask the people making the judgement and their reasons may include…
[ul]
[li]whether Brand or Freeman turns it off when the cameras aren’t rolling i.e. is it just schtick; [/li][li]what is expected of the scene/performance i.e. Brand’s overt thing is to be absurdly over-the-top inappropriate in a broad manner, vs. Freeman being mostly put in a “respectable” setting and apparently inserting playah affectations where and when it was not expected (mind you, this does not and will not absolve Brand of someone saying “that made me uncomfortable”;* it just does not seem to have happened yet*). [/li][li]the effect of expectations about the person (the elder statesman Voice Of God vs some wacky Brit schmuck).[/li][li] And does The Culture consider all these to be more or less favorable to one or to the other. Why he and not you? To quote a better writer “Why me? Why anybody?” This BTW has its own risky factors i.e. does Freeman being an old black guy skew the standard?[/li][/ul]
…but in the end, what makes it harassment is the combination of Unwanted AND Unwelcomed. Does any of this change that? Do the subjects themselves NOT feeling upset mean third parties may not bring it up?
The question becomed for all out there doing theor thing: before you try anything,do you really KNOW for sure if it will or will not be welcomed or regretted? Can you risk not asking first?
Russel Brand’s public persona is an act. It might be a magnified version of his actual personality, or a complete invention, but he’s deliberately cultivated an image of “outrageously flirty sex god.” It’s precisely this persona that gets him invited on talk shows, like the ones linked to in the OP. He’s on those shows specifically because the networks hope people will tune in to watch Brand flirt with the hosts.
This doesn’t automatically mean that what’s going on in those videos is not sexual harassment. It’s entirely possible that the women receiving his attentions were no more flattered or appreciative than the women Freeman “flirted” with, and tomorrow we’ll get stories about #MeToo coming after after Brand. It’s also entirely possible that Brand negotiated those encounters with those women before the show started, and that they’d agreed to play along as part of the act. It’s even possible that both are true - that Brand negotiated the behaviors before hand, and the women did not feel that they were in a position to say no.
I suspect that the real difference is that the women Brand is flirting wit are roughly in his age cohort, and the women Freeeman is flirting with are young enough to be his grandchildren. Which is kind of unfair, maybe, in that Freeman’s doing the same thing he’s always been doing, and suddenly its creepy just because he’s old, when it was legitimately appreciated when he was younger. On the other hand, dude, grow the fuck up. You’re seventy. There’s tons of really good women out there in your age bracket who wouldn’t mind a man in their lives. Go hit on them, and leave the kids who grew up watching you on The Electric Company alone.
I think the difference is nobody would be surprised if Brand were accused of sexual harassment. But people had a better opinion of Freeman so it comes as a shock.
Rick Rude was on Regis & Kathy a few years ago and flirted with Kathy throughout the entire interview. She didn’t welcome it and recently talked about how it was her worst guest ever, but there were plenty of women in the audience that day that would have loved to be in her shoes. In fact, one lucky lady was picked out and fainted after receiving a kiss from Mr. Rude. Some people have all the power over women, like Rude and Brand, and some don’t.
It might be worth considering what sort of power relations were implicit in whatever situations are under discussion. Which could be seen as “tiresome overgrown adolescent who needs to be sat on the naughty step” and which as “dirty old man who could ruin your career if you don’t put up with it”?
Brand is no stranger to power relations, apparently:
I honestly think the answer to the OP is that Brand has been guilty of sexual harrassment, (and admitted to being sexist before he was redeemed “by the love of a good woman”) but he had the good luck to do it while he could get away with it and then quit while he was behind.
Some guys get away with it, some guys cannot. Some guys actions are seen as “flirting” or playful and others doing the exact same thing is “harassing”.
That is a surprise?
For whatever it is worth, Billy Connolly claims that incident was 100% fabrication and the Sun doesn’t exactly have a sterling reputation for quality journalism.
