Well they could make it similar to OTL's ESPN Zone where it would be an indoor attraction instead of an outdoor attraction.
A Hippie in the House of Mouse (Jim Henson at Disney, 1980)
- Thread starter Geekhis Khan
- Start date
- Status
But also competition from Six Flags Over St. Louis. Kansas City seems like a better location to me.
Might be worth it (similar population and tourist base, but less airport traffic), if only to escalates the KC/SL rivalry for laughs.
That said, if Orlando is big enough for two parks, I don't see why St. Louis isn't.
Yeah, I do know that; it’s frustrating to me as well that barring JLU (which also had Hamill as James Jesse/Trickster, but actually treated him as a nice but eccentric fellow) he’s one of several characters perpetually subjected to “turn him Joker-lite in adaptation”; Anarky is another… It doesn’t help, I feel, that these frequently only get the surface level of what makes the Joker work as a character to begin with.Mark Hamill himself said it was his laughter that got him the role as Joker.
And absolutely yes, bring back the Rogues as honorable thieves... better yet, Rogues as found family.
But James Jesse isn't supposed to be a version of Joker with a near-equivalent body count! He's supposed to be wacky and fun; messing with the hero's head but not out to hurt anyone. This page from Blue Devil #8 as example:
.
Does Madonna pursue other film work considering Evita is released without her ITL?
Boys will be Boys
Judge Clarence Thomas Rejected from Supreme Court
Washington Post, October 15th, 1991
(Image source Time)
Washington – The US Senate today rejected the appointment of Appellate Court Judge Clarence Thomas to the US Supreme Court on a narrow 54-46 vote with ten of the Senate’s Democrats voting in favor of Thomas’ confirmation and three Republicans voting against[1]. Thomas was appointed by President Bush to replace the retiring Justice Thurgood Marshall, the nation’s first African American Supreme Court Justice. While many on the left have expressed concerns with Thomas’s past decisions on subjects such as Roe v. Wade and Civil Rights, the rejection is largely seen as a response to the shocking testimony of former employee Anita Hill, who accused Judge Thomas of a long and egregious pattern of sexual harassment, creating a hostile working environment.
Thomas’ fate was sealed when Senator John Vinich, a populist Democrat from Wyoming, announced earlier today that he would be a “nay” vote, leading to many of the undecided Senators swinging for “nay”. “As my republican colleagues like to say,” Vinich told the Post, “Character matters. And a real man treats his women with respect.”
Comparisons are already being made to the Senate rejection of Robert Bork in 1987. President George Bush expressed his “deepest regrets” at the decision, which he… Cont’d on A2.
Judge Emilio Garza Confirmed to Supreme Court
Washington Post, January 25th, 1992
Washington – The US Senate overwhelmingly approved Fifth Circuit Appellate Court Judge Emilio Garza to the US Supreme Court on a 62-38 vote. Garza will be the first Hispanic to serve on the Court and will replace retired Justice Thurgood Marshall. The quick and overwhelming approval is largely seen as a reaction to the long and contentious hearings of Judge Clarence Thomas, who was rejected late last year in part over allegations of egregious sexual harassment against former employee Anita Hill[2]. Garza, who has a conservative voting record, was first nominated to the District Court of West Texas in 1988 by President Ronald Reagan… Con’t on A2.
Chapter 18: Drama Behind the Scenes (Cont’d)
Excerpt from The King is Dead: The Walt Disney Company After Walt Disney, an Unauthorized History by Sue Donym and Arman N. Said
Sometimes the biggest changes in a company come from outside events. These events act as a sort of “forcing function” that causes long-engrained company culture to be reexamined. Such a change came to the Walt Disney Entertainment Company starting in the Summer of 1991 and from the oddest of places. In July of 1991 US Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Thurgood Marshall retired and President George Bush appointed Appellate Court Judge Clarence Thomas to fill the empty seat. The move was criticized right from the start by civil rights leaders, who saw Thomas’s criticisms of Affirmative Action as an affront to the legacy of Marshall, a civil rights icon. Others were wary of his stance on the controversial landmark Roe V. Wade decision. But it would be a different issue that would dominate the hearings and the public discussion and indirectly affect Disney.
(Image source Facebook)
During the hearings, a former employee of Thomas’, Anita Hill, had reported to the FBI that Thomas had subjected her to persistent and egregious sexual harassment, creating a hostile work environment. The FBI report was leaked to the press, causing an uproar. Hill’s testimony during the confirmation hearing turned the uproar into outrage as the details came out and led to a very public and very acrimonious discussion on sexual harassment in the workplace, particularly so shortly after the shocking allegations of massive sexual harassment and assault by Navy and Marine Corps aviators at the 1991 Tailhook Association Symposium. Thomas was ultimately rejected by the Senate in a razor-thin vote, forcing many across the nation to come to terms with their own issues[3]. Soon the controversy began an ongoing discussion on the subject of sexual harassment in the workplace that led to some soul-searching on the part of many companies, lip service from others, and flat-out denial by others.
In the case of Disney, it was the former. The atmosphere in the corporate world following the Thomas hearings caused lots of heated arguments among the management of the company. At first, the leadership was inclined to ignore it all and wait for the public outcry to blow over. There was a prevailing feeling of “boys will be boys” or that the boys were “joking around”. Others were in denial, assuming that “that doesn’t happen here”.
But the truth was that it did happen at the Happiest Place on Earth. In fact, Disney was only one studio among many with a long history of sexual inequity and harassment[4]. Such behavior was frighteningly common in the industry, and Disney in particular had a long and challenging history with gender. As recent leaks have revealed, under Uncle Walt women were openly discouraged from taking jobs considered “not suited for women” like animation direction and leadership roles. Women were encouraged or flat out forced to take roles as secretaries, receptionists, and, in the Animation Department, work as “Ink & Paint girls”, since women were assumed to be incapable of the creativity required for an original animator. Things were somewhat better in Imagineering, where women were central to the design of many now legendary attractions, and yet even there they were steered to “feminine” things like color design and fabrics rather than engineering or architecture.
And yes, there was indeed a persistent “hostile work environment” as well. Things had improved somewhat with women now entering the animation department beyond Ink & Paint, and Imagineering beyond colors and fabrics. The common practice in the ‘20s through ‘70s of covering the walls with sketches or even photographs of nude women had been ended, though such images regularly circulated under the table. However, crude jokes and aggressively masculine behavior were common throughout the company (“boys will be boys”) and aggressive pressure on females for sexual relations or even flat-out sexual assault were seen in several groups. 3D in particular was gaining a reputation among the women in the company as a place to avoid both for its aggressively hostile work environment and its open misogyny and dismissal of the idea of “female coders”. 3D Creative Associate John Lasseter in particular had a reputation as “a hugger” whose unwanted physical contact with female employees was starting to seem excessive even to his male colleagues, some of whom started to quietly intercede to distract him away from them.
As the hard truth of the matter was acknowledged, management was divided on how to approach it. The Disney Personnel section advanced the idea of circulating some of the same bad VHS videos on “ending sexual harassment” that were the norm in the rest of corporate America and recommended that they settle a few of the more egregious cases out of court, and then sweep the rest under the rug. But several executives, most prominently Creative Chief Jim Henson, pushed back.
Henson, it should be said, had a complex history with the women under his employ. While progressive on social issues and a self-proclaimed “feminist”, Henson was also a product of his generation, born in the Great Depression and coming of age in the post-WWII atomic age. While he accepted Jane as his near-equal partner in the business and personal sense, the second that Lisa was born the assumption was that Jane would devote much of her time to motherhood while Jim took the lead on the Muppets. Jim quickly brought in new, overwhelmingly male Muppet Performers to replace her. As Muppets, Inc., and Henson Associates grew, women found many places in the company, particularly in the Workshop where women like Caroly Wilcox advanced into leadership positions. But Muppet Performance remained a male dominated place, a “boys’ club” where female Muppet Performers were struggling to find a voice even despite the equity of Waggle Rock. Excuses for the gender imbalance reigned, typically surrounding “height discrepancies” or the intimate quarters of a Muppet performance, where performers were mashed up against each other. Crude jokes persisted and women who did break into performance, such as Fran Brill, discovered that they sometimes needed to become “one of the guys” and be willing to shrug off the crude and sophomoric behavior of their coworkers[5].
Henson also had a way of failing to notice things when they were inconvenient. So, when he, as Chairman of Disney Studios, was asked to look into sexual harassment in his Department, he expected to find a few cases of crude jokes or inappropriate artwork, but not much else. However, unlike a lot of male executives in the 1990s, Henson actually took the task very seriously. While largely apolitical in the partisan sense, Henson had seen the charges made by Hill and was utterly appalled. If there was one thing that Henson despised, it was a bully, and for Henson Thomas’s alleged actions constituted a bully in power abusing his subordinate. So, Henson first approached the one person in his employ that he knew would not be afraid to tell him the unvarnished truth without fear of retaliation, his daughter Cheryl, who spoke candidly to him for three straight hours. To his shock and disgust, not only were “crude jokes” and inappropriate images common, but open job discrimination remained, as did pressure to engage in sexual favors, and flat-out sexual assault occurred in some egregious situations, particularly in certain divisions like 3D.
Cheryl related that she’d been able to largely escape it since she was “the boss’s daughter”, but many of her female friends and colleagues had been subjected to inappropriate contact. It was a shock to Henson, who tended to assume the best in people. He immediately appointed her to spearhead an internal investigation and audit, not only of Disney Studios but the entirety of the company. She was tasked with assembling a team of her choice and empowered to go where she wanted, protected by Henson and backed by Miller and Wells from any pushback or reprisals.
“When Jim appointed Cheryl, we all knew that he was taking [the situation] seriously,” said “Jennifer” (not her real name), who worked in the animation department. “We knew that he knew that Cheryl would tell him the absolute truth about what happened when he was out of the room.”
Cheryl put together a team of experts from personnel, legal, and the union, as well as hiring therapists – slightly more female than male – and set out to interview anyone who wanted to speak anonymously. She worked with an outside attorney recommended by Al Gottesman, an “outside director”, as a neutral third party. The union leadership was invited to be a part of the process and willingly participated since nearly all of the accusers were union employees, as were a large percentage of the accused. The investigation was met with a mix of support and opposition. Cartoons that portrayed the situation as a witch hunt made the rounds, as did counter-cartoons that showed a cabal of actual witches throwing Mickey and Minnie in the oven while complaining about being subjected to “witch hunts”. Some were emotionally invested in the ongoing investigation, but most simply went on with their jobs.
“They asked me what I’d experienced,” said Frank Oz, “I told them. I went back to work. Whatever.”
Jim and Cheryl Henson managed to contain the fallout and animosity of the investigations through a “principle of compassion and understanding”, as Cheryl put it, where accusers and accused alike were treated with respect and where the investigators worked hard to maintain an aura of neutrality. Men generally interviewed men while women interviewed women on the assumption that the interviewees would feel more at ease that way. Cheryl and her team endeavored to be as “minimally invasive” as possible while still gathering as much data as they could. And when accused harassers were ultimately confronted, it was performed “more like an intervention than an inquisition”, with the accused allowed to bring advocates or union representation with them.
Most of what came to light was relatively mild, such as the occasional dirty joke or inappropriate drawing, but other incidents were shocking, with reports of persistent unwanted touching and pressure for quid pro quo sexual favors. For the most part the “interventions” went smoothly. Only a handful of employees took real offence to the discussions, typically those facing the worst accusations and who had no legal legs to stand on, and a few of them quit in protest. The more egregious examples of quid pro quo or severe sexual assault were met with zero tolerance and those found to have engaged in such unacceptable behaviors were ejected from the company for “actions unbecoming of a Disney employee”. Two lawsuits for “wrongful termination” were launched and summarily dismissed by judges since the Disney legal team had been careful to build a rock-solid case for termination prior to taking action. Perpetrators of relatively minor offenses (“the occasional dirty joke”) were gently admonished to follow the new standards of behavior. Despite some grumbling, most complied with the new rules and moved on with their professional lives, most pledging to rectify their behavior and sincerely apologizing to those whom they hurt with their actions. Only a small number required additional admonishment or administrative action after the fact.
The harder cases proved to be those in the middle or those with no other witnesses. What level (or locations) of “touching” was forgivable? Was an occasional “hug” acceptable? For how long? What level of evidence was required, particularly in cases of “he said, she said” when the accused denied the allegations? One such “in the middle” case involved 3D division Creative Vice President John Lasseter, who was accused of inappropriately hugging and kissing female employees without their permission and “touching legs”. Upon intervention, he acted honestly shocked that his actions were hurting his employees.
“I thought that I was being friendly,” Lasseter told the authors in an interview, “I didn’t know that my improprieties were hurting people!”
He described the intervention to us: “I went into the conference room along with my council, not really knowing whether to expect a tribunal or a ‘nudge-nudge don’t do it again nudge-nudge’. I expected a conference table, but it was a circle of chairs. There was this aura of, well, openness, but seriousness, if that makes any sense. Legal and Union were there, and so were Frank [Wells] and Jim [Henson]. I’d expected Jim to either be looking at me with anger or disappointment, or else to just give me a sly ‘it’s all good, kid’ wink. What I didn’t expect was him to be crying. I mean, the whole time his eyes were wet with tears and he could barely look me in the eye.
“God, Jim had given me everything and he seemed so…betrayed.”
While Jim looked on in pain, Frank Wells read off the accusations and then made it very clear to Lasseter that if he persisted in his inappropriate actions that Wells “could not guarantee [Lasseter’s] continued employment at Disney.”
“Frank put the fear of God into me. I loved my job and nowhere else in the world seemed as great of a place to work. But it mostly pained me…” He paused, overcome by emotion, before continuing: “It pained me that I hurt my coworkers. It pained me that I hurt Jim. To this day I can’t get Jim’s face out of my mind.”
Lasseter was stripped of his leadership role and the associated pay and placed on a 6 week leave of absence. Joe Ranft would take over the creative leadership position at 3D. Upon returning, Lasseter made formal in-person apologies to those whom he’d hurt and was transferred to the Imagineering Softworks as a simple programmer while on an 18-month probation, eventually returning to Animation once the affected employees all declared their willingness to work with him again. “It was awkward to see him back,” said one of the accusers, “But he seemed genuinely sorry for what he did[6]. I can never fully forget how he acted, of course, but I was willing to give him a second chance. True to his word, he kept his hands to himself from that point forward.” It would be years before he regained a position as a producer, eventually getting to work as an art director and assistant producer for his long-running passion project The Brave Little Toaster, directed by his former employee Joe Ranft.
Witnesses report that things did improve fairly quickly at Disney, at least in terms of harassment. The worst offenders were gone or forcibly reformed. “It was still a while before we received equal pay or opportunity, of course,” said “Jennifer” with an ironic laugh, “But we were at least freed to do our jobs without worrying about grabby hands or lewd comments.”
But the investigation didn’t just turn up sexual misconduct. Some directors, producers, and managers were singled out for verbal and emotional abuse. Several employees faced administrative actions for “abusive conduct” and “creating hostile working environments.” Sometimes this was persistent yelling, sometimes it was insults over appearance or beliefs, sometimes it was persistent passive aggressive comments, and sometimes it was overt threats of violence or retaliation. All of these, it was made clear, were not acceptable behavior. “There is no justification for hurting people,” said Jim Henson in a written statement to the Disney staff. “Whether you’re pressuring someone for sex or berating people on the set for minor transgressions, abuse is abuse and it is not welcome at Disney.”
“I’ve always been a bit catty, to put it mildly,” replied then-writer Joss Whedon after facing disciplinary actions for making hurtful comments to colleagues. “As a kid and teen, I faced bullying and reacted in passive-aggressive ways. I made snide comments. It was my way of fighting back. But when I began to work at Disney those tendencies resurfaced amid the stress and I started undermining my coworkers [with those tendencies] whenever I felt threatened or disrespected, whether I actually was or not. I’d make little “jokes” as I called them that were really intended to put the person down. Occasionally I’d lose my temper and yell at my proofreaders or an actor or director that was, I felt, ruining my screenplay.
“I’d occasionally even snipe at my religious coworkers for their beliefs because, well, I’d had such bad experiences with the church and was externalizing my anger[7]. One time I openly mocked Pete Docter’s Christianity. Shit, he’d never once tried to push his faith on me. He was, well, honestly Christ-like about it all in hindsight.
“Jim and Bernie had a long talk with me about it; the Union rep and a Lawyer were present, so I knew this was serious and that I could lose my job. At first, I sort of turtled. Weren’t nerds like me the victims? It took me a while to see that I was being the bully and that I was becoming the thing that I hated the most. ‘He who fights monsters,’ and all. Jim and the mental health people he’d hired helped me get some anger management counseling and I worked to make amends to my coworkers. I even had Easter Dinner with Pete, whose family was so welcoming to me that I felt like such an asshole in hindsight. It was really hard to admit to myself that I was the asshole, but I was. But when the man behind Kermit tells you you’re being the jerk, it kind of strikes home.”
Reportedly, even Jim Henson himself wasn’t spared by the examination. He’d begun seeing an unnamed animator from Ink & Paint earlier that year, and while there was reportedly no coercion or quid pro quo involved, even so Henson and the unnamed employee ended the relationship at the strong recommendation of company lawyers. Rules regarding relationships between employees were even rewritten in detail with strict guidelines, particularly when it came to supervisors and subordinates.
“The days of dating the secretary were over,” said an inside source who claimed familiarity with the issue. “Even if there’s no impropriety going on, it still sets a bad example. And when you can fire or demote the person you’re dating, how can you be 100% sure it’s fully consensual? The answer is that you can’t, and if you can’t, then you shouldn’t.”
The Disney revelations and actions, meanwhile, sent shockwaves through the animation and tech industries. By openly admitting a problem and taking decisive action, Disney put all of the other studios in a bit of a public relations bind. Over the course of the 1990s other major studios, both animation and live action, started receiving calls from their fans and employees for a similar accounting, and not every studio acted with the finesse that Disney did. Triad and Warner Brothers mostly followed the “Disney approach”, but received several legal challenges that complicated matters. Columbia Entertainment, driven by an “irate” (and possibly internalizing) Ted Turner, went through what even many of the accusers saw as a heavy-handed reaction that resulted in ongoing drama in the press and in the courts. ABC and Universal largely swept things under the rug and bought off accusers with out-of-court settlements and non-disclosure agreements.
Several smaller studios were hit as well. Production company Miramax Films was hit by multiple simultaneous lawsuits, all settled out of court for undisclosed but reportedly high sums. In an event that’s largely seen as related to the lawsuits, Miramax partner Harvey Weinstein retired from active production and disappeared from the public eye. He’d be arrested and jailed in 1998 for aggravated sexual assault of a guest at a party, his high-priced lawyers unable to do much to help him when the event was captured by the venue’s closed circuit security cameras.
Bakshi-Kricfalusi Productions, meanwhile, was revealed to be a place of severe and persistent sexual harassment and casual sexual assault. Both partners faced lawsuits due to their “predatory actions” that nearly drove the struggling company bankrupt and strained their working relationship with Triad. Bakshi largely blamed “Henson’s witch hunt” and a “radical feminist agenda gone amok” while Kricfalusi disappeared from the public eye, admitting to friends that he came to realize that he “had a real problem” and sought psychological counselling. He was later arrested and imprisoned, awaiting trial, in 1997 on charges of possession of child pornography and soliciting sex from a 16-year-old. He was found hanging from a bedsheet in his cell, dead from an apparent suicide. Bakshi blamed the “witch hunt” for “murdering” his friend and “depriving the world of an animation genius.” Bakshi’s career, meanwhile, would never really recover, Bakshi-Kricfalusi’s ongoing productions were sold to their partnering studios as a part of the bankruptcy litigation.
The biggest entertainment name to fall in the ensuing press storm was none other than Bill Cosby. Numerous women surfaced to accuse the popular comedian of drugging and sexually assaulting them from the 1960s into the present day. These revelations created outrage. Many refused to believe them. Cosby was “America’s dad” after all! White men and Black men were divided on the accusations, and race politics entered into the fray, clouding things further. Cosby’s own outspoken attacks on certain Black comedians came back to haunt him, with said comedians helping to spread the anger among the Black population. Black Women in particular made their voices heard in a series of headline-grabbing protests in LA, Atlanta, and New York. An LA district attorney hoping to make a name for himself went after Cosby in what was called The Trial of the Century. Despite a now-legendary defense by attorney Johnnie Cochrane, Cosby was ultimately convicted of sexual assault and spent time in prison.
As the fallout continued over the next several years it merged in with the fallout over child sexual abuse into a larger society-level reckoning on a “culture of abuse”. It took with it actors, producers, politicians, CEOs, real estate developers, and other famous and influential men and even some women such as fantasy author Marion Zimmer Bradley (along with her husband Walter Breen). Some of the accused escaped consequences, but others did not. Some managed to use the accusations to build up political and financial support from those who saw the entire thing as a “witch hunt”. Others were found not guilty or saw their cases dismissed due to lack of evidence. And in a small number of cases the accusations were demonstrated to be false or made in bad faith for other reasons, though these were few and their number later exaggerated in the media
The culture war of it all continued long after the original incidents, of course. Talk Radio commentators echoed talk of “witch hunts” and amplified claims by some of the accused of being put through false and politically motivated accusations by “Feminazis” intent on imposing a “female chauvinist agenda”. Bill Cosby, long lauded as “one of the good ones” by people who would never call themselves racist, became a right-wing martyr despite his generally left-wing political views. The subsequent rise of the Political Correctness movement, which quickly became a self-parody with its ham-fisted attempts to control language, simply added to a growing sense of conservative victimhood.
Disney and its leadership became occasional targets of right-wing wrath and boycott calls, though no appreciable impact to profits was noted, with some concluding that growing support from those who supported Disney’s move was countering the halfhearted calls for boycotts on the right.
When interviewed about things later, Jim Henson was rather reticent about the whole affair. “You know, there’s what’s right and what’s wrong. How we treat each other matters. How we treat those [whom] we have power over matters even more.”
[1] Democratic “Ayes” include Dan Boren of Oklahoma, John Breaux of Louisiana, Denis DeConcini of Arizona, Jim Exon of Nebraska, Wyche Fowler of Georgia, Fritz Hollings of South Carolina, J. Bennett Johnston of Louisiana, Chuck Robb of Virginia, and Richard Shelby of Alabama. Republican “Nays” include Bob Packwood of Oregon, Jim Jeffords of Vermont, and John Warner of Virginia; the first two voted “Nay” in our timeline too and Warner was on the fence. Hat tip to @jpj1421 for the assist on determining the "voting".
[2] Garza, by comparison, has a clean and relatively dull personal history. Garza, for what it’s worth, is pretty much a bog-standard Originalist/Textualist, so assume that he votes the same way that Thomas did in our timeline unless I mention otherwise.
[3] While Thomas’ accusation in our timeline also led to a reckoning on sexual harassment and assault, here a powerful man has suffered serious consequences for his inappropriate actions (rejected from the highest court in the land) sending a totally different message than in our timeline, where the message was “boys will be boys, so grope away, Harvey!”
[4] Read accounts of the ugly reality of gender and animation here.
[5] Fran Brill, to the apparent surprise of her male coworkers, related exactly such a situation on Muppet Guys Talking.
[6] Since the revelations of his inappropriate behavior at Pixar came to light in 2017, John Lasseter has made an effort to apologize and atone for his actions. He says he “will continue to work every day for the rest of [his] life to prove [...] that [he has] grown and learned.” Whether he’s being sincere or just playing the game I don’t know since I can’t read minds, but I’m assuming that he’s acting sincerely and trying to atone. Here Disney taking firm, clear, and decisive action early on, rather than just using “minders who were tasked with reining in his impulses”, has avoided a lot of pain down the road for everyone.
[7] Numerous allegations of such abuse have recently surfaced regarding Joss Whedon from many of his employees with many others corroborating them, starting on Buffy the Vampire Slayer and continuing up to the present day. Generally speaking, people don’t start off as openly abusive to their coworkers, but start small and every time they “get away with it” they’re more inclined to push the limits a little further next time. Eventually this can spiral into a persistent hostile work environment. I’m playing a bit of armchair psychologist here, so take my assumptions on his motivations with a grain of salt, but my hypothesis is that had management taken a firmer stance with him and others like him early on and made it clear that such behavior was unacceptable from the start, then the accused abusive tendencies could have been nipped in the bud before they became habitual, and before they reached the persistent and egregious level that they allegedly ultimately did. So, is Whedon truly “redeemed” here, or is this just a passing moment of him “playing along”? Stay Tuned. Note that in general the question of who among the accused is “redeemable” and who is not is a question that I struggled with…a lot.
Washington Post, October 15th, 1991
(Image source Time)
Washington – The US Senate today rejected the appointment of Appellate Court Judge Clarence Thomas to the US Supreme Court on a narrow 54-46 vote with ten of the Senate’s Democrats voting in favor of Thomas’ confirmation and three Republicans voting against[1]. Thomas was appointed by President Bush to replace the retiring Justice Thurgood Marshall, the nation’s first African American Supreme Court Justice. While many on the left have expressed concerns with Thomas’s past decisions on subjects such as Roe v. Wade and Civil Rights, the rejection is largely seen as a response to the shocking testimony of former employee Anita Hill, who accused Judge Thomas of a long and egregious pattern of sexual harassment, creating a hostile working environment.
Thomas’ fate was sealed when Senator John Vinich, a populist Democrat from Wyoming, announced earlier today that he would be a “nay” vote, leading to many of the undecided Senators swinging for “nay”. “As my republican colleagues like to say,” Vinich told the Post, “Character matters. And a real man treats his women with respect.”
Comparisons are already being made to the Senate rejection of Robert Bork in 1987. President George Bush expressed his “deepest regrets” at the decision, which he… Cont’d on A2.
Judge Emilio Garza Confirmed to Supreme Court
Washington Post, January 25th, 1992
Washington – The US Senate overwhelmingly approved Fifth Circuit Appellate Court Judge Emilio Garza to the US Supreme Court on a 62-38 vote. Garza will be the first Hispanic to serve on the Court and will replace retired Justice Thurgood Marshall. The quick and overwhelming approval is largely seen as a reaction to the long and contentious hearings of Judge Clarence Thomas, who was rejected late last year in part over allegations of egregious sexual harassment against former employee Anita Hill[2]. Garza, who has a conservative voting record, was first nominated to the District Court of West Texas in 1988 by President Ronald Reagan… Con’t on A2.
* * *
Chapter 18: Drama Behind the Scenes (Cont’d)
Excerpt from The King is Dead: The Walt Disney Company After Walt Disney, an Unauthorized History by Sue Donym and Arman N. Said
Sometimes the biggest changes in a company come from outside events. These events act as a sort of “forcing function” that causes long-engrained company culture to be reexamined. Such a change came to the Walt Disney Entertainment Company starting in the Summer of 1991 and from the oddest of places. In July of 1991 US Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Thurgood Marshall retired and President George Bush appointed Appellate Court Judge Clarence Thomas to fill the empty seat. The move was criticized right from the start by civil rights leaders, who saw Thomas’s criticisms of Affirmative Action as an affront to the legacy of Marshall, a civil rights icon. Others were wary of his stance on the controversial landmark Roe V. Wade decision. But it would be a different issue that would dominate the hearings and the public discussion and indirectly affect Disney.
(Image source Facebook)
During the hearings, a former employee of Thomas’, Anita Hill, had reported to the FBI that Thomas had subjected her to persistent and egregious sexual harassment, creating a hostile work environment. The FBI report was leaked to the press, causing an uproar. Hill’s testimony during the confirmation hearing turned the uproar into outrage as the details came out and led to a very public and very acrimonious discussion on sexual harassment in the workplace, particularly so shortly after the shocking allegations of massive sexual harassment and assault by Navy and Marine Corps aviators at the 1991 Tailhook Association Symposium. Thomas was ultimately rejected by the Senate in a razor-thin vote, forcing many across the nation to come to terms with their own issues[3]. Soon the controversy began an ongoing discussion on the subject of sexual harassment in the workplace that led to some soul-searching on the part of many companies, lip service from others, and flat-out denial by others.
In the case of Disney, it was the former. The atmosphere in the corporate world following the Thomas hearings caused lots of heated arguments among the management of the company. At first, the leadership was inclined to ignore it all and wait for the public outcry to blow over. There was a prevailing feeling of “boys will be boys” or that the boys were “joking around”. Others were in denial, assuming that “that doesn’t happen here”.
But the truth was that it did happen at the Happiest Place on Earth. In fact, Disney was only one studio among many with a long history of sexual inequity and harassment[4]. Such behavior was frighteningly common in the industry, and Disney in particular had a long and challenging history with gender. As recent leaks have revealed, under Uncle Walt women were openly discouraged from taking jobs considered “not suited for women” like animation direction and leadership roles. Women were encouraged or flat out forced to take roles as secretaries, receptionists, and, in the Animation Department, work as “Ink & Paint girls”, since women were assumed to be incapable of the creativity required for an original animator. Things were somewhat better in Imagineering, where women were central to the design of many now legendary attractions, and yet even there they were steered to “feminine” things like color design and fabrics rather than engineering or architecture.
And yes, there was indeed a persistent “hostile work environment” as well. Things had improved somewhat with women now entering the animation department beyond Ink & Paint, and Imagineering beyond colors and fabrics. The common practice in the ‘20s through ‘70s of covering the walls with sketches or even photographs of nude women had been ended, though such images regularly circulated under the table. However, crude jokes and aggressively masculine behavior were common throughout the company (“boys will be boys”) and aggressive pressure on females for sexual relations or even flat-out sexual assault were seen in several groups. 3D in particular was gaining a reputation among the women in the company as a place to avoid both for its aggressively hostile work environment and its open misogyny and dismissal of the idea of “female coders”. 3D Creative Associate John Lasseter in particular had a reputation as “a hugger” whose unwanted physical contact with female employees was starting to seem excessive even to his male colleagues, some of whom started to quietly intercede to distract him away from them.
As the hard truth of the matter was acknowledged, management was divided on how to approach it. The Disney Personnel section advanced the idea of circulating some of the same bad VHS videos on “ending sexual harassment” that were the norm in the rest of corporate America and recommended that they settle a few of the more egregious cases out of court, and then sweep the rest under the rug. But several executives, most prominently Creative Chief Jim Henson, pushed back.
Henson, it should be said, had a complex history with the women under his employ. While progressive on social issues and a self-proclaimed “feminist”, Henson was also a product of his generation, born in the Great Depression and coming of age in the post-WWII atomic age. While he accepted Jane as his near-equal partner in the business and personal sense, the second that Lisa was born the assumption was that Jane would devote much of her time to motherhood while Jim took the lead on the Muppets. Jim quickly brought in new, overwhelmingly male Muppet Performers to replace her. As Muppets, Inc., and Henson Associates grew, women found many places in the company, particularly in the Workshop where women like Caroly Wilcox advanced into leadership positions. But Muppet Performance remained a male dominated place, a “boys’ club” where female Muppet Performers were struggling to find a voice even despite the equity of Waggle Rock. Excuses for the gender imbalance reigned, typically surrounding “height discrepancies” or the intimate quarters of a Muppet performance, where performers were mashed up against each other. Crude jokes persisted and women who did break into performance, such as Fran Brill, discovered that they sometimes needed to become “one of the guys” and be willing to shrug off the crude and sophomoric behavior of their coworkers[5].
Henson also had a way of failing to notice things when they were inconvenient. So, when he, as Chairman of Disney Studios, was asked to look into sexual harassment in his Department, he expected to find a few cases of crude jokes or inappropriate artwork, but not much else. However, unlike a lot of male executives in the 1990s, Henson actually took the task very seriously. While largely apolitical in the partisan sense, Henson had seen the charges made by Hill and was utterly appalled. If there was one thing that Henson despised, it was a bully, and for Henson Thomas’s alleged actions constituted a bully in power abusing his subordinate. So, Henson first approached the one person in his employ that he knew would not be afraid to tell him the unvarnished truth without fear of retaliation, his daughter Cheryl, who spoke candidly to him for three straight hours. To his shock and disgust, not only were “crude jokes” and inappropriate images common, but open job discrimination remained, as did pressure to engage in sexual favors, and flat-out sexual assault occurred in some egregious situations, particularly in certain divisions like 3D.
Cheryl related that she’d been able to largely escape it since she was “the boss’s daughter”, but many of her female friends and colleagues had been subjected to inappropriate contact. It was a shock to Henson, who tended to assume the best in people. He immediately appointed her to spearhead an internal investigation and audit, not only of Disney Studios but the entirety of the company. She was tasked with assembling a team of her choice and empowered to go where she wanted, protected by Henson and backed by Miller and Wells from any pushback or reprisals.
“When Jim appointed Cheryl, we all knew that he was taking [the situation] seriously,” said “Jennifer” (not her real name), who worked in the animation department. “We knew that he knew that Cheryl would tell him the absolute truth about what happened when he was out of the room.”
Cheryl put together a team of experts from personnel, legal, and the union, as well as hiring therapists – slightly more female than male – and set out to interview anyone who wanted to speak anonymously. She worked with an outside attorney recommended by Al Gottesman, an “outside director”, as a neutral third party. The union leadership was invited to be a part of the process and willingly participated since nearly all of the accusers were union employees, as were a large percentage of the accused. The investigation was met with a mix of support and opposition. Cartoons that portrayed the situation as a witch hunt made the rounds, as did counter-cartoons that showed a cabal of actual witches throwing Mickey and Minnie in the oven while complaining about being subjected to “witch hunts”. Some were emotionally invested in the ongoing investigation, but most simply went on with their jobs.
“They asked me what I’d experienced,” said Frank Oz, “I told them. I went back to work. Whatever.”
Jim and Cheryl Henson managed to contain the fallout and animosity of the investigations through a “principle of compassion and understanding”, as Cheryl put it, where accusers and accused alike were treated with respect and where the investigators worked hard to maintain an aura of neutrality. Men generally interviewed men while women interviewed women on the assumption that the interviewees would feel more at ease that way. Cheryl and her team endeavored to be as “minimally invasive” as possible while still gathering as much data as they could. And when accused harassers were ultimately confronted, it was performed “more like an intervention than an inquisition”, with the accused allowed to bring advocates or union representation with them.
Most of what came to light was relatively mild, such as the occasional dirty joke or inappropriate drawing, but other incidents were shocking, with reports of persistent unwanted touching and pressure for quid pro quo sexual favors. For the most part the “interventions” went smoothly. Only a handful of employees took real offence to the discussions, typically those facing the worst accusations and who had no legal legs to stand on, and a few of them quit in protest. The more egregious examples of quid pro quo or severe sexual assault were met with zero tolerance and those found to have engaged in such unacceptable behaviors were ejected from the company for “actions unbecoming of a Disney employee”. Two lawsuits for “wrongful termination” were launched and summarily dismissed by judges since the Disney legal team had been careful to build a rock-solid case for termination prior to taking action. Perpetrators of relatively minor offenses (“the occasional dirty joke”) were gently admonished to follow the new standards of behavior. Despite some grumbling, most complied with the new rules and moved on with their professional lives, most pledging to rectify their behavior and sincerely apologizing to those whom they hurt with their actions. Only a small number required additional admonishment or administrative action after the fact.
The harder cases proved to be those in the middle or those with no other witnesses. What level (or locations) of “touching” was forgivable? Was an occasional “hug” acceptable? For how long? What level of evidence was required, particularly in cases of “he said, she said” when the accused denied the allegations? One such “in the middle” case involved 3D division Creative Vice President John Lasseter, who was accused of inappropriately hugging and kissing female employees without their permission and “touching legs”. Upon intervention, he acted honestly shocked that his actions were hurting his employees.
“I thought that I was being friendly,” Lasseter told the authors in an interview, “I didn’t know that my improprieties were hurting people!”
He described the intervention to us: “I went into the conference room along with my council, not really knowing whether to expect a tribunal or a ‘nudge-nudge don’t do it again nudge-nudge’. I expected a conference table, but it was a circle of chairs. There was this aura of, well, openness, but seriousness, if that makes any sense. Legal and Union were there, and so were Frank [Wells] and Jim [Henson]. I’d expected Jim to either be looking at me with anger or disappointment, or else to just give me a sly ‘it’s all good, kid’ wink. What I didn’t expect was him to be crying. I mean, the whole time his eyes were wet with tears and he could barely look me in the eye.
“God, Jim had given me everything and he seemed so…betrayed.”
While Jim looked on in pain, Frank Wells read off the accusations and then made it very clear to Lasseter that if he persisted in his inappropriate actions that Wells “could not guarantee [Lasseter’s] continued employment at Disney.”
“Frank put the fear of God into me. I loved my job and nowhere else in the world seemed as great of a place to work. But it mostly pained me…” He paused, overcome by emotion, before continuing: “It pained me that I hurt my coworkers. It pained me that I hurt Jim. To this day I can’t get Jim’s face out of my mind.”
Lasseter was stripped of his leadership role and the associated pay and placed on a 6 week leave of absence. Joe Ranft would take over the creative leadership position at 3D. Upon returning, Lasseter made formal in-person apologies to those whom he’d hurt and was transferred to the Imagineering Softworks as a simple programmer while on an 18-month probation, eventually returning to Animation once the affected employees all declared their willingness to work with him again. “It was awkward to see him back,” said one of the accusers, “But he seemed genuinely sorry for what he did[6]. I can never fully forget how he acted, of course, but I was willing to give him a second chance. True to his word, he kept his hands to himself from that point forward.” It would be years before he regained a position as a producer, eventually getting to work as an art director and assistant producer for his long-running passion project The Brave Little Toaster, directed by his former employee Joe Ranft.
Witnesses report that things did improve fairly quickly at Disney, at least in terms of harassment. The worst offenders were gone or forcibly reformed. “It was still a while before we received equal pay or opportunity, of course,” said “Jennifer” with an ironic laugh, “But we were at least freed to do our jobs without worrying about grabby hands or lewd comments.”
But the investigation didn’t just turn up sexual misconduct. Some directors, producers, and managers were singled out for verbal and emotional abuse. Several employees faced administrative actions for “abusive conduct” and “creating hostile working environments.” Sometimes this was persistent yelling, sometimes it was insults over appearance or beliefs, sometimes it was persistent passive aggressive comments, and sometimes it was overt threats of violence or retaliation. All of these, it was made clear, were not acceptable behavior. “There is no justification for hurting people,” said Jim Henson in a written statement to the Disney staff. “Whether you’re pressuring someone for sex or berating people on the set for minor transgressions, abuse is abuse and it is not welcome at Disney.”
“I’ve always been a bit catty, to put it mildly,” replied then-writer Joss Whedon after facing disciplinary actions for making hurtful comments to colleagues. “As a kid and teen, I faced bullying and reacted in passive-aggressive ways. I made snide comments. It was my way of fighting back. But when I began to work at Disney those tendencies resurfaced amid the stress and I started undermining my coworkers [with those tendencies] whenever I felt threatened or disrespected, whether I actually was or not. I’d make little “jokes” as I called them that were really intended to put the person down. Occasionally I’d lose my temper and yell at my proofreaders or an actor or director that was, I felt, ruining my screenplay.
“I’d occasionally even snipe at my religious coworkers for their beliefs because, well, I’d had such bad experiences with the church and was externalizing my anger[7]. One time I openly mocked Pete Docter’s Christianity. Shit, he’d never once tried to push his faith on me. He was, well, honestly Christ-like about it all in hindsight.
“Jim and Bernie had a long talk with me about it; the Union rep and a Lawyer were present, so I knew this was serious and that I could lose my job. At first, I sort of turtled. Weren’t nerds like me the victims? It took me a while to see that I was being the bully and that I was becoming the thing that I hated the most. ‘He who fights monsters,’ and all. Jim and the mental health people he’d hired helped me get some anger management counseling and I worked to make amends to my coworkers. I even had Easter Dinner with Pete, whose family was so welcoming to me that I felt like such an asshole in hindsight. It was really hard to admit to myself that I was the asshole, but I was. But when the man behind Kermit tells you you’re being the jerk, it kind of strikes home.”
Reportedly, even Jim Henson himself wasn’t spared by the examination. He’d begun seeing an unnamed animator from Ink & Paint earlier that year, and while there was reportedly no coercion or quid pro quo involved, even so Henson and the unnamed employee ended the relationship at the strong recommendation of company lawyers. Rules regarding relationships between employees were even rewritten in detail with strict guidelines, particularly when it came to supervisors and subordinates.
“The days of dating the secretary were over,” said an inside source who claimed familiarity with the issue. “Even if there’s no impropriety going on, it still sets a bad example. And when you can fire or demote the person you’re dating, how can you be 100% sure it’s fully consensual? The answer is that you can’t, and if you can’t, then you shouldn’t.”
The Disney revelations and actions, meanwhile, sent shockwaves through the animation and tech industries. By openly admitting a problem and taking decisive action, Disney put all of the other studios in a bit of a public relations bind. Over the course of the 1990s other major studios, both animation and live action, started receiving calls from their fans and employees for a similar accounting, and not every studio acted with the finesse that Disney did. Triad and Warner Brothers mostly followed the “Disney approach”, but received several legal challenges that complicated matters. Columbia Entertainment, driven by an “irate” (and possibly internalizing) Ted Turner, went through what even many of the accusers saw as a heavy-handed reaction that resulted in ongoing drama in the press and in the courts. ABC and Universal largely swept things under the rug and bought off accusers with out-of-court settlements and non-disclosure agreements.
Several smaller studios were hit as well. Production company Miramax Films was hit by multiple simultaneous lawsuits, all settled out of court for undisclosed but reportedly high sums. In an event that’s largely seen as related to the lawsuits, Miramax partner Harvey Weinstein retired from active production and disappeared from the public eye. He’d be arrested and jailed in 1998 for aggravated sexual assault of a guest at a party, his high-priced lawyers unable to do much to help him when the event was captured by the venue’s closed circuit security cameras.
Bakshi-Kricfalusi Productions, meanwhile, was revealed to be a place of severe and persistent sexual harassment and casual sexual assault. Both partners faced lawsuits due to their “predatory actions” that nearly drove the struggling company bankrupt and strained their working relationship with Triad. Bakshi largely blamed “Henson’s witch hunt” and a “radical feminist agenda gone amok” while Kricfalusi disappeared from the public eye, admitting to friends that he came to realize that he “had a real problem” and sought psychological counselling. He was later arrested and imprisoned, awaiting trial, in 1997 on charges of possession of child pornography and soliciting sex from a 16-year-old. He was found hanging from a bedsheet in his cell, dead from an apparent suicide. Bakshi blamed the “witch hunt” for “murdering” his friend and “depriving the world of an animation genius.” Bakshi’s career, meanwhile, would never really recover, Bakshi-Kricfalusi’s ongoing productions were sold to their partnering studios as a part of the bankruptcy litigation.
The biggest entertainment name to fall in the ensuing press storm was none other than Bill Cosby. Numerous women surfaced to accuse the popular comedian of drugging and sexually assaulting them from the 1960s into the present day. These revelations created outrage. Many refused to believe them. Cosby was “America’s dad” after all! White men and Black men were divided on the accusations, and race politics entered into the fray, clouding things further. Cosby’s own outspoken attacks on certain Black comedians came back to haunt him, with said comedians helping to spread the anger among the Black population. Black Women in particular made their voices heard in a series of headline-grabbing protests in LA, Atlanta, and New York. An LA district attorney hoping to make a name for himself went after Cosby in what was called The Trial of the Century. Despite a now-legendary defense by attorney Johnnie Cochrane, Cosby was ultimately convicted of sexual assault and spent time in prison.
As the fallout continued over the next several years it merged in with the fallout over child sexual abuse into a larger society-level reckoning on a “culture of abuse”. It took with it actors, producers, politicians, CEOs, real estate developers, and other famous and influential men and even some women such as fantasy author Marion Zimmer Bradley (along with her husband Walter Breen). Some of the accused escaped consequences, but others did not. Some managed to use the accusations to build up political and financial support from those who saw the entire thing as a “witch hunt”. Others were found not guilty or saw their cases dismissed due to lack of evidence. And in a small number of cases the accusations were demonstrated to be false or made in bad faith for other reasons, though these were few and their number later exaggerated in the media
The culture war of it all continued long after the original incidents, of course. Talk Radio commentators echoed talk of “witch hunts” and amplified claims by some of the accused of being put through false and politically motivated accusations by “Feminazis” intent on imposing a “female chauvinist agenda”. Bill Cosby, long lauded as “one of the good ones” by people who would never call themselves racist, became a right-wing martyr despite his generally left-wing political views. The subsequent rise of the Political Correctness movement, which quickly became a self-parody with its ham-fisted attempts to control language, simply added to a growing sense of conservative victimhood.
