In response to the L.A. Times story, Arnold has suddenly decided he is sorry for his past misogynistic behavior. L.A. Times again:
Responding to a report that he has inappropriately touched six women, one as recently as in 2000, Arnold Schwarzenegger acknowledged this morning that he had "behaved badly" in the past but said he was "deeply sorry."
"Yes, I have behaved badly sometimes," he said. "Yes, there were unruly movie sets.… I did things I thought were playful. But now I recognize that I have offended people and to those people that I have offended, I want to say to them, 'I am deeply sorry about that, and I apologize because this is not what I am trying to do.' "
Speaking at the kickoff of his "California Comeback Express Bus Tour" in San Diego, the gubernatorial candidate said if elected he would be a "champion for women," and that he hoped voters would "give me the chance to prove it."
During the short address, Schwarzenegger urged voters to turn away from what he called "trash politics," and at first said that "a lot of things," in the media are "not true." But in the next breath, the actor acknowledged that he always says "where there's smoke there's fire" and proceeded with his apology.
Now he recognizes it? It has to be published on the front page of the L.A. Times before he recognizes it?
Perhaps the bad behavior he's sorry for includes this playful sort of fun:
During the production of the 1991 mega-blockbuster Terminator 2: Judgment Day, a producer on that film recalls Arnold’s emerging from his trailer one day and noticing a fortyish female crew member, who was wearing a silk blouse. Arnold went up to the woman, put his hands inside her blouse, and proceeded to pull her breasts out of her bra. Another observer says, “I couldn’t believe what I was seeing. This woman’s nipples were exposed, and here’s Arnold and a few of his clones laughing. I went after the woman, who had run to the shelter of a nearby trailer. She was hysterical but refused to press charges for fear of losing her job. It was disgusting.”
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Eric Olsen
I am neither for nor against Arnold. It certainly seems he has some behavior to apologize for, and that he may have some issues with respect to women, namely repecting women. It seems to be a somewhat legitimate issue. I still say the biggest problem I would have with him if I were still a Californian, is that he has no experience with holding political office whatsoever, not with running so immense an organization as the government of California.
As I have said all along I would vote no on the recall because it's frivolous, wasteful, and very partisan. If you vote someone in, he stays in unless there is an impeachable offense.
2 - mike
I think this could actually end of helping Arnold. "I was wrong and now I'm on the straight and narrow." Americans love that stuff.
I think Arianna came across as so shrill and harping in the debate that she threw a lot of support to Arnold.
It's too bad, because the recall is a bad idea and will set a terrible precedent.
3 - Eric Olsen
Well Mike, occasionally we agree - I am very concerned about the precedent too. Too much "democracy" leads to a perpetual campaign and nothing ever getting done, which is a feature not a bug to some people, but I am not one of them. Governmetn has some very real and important responsibilities.
4 - TDavid
Hmmm, so was he slapping women on the ass on the set or what?
I don't go around touching other people in suggestive or inappropriate ways nor am I in favor of those who do, but it seems to me like this happened on and in the context of the "unruly movie set" where fictional sex and innuendo is a common happenstance, yes/no? Therefore a sense of closeness might be there that escapes the crudeness of similar behavior in other settings.
Pretty soon simply shaking someone's hand or a hello hug is going to be considered misogynistic behavior or sexual harassment, I fear.
The world needs more love, not truly inappropriate, indecent touching, but love.
5 - Eric Olsen
LOVE EVERYONE (but wear protection)
6 - Brian Flemming
Premiere:
7 - TDavid
The Naked Gun body condoms, is that what you are promoting, Eric?
8 - Steve Rhodes
Just because a woman works on a movie set, doesn't mean the overpaid star has a right to grab their breasts or ass, ask them to stick their finger in their pussy so he can smell their finger, or ask if a guy has ever stuck his tongue up their ass.
Nobody is going to say a handshake or hug is the same kind of thing. That is a false sliperly slope argument. What Arnold is accused of doing was wrong.
The fictional sex and sexual language is clearly spelled out in the script for those who appear with Arnold. That doesn't give him the right to be an asshole to other women in the crew or at the places he eats.
As I've said, there are certainly lots of other reasons to not vote for the recall and Arnold, but this shows his trying to deflect the criticism by saying he liked powerful women was bullshit. What he called being playful was crudge and humiliating. And unfortunately too many men who aren't movie stars also engage in that kind of behavior and use the same excuses.
9 - Natalie Davis
TDavid: Did you read about him pulling a woman's breasts out of her brassiere and groping them? Come on.
I have been on a number of movie sets. Sometimes the atmosphere is playful and unruly, but only sometimes. And "playful and unruly" does not mean taking people past second base without their consent is OK. Anyone who doesn't get that isn't qualified to be dogcatcher.
In the vast majority of love scenes, for example, the rule is don't touch anything beyond what is scripted or mandated by the director.
Arnold did something that I can't imagine would ever be acceptable. I wish that woman had filed charges. Yes, the primary problem is that Arnold has no experience. Apparently, he has no sense of judgement either. Now he's going to be a champion for women? Yeah, right -- as if we need anything from the likes of him other than to be left the hell alone.
I feel sorry for California. And for those who will suffer because of the precedent that could very well be set on the 7th.
10 - TDavid
Duh, Natalie, Brian just posted it (comment #6) after I made my comment.
Steve, I wasn't sticking up for Arnold's alleged actions (and that is what they are, alleged), I was pointing out that many sexual harassment claims are completely bogus and the playfulness happens on both sides.
Arnold apologized for offending some ladies, so obviously he did something that inappropriate -- or at least that he felt deserved his apology to that effect. It doesn't mean he admitted to the sequence of events as described by his accusers.
Naturally I find Arnold's actions -- if they are true -- disturbing, illegal and totally unacceptable, but there has been now court ruling here.
11 - TDavid
er, no court ruling that would be.
12 - Brian Flemming
Nobody on a movie set mistakes the time when the camera isn't rolling as "fiction." Just doesn't happen.
And as far as love scenes go, actors painstakingly negotiate and ask permission before performing a scene. It's Acting 101. Even a kiss is negotiated--"I'm going to grab you like this and move in like this, is that okay?"
Arnold's alleged (and, to a significant degree now, generally admitted) actions have nothing to do with some kind of blurry line between reality and fiction on a movie set. There is no such line. Crew members are not mistaken for actors playing a scene. Off-camera areas are not mistaken for fictional worlds.
We're pretty crazy out here, but we're not that crazy.
I'm sure some of Arnold's supporters (with the help of his hints) will blur their eyes as they look at the issue and say, Oh, it was just a movie thing. Fiction.
But that's just stupid.
13 - Natalie Davis
Brian or BC staff, could you fix #9, please? I did something wrong in formatting that wipes out most of the posting. Thanks.
14 - TDavid
Brian - I'm sure that you've worked with other people and therefore you get to know them beyond some stranger you see at the book store or the library. The workplace is where many, many people meet their boyfriends, girlfriends, husbands, wives, etc.
The workplace has historically been a great place actually to meet people, and is not the same as walking up to someone in a public place that you don't know.
Actors getting involved with each other and people involved in the movie set? Pick up People's Magazine! You want to say that this doesn't happen?
As for this comment:
Where did Arnold to "a significant degree, now generally admit" this was what happened? I have visited all the links and haven't seen that anywhere. Stick to the facts, please.
What this boils down to -- with the information I've read -- is a He Said, She Said, so don't represent it as a fact. Alleged fact, yes, but fact no.
Now that is "just stupid"
15 - Brian Flemming
Nat,
Fixed it.
The tag to close the italics was
[?i]
instead of
[/i]
16 - Brian Flemming
Btw, I believe this is the first time I have ever edited somebody's comment.
Feels weird to have that power.
Actually, it makes me wonder how others have used it.
(What I know of two deletions of comments by others in the past already concerns me enough. I try not to think about it.)
17 - Brian Flemming
Related, there is an interesting page at the Disinfopedia about raising standard of evidence as a weasely argument technique.
Can't dismiss the seriousness of the allegations? Claim that because there has been no jury trial and verdict that the allegations aren't worthy of discussion.
(Unless it's about a blowjob, of course. Then the standard of evidence is, oh, somebody told somebody who told somebody else a rumor.)
18 - Natalie Davis
Careful, Bri. Absolute power corrupts. :)
Thanks, hon.
TDavid, consent is the issue. Those who have alleged that Schwarzenegger "behaved badly" apparently did not consent. On-screen romances are a completely different, er, affair.
19 - Phillip Winn
Nat, the quote actually starts with "Power corrupts." Absolutely power simply corrupts absolutely. Brian doesn't have absolute power here. :-)
TDavid, there are no circumstances ever which make the purported behavior acceptable. I don't care if you're on a movie set, in a strip club, or at the Playboy mansion. It's just not right!
Brian, I wasn't aware that people had the ability to edit comments on their own posts. That's what I get for going around as 'god' all the time. I'll have to check this out. I'm surprised and think it will need to be disabled. Also, I assure you that I've never deleted a comment outright, though I've edited a few (always with an [Edited by admin] tag). I even replaced one entirely with a short note explaining that spam once lived there, but no deletions.
20 - Brian Flemming
Good to know, Phillip.
The two incidents I am thinking of involved comments deleted by the thread starter pretty much on a whim--the comments were not spam nor unusually offensive. The thread starter simply didn't like them being there, so he deleted them.
And no marker was left--the comments were deleted entirely.
These are just two I know about. I have no idea what else those thread starters and/or others have done.
I consider it a flaw in the system, personally--especially because the Blogcritics audience doesn't know that these disappearances are part of the deal here. Blogcritics looks for all the world like an open book. It isn't obvious that if someone writes "Brian, are you fucking crazy?" I can just send that comment into a black hole if I feel like it.
21 - Phillip Winn
I have done some poking and confirmed that all thread starts can delete any comment on that post. Wow! And barely a dozen lines away from the last change I made to permissions!
Brian, please try to edit this post. Insert whatever you wish. If you succeed, I'll leave it there as my punishment for not fixing it correctly. Thanks!
[Phillip Winn is a doody-head. --Brian]
22 - Steve Rhodes
Arnold also treats men like shit.
This earlier LA Times article hasn't gotten as much attention.
23 - Eric Olsen
All post writers can edit the comments on their posts - I thought everyone knew this. I fix typos all the time - you can too. I have deleted many spam comments, I delete duplicate comment postings regularly (though they have died down since Phillip has sped up the process - way to go).
This is a bizarre obsession. I once deleted a comment I didn't like, apologized for it, said I wouldn't delete anything written by a Blogcritics writer again. I haven't.
This is a non-issue, as is confirmed by the fact that you haven't heard anyone complain about it, and you would have heard based upon the holy hell that was raised the one time I did do it. There are 20,820 comments here - if any of this was an issue, it would have been an issue.
24 - Phillip Winn
I suspect it has been a non-issue because it never occurred to most posters that they could delete comments. Now that the ability has been outed, I've attempted to turn it off.
Brian, feel free to try again here. ;-)
By the way, I didn't just speed things up, I actually put in a feature that rejects duplicate comments. If not a single character in all four fields has changed, it doesn't post again.
25 - Eric Olsen
you rule