Are we over-using the word “victim”? I mean- does being hugged for an uncomfortably long time really warrant the term victim?
Should it happen? No. Is he a creeper? Sounds like it. Are you a victim? Nah... you just got hugged by a creeper. Creepers are everywhere, and it’s part of being a woman unfortunately.
I just find it ironic that an industry that essentially promotes and perpetuates massive sexuality in all of its movies and culture overall is enraged that people act upon the sexuality. I mean- Who coined the term “sex sells”?
I go back to the two women who went up to Louis CKs room- or even Weinstein? Some of the cases, of course- blatant harassment and abuse of power. But in some of these situations, do they really warrant the term “victim”? Going into a hotel room of a grown man alone... what do you think is going to happen? You can have a conversation and drinks in a lobby or bar.
Let’s also not discount the thousands of women who use their sexuality and attractiveness to advance their career- as do men. If I’m an attractive woman, I’d use it to my advantage- and playing someone and using that isn’t a bad thing IMO.
There's a unique caveat to all of this that is kind forgotten though. People in power, many times, don't fully recognize how much power they yield. For a lot of these men (and I say men here because that is the predominate topic of discussion, though women can be just as guilty) their "authority" is easily forgotten because it's a commonplace position for them. They're insulated from their power because they're not under their own authority. They're oblivious to it.
I say that because, in my position in the military, I hold immediate authority over a lot of people (men and women). It's extremely easy for me to slip into a mindset of "it's just me, it's not a big deal." Instead, I have to constantly remind myself that I outrank the people around me. I have authority. If I recommend something as innocuous as, "Let's go to lunch," the people who don't have the same power can interpret it as a directive. It can turn coffee into coercion.
It is the coercion that leads into abuse because the action isn't based on the subordinate's desire, abilities, or agency. It's based on the superior's desires.
You mention Louis CK and Weinstein with a valid question about the situation. These men don't do what they do "because of their power." They're simply
able to do it because of their power. Their thought process is "I want to bring this girl to my room" for whatever reason (kink, humor, sex, etc). Their victims' thought process is "If I don't go, it could damage my career." There is a motivational disconnect between the abuser (male or female) and the victim (male or female) that allows these sorts of things to happen.
That disconnect is, in a word, a question of consent. Consent requires mutual agreement on the terms of an action, and is best determined when the relationship is on equal footing. Within that context, acting on sexuality and sex is fine as long as both/all parties consent (no judgement from me, folks). When those parties are unequal, like an adult/child, teacher/student, boss/employee, big industry hotshot/eager young upstart, the line between consent and coercion is blurred to the point of almost being erased. That's when it becomes abuse.
The ACTUAL fix is achieved by recognizing, respecting, and empathizing with the agency and desires of the subordinate/other person. Like I said; I keep it forefront in my mind, not to protect myself but, to protect those who work for me. Unfortunately, to get an entire society to adjust to that requires generational change. In the short term, however, holding people (men and women) accountable for their failures to do that at least serves as a kick-start.