Disney and its leadership became occasional targets of right-wing wrath and boycott calls, though no appreciable impact to profits was noted, with some concluding that growing support from those who supported Disney’s move was countering the halfhearted calls for boycotts on the right.
When interviewed about things later, Jim Henson was rather reticent about the whole affair. “You know, there’s what’s right and what’s wrong. How we treat each other matters. How we treat those [whom] we have power over matters even more.”
[1] Democratic “Ayes” include Dan Boren of Oklahoma, John Breaux of Louisiana, Denis DeConcini of Arizona, Jim Exon of Nebraska, Wyche Fowler of Georgia, Fritz Hollings of South Carolina, J. Bennett Johnston of Louisiana, Chuck Robb of Virginia, and Richard Shelby of Alabama. Republican “Nays” include Bob Packwood of Oregon, Jim Jeffords of Vermont, and John Warner of Virginia; the first two voted “Nay” in our timeline too and Warner was on the fence. Hat tip to @jpj1421 for the assist on determining the "voting".
[2] Garza, by comparison, has a clean and relatively dull personal history. Garza, for what it’s worth, is pretty much a bog-standard Originalist/Textualist, so assume that he votes the same way that Thomas did in our timeline unless I mention otherwise.
[3] While Thomas’ accusation in our timeline also led to a reckoning on sexual harassment and assault, here a powerful man has suffered serious consequences for his inappropriate actions (rejected from the highest court in the land) sending a totally different message than in our timeline, where the message was “boys will be boys, so grope away, Harvey!”
[4] Read accounts of the ugly reality of gender and animation here.
[5] Fran Brill, to the apparent surprise of her male coworkers, related exactly such a situation on Muppet Guys Talking.
[6] Since the revelations of his inappropriate behavior at Pixar came to light in 2017, John Lasseter has made an effort to apologize and atone for his actions. He says he “will continue to work every day for the rest of [his] life to prove [...] that [he has] grown and learned.” Whether he’s being sincere or just playing the game I don’t know since I can’t read minds, but I’m assuming that he’s acting sincerely and trying to atone. Here Disney taking firm, clear, and decisive action early on, rather than just using “minders who were tasked with reining in his impulses”, has avoided a lot of pain down the road for everyone.
[7] Numerous allegations of such abuse have recently surfaced regarding Joss Whedon from many of his employees with many others corroborating them, starting on Buffy the Vampire Slayer and continuing up to the present day. Generally speaking, people don’t start off as openly abusive to their coworkers, but start small and every time they “get away with it” they’re more inclined to push the limits a little further next time. Eventually this can spiral into a persistent hostile work environment. I’m playing a bit of armchair psychologist here, so take my assumptions on his motivations with a grain of salt, but my hypothesis is that had management taken a firmer stance with him and others like him early on and made it clear that such behavior was unacceptable from the start, then the accused abusive tendencies could have been nipped in the bud before they became habitual, and before they reached the persistent and egregious level that they allegedly ultimately did. So, is Whedon truly “redeemed” here, or is this just a passing moment of him “playing along”? Stay Tuned. Note that in general the question of who among the accused is “redeemable” and who is not is a question that I struggled with…a lot.
Last edited:
TTL's Eddie Murphy is going to have a field day with the Cosby trial. "Yooooouuu cannot put filth - filth flarn flarn flarn filth - in the people's chocolates!"
Not sure how to feel about Lasseter. The fact that he's trying to make up for it sounds like he was just one of those high-functioning Spectrum types who didn't understand personal space all that well.
Not sure how to feel about Lasseter. The fact that he's trying to make up for it sounds like he was just one of those high-functioning Spectrum types who didn't understand personal space all that well.
Oh there is a lot to unpack here.
Frankly, the sheer amount of an earlier triumph for femimism and against workplace patricaralism and the horrid Boys will be Boys mantra will carry more butterflies then the average museum has. No Cllarence Thomas in lieu of Garza is easily the biggest one
Frankly, the sheer amount of an earlier triumph for femimism and against workplace patricaralism and the horrid Boys will be Boys mantra will carry more butterflies then the average museum has. No Cllarence Thomas in lieu of Garza is easily the biggest one
Maybe I'm just not reading this right, but I'm really not a fan of the ''escaped consequences'' line, IOTL, a lot of men have either been cleared or had their charges disproven/dropped in some form or another. In some cases, like Richard Dreyfuss' they never simply never went anywhere. I'm not trying to advocate against MeToo, of course. Innocent till proven guilty is all I'm saying here.
Last edited:
Good chapter.
With all the controversy now surrounding Miramax, I guess Pulp Fiction will be distributed by another studio.
With all the controversy now surrounding Miramax, I guess Pulp Fiction will be distributed by another studio.
You're not wrong. That kind of leads to the assumption of guilt in all cases, which was not my intent. I added the following sentence to that paragraph to more accurately reflect the larger situation:
"Others were found not guilty or saw their cases dismissed due to lack of evidence. And in a small number of cases the accusations were demonstrated to be false or made in bad faith for other reasons, though these were few and their number later exaggerated in the media."
Good update, and a lot to read about...
I think Whedon will still be somewhat of a jerk, but it won't be nearly to the extent of OTL.
Thomas' exposure for sexual harassment also derails the Clinton presidential campaign in TTL--he was accused of sexual harassment by Paula Jones in OTL...
This might help expose Jeffrey Epstein, as well...
And Richard Pryor will still be well enough to do this bit about Cosby (this is from this post by @Emperor Norton I: https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...s-in-late-80s-early-90s.413508/#post-14520912):
"All I got to say is Bill done fucked up. 30 women. 30 women! If Bill touched a titty on one woman, the CBS News the next night "Bill Cosby caught touching titties. What does this mean for America", interviewing Rudy and Theo and shit. Some White woman "As a mother, I was shocked and appalled at Bill touching women's breasts". Because you know White folk ain't gonna take that shit. Bill could dope up all the Puerto Rican bitches he wanted and White people wouldn't give a shit. But you touch one woman named 'Janice', and that shit is over. And this motherfucker was doping White women like he was going for the world record. White women, Black Women, Latin Women...that motherfucker was raping the rainbow. That motherfucker's career is over. Ain't no more Kodak film for that motherfucker. Some big prison fucker named Fareed is gonna use jello pudding to lube up his ass. Spanish fly ain't so funny now is it, motherfucker? Probably be talking about the show and shit while he was doing it. *Motions Humping* "I liked the early shows but I felt the later episodes got a little preachy. I liked "Leonard Part 6" myself. Can I get your autograph after this? Just sign the tip of my dick 'To Fareed, thanks for the memories', just right there. You can add a P.S. if you want. I got plenty of room on there.". Dance your way out of this shit in them ugly ass sweaters."
This is also going to affect Britain, too (I'm thinking of a certain BBC host with the initials JS, among others)...
I think Whedon will still be somewhat of a jerk, but it won't be nearly to the extent of OTL.
Thomas' exposure for sexual harassment also derails the Clinton presidential campaign in TTL--he was accused of sexual harassment by Paula Jones in OTL...
This might help expose Jeffrey Epstein, as well...
And Richard Pryor will still be well enough to do this bit about Cosby (this is from this post by @Emperor Norton I: https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...s-in-late-80s-early-90s.413508/#post-14520912):
"All I got to say is Bill done fucked up. 30 women. 30 women! If Bill touched a titty on one woman, the CBS News the next night "Bill Cosby caught touching titties. What does this mean for America", interviewing Rudy and Theo and shit. Some White woman "As a mother, I was shocked and appalled at Bill touching women's breasts". Because you know White folk ain't gonna take that shit. Bill could dope up all the Puerto Rican bitches he wanted and White people wouldn't give a shit. But you touch one woman named 'Janice', and that shit is over. And this motherfucker was doping White women like he was going for the world record. White women, Black Women, Latin Women...that motherfucker was raping the rainbow. That motherfucker's career is over. Ain't no more Kodak film for that motherfucker. Some big prison fucker named Fareed is gonna use jello pudding to lube up his ass. Spanish fly ain't so funny now is it, motherfucker? Probably be talking about the show and shit while he was doing it. *Motions Humping* "I liked the early shows but I felt the later episodes got a little preachy. I liked "Leonard Part 6" myself. Can I get your autograph after this? Just sign the tip of my dick 'To Fareed, thanks for the memories', just right there. You can add a P.S. if you want. I got plenty of room on there.". Dance your way out of this shit in them ugly ass sweaters."
This is also going to affect Britain, too (I'm thinking of a certain BBC host with the initials JS, among others)...
Phew, not a very pleasant chapter to read.
Well at least Disney took the accusations seriously and managed to be a good example.
This earlier #MeToo movement is going to make butterflies the size of trucks, I'm wondering if this will start the populist movement of the 2010s early. Trump becoming president in 2002 instead of 2016?
Also the Cosby trial is really going to be the Trial of the Century. It was already mind blowing to hear the accusations in 2019 OTL, but hearing them in 1990 when Cosby was still in his peak coming out of the Cosby Show is completely different.
Well at least Disney took the accusations seriously and managed to be a good example.
This earlier #MeToo movement is going to make butterflies the size of trucks, I'm wondering if this will start the populist movement of the 2010s early. Trump becoming president in 2002 instead of 2016?
Also the Cosby trial is really going to be the Trial of the Century. It was already mind blowing to hear the accusations in 2019 OTL, but hearing them in 1990 when Cosby was still in his peak coming out of the Cosby Show is completely different.
Are you going to do a chapter on how the earlier "Me Too" stuff affected things overseas?
…OK, first off can I just say, “well played, sir”? Here’s me expecting the post to just be a series of news articles, only for you to seamlessly segue into the “Chapter” showing how that big change affects Disney, with some on how it goes later into the future spreading outwards… Jim felt true to himself, even with the changes so far he’s still a optimist who wants to see the overall good in all people, and that makes him both wilfully and subconsciously blind to the scale of the potential problem and hos own biases. Fortunately he’s wise to ask Cheryl, who gives it to him straight, and with his backing she builds the foundation needed to make the best impact possible. Some people can’t be helped, but overall things get better in Disney itself (and beyond), because true to Jim’s values he’ll never condone bullying and bullies of any stripe; even he owns up to the changes by accepting that the changes for the better means the power imbalances of his personal flings should no longer be allowed to slide. I could go on there, but you get the point.
Overall, I can agree with your conclusions for the most part on specific cases. I could be disappointed that non-US cases haven’t come up (particularly James Saville and Rolf Harris), but based both on the strong thought you’ve already given and the fact that attitudes across the Pond wouldn’t react to the same level for numerous reasons, it’s sensible not to simply group them in with the Hollywood industry. Plus we can’t fix the whole world, people will inevitably slip through the cracks, but that doesn’t mean the efforts are meaningless with no tangible impact.
I share the thoughts on how Joss Whedon probably didn’t start as the monster many of his colleagues came to regard him as, and likely slipped into it by being enabled. It’s heartwarming that he even realised his own issues with religion shouldn’t let him abuse people who ARE NOT the kind that soured him to it (institution is not people), and that Pete Docter made amends with him like that; at this point Whedon realising this with the intervention seems reasonable. Same for the idea that work pressure and clashing with others probably played a part in how he used passive-aggression… Earlier this year, James Marsters even followed up the story about how Joss took out the “need” to keep Spike alive (which contradicted his thematic goals for the vampires to symbolise obstacles) on him, stating he understands why Whedon felt that his artistic vision was being threatened; he even said that if HE was in that same position he’d have simply killed Spike off episodes sooner contract for 5 episodes be damned! Which wasn’t to excuse his actions, but there’s a lot to it that can develop these attitudes…
As for John Lasseter, assuming he is indeed remorseful and genuinely failed to realise how much he was hurting his female colleagues in both timelines? Seeing Jim’s clear feelings of hurt and betrayal for not being as good as he’d thought of him definitely WOULD be worse than even scolding like a misbehaving child; more effective too. While his reputation IOTL has pretty much become beyond salvaging (who was it that hired him, leading Emma Thompson to quit in protest, again?), it’s nice that he’s given some punishment but then allowed to earn back trust and forgiveness even if he’s not able to regain his high position (a small price IMO for learning to be a better person); the fact his friend Joe Ranft gets his former job position is only fitting
Cosby at this point has already racked up quite the rap sheet, and it’s probably better to demonstrate that he’s not exempt from scrutiny just because he’s a “good” black man; the fact that fellow African-Americans bring the evidence forward means that even Cochrane (who to be charitable I see as an idealistic fool with some deluded concepts on improving black peoples lives) can’t ultimately cover him; I’m not even going to speculate concerning OJ Simpson given how many variables can effectively happen to avert his murders from OTL.
Weinstein… yep, I agree with this; it’s not clear how much he’d have done by now or even when exactly he’s brought down ITTL, but the knock-on effect probably helped to weaken the resources he’d used to “Catch and Kill” the stories about him (the terminology, while the name Ronan Farrow used for his book and podcast about how he accumulated the research which brought Harvey down IOTL, wasn’t actually Farrow’s; that’s what those who actually did that called it).
Sadly ABC and some others haven’t improved, but it is as it is… including the witch hint allegations like Bakshi; in which case I’m hardly surprised, but definitely disappointed that he doubled down and refused to admit to anything. Kricfalusi OTOH almost impressed me, if only for admitting he has a problem… though he failed to truly improve himself, and ultimately couldn’t face himself by the looks of it. Sorry Ralph, but you and your friend being genuine innovators doesn’t give you special privileges and lashing out at those trying to do the right thing as they understand it doesn’t change that; it’s unfortunate that John K. couldn’t improve himself, but art isn’t worth the price of the pain his and you inflicted on others… Though I don’t regret my statement that the men clearly were friends and shared a passion for animation, I never could ignore the simple truth of what they did.
As always, you tackle this with grave and self-awareness that I admire Geekhis; thank you as always for that.
EDIT: I just reread your last post again; noticed the nod to the Flash and such, but did you edit the stuff pertaining to The Spirit rights to acknowledge the Will Eisner estate yet? If you did I didn’t notice anything that suggested the difference… just might want to double check that, I think.
If you did account for that though, could you highlight the part of the paragraph for me in a response, so I know you did get around to that?
Thanks for listening mate, take care.
Overall, I can agree with your conclusions for the most part on specific cases. I could be disappointed that non-US cases haven’t come up (particularly James Saville and Rolf Harris), but based both on the strong thought you’ve already given and the fact that attitudