Ashley Judd is right to sue Harvey Weinstein for ‘damaging her career’ – it’s time we recognise the real impact of sexual harassment
These situations exist across all industries, social classes and income levels, but the vast majority of the women being penalised in the workplace for the inappropriate actions of men are unable to speak up against it
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Actor Ashley Judd announced that she would be suing Harvey Weinstein for the alleged negative impact he had on her career. Her complaint accuses him of retaliating against her for refusing his sexual advances by blacklisting her, which she says ended up costing her a role in Lord of the Rings.
By filing this lawsuit, Judd is highlighting the injustice she claims to have faced, but also placing a financial value on her career, something women are so often reticent about or discouraged from doing. If she has in fact lost tangible earnings based on Weinstein’s claims she was “difficult to work with”, if her career has been damaged as a result of his actions, she deserves recompense for that.
Whether she would have got the part in Lord of the Rings or not (something people seem intent on debating) is not the right question. Whether her opportunity to do her job was hindered by Weinstein’s bruised ego is the real issue, and how her treatment was inherently linked to her gender.
Not only is sexual harassment overwhelmingly – although not exclusively – perpetrated by men against women, but women are much easier to undermine in their careers, due to a patriarchal mentality which presumes them to be of less value than their male counterparts.
Men are rarely described as “difficult”, and on the odd occasion that they are, it can often be spun and sold as a part of a creative genius (think Jared Leto sending his Suicide Squad cast mates used condoms in the name of "method acting").
Using adjectives such as “bossy”, “emotional” or “difficult” has long been a tactic used in an effort to silence women. Because you can’t argue against it. Defending yourself against claims you’re “difficult” can only really be viewed as, well… difficult. It’s the classic patriarchal Catch 22 leaving women at a complete dead end.
Judd – as an incredibly wealthy individual with a high profile – is in the rare privileged position of being able to hold her alleged harasser to account. Her voice is bolstered by the tidal wave of #TimesUp and #MeToo movements featuring other wealthy (often white, able-bodied) celebrities speaking out against their "moral cesspit" of an industry.
The devastating truth is that sexual harassment exists across all industries, social classes and income levels, but the vast majority of the women being penalised in the workplace for the inappropriate actions of men are unable to speak up against it.
Judd has stated that any earnings generated from the case will be donated to the TimesUp legal fund, established to defray legal costs for other victims. While a cynic may argue that this choice was a wise one to avoid being shrouded with the narrative that she is greedily using her experience to make a quick buck, the reality remains that there is little in this for her, other than the possibility of finding some sort of justice, and if the road to justice is paved with money, then it only seems right that Weinstein and others of his ilk should foot the bill.
All we can hope for is that Judd’s suit represents a small but significant shift in power. The ripples that extend out from this case will get smaller and less impactful the further they travel outside of the Hollywood bubble, and these are the people we really need to fight for. A change in the infrastructure of our gendered society is what we need to fight the epidemic of sexual harassment, while that doesn’t hang on the verdict of one lawsuit, it would certainly be a start.
Natalie Moores is one half of Mac&Moore, a female-founded brand on a mission to create equal opportunities for women through community and conversation
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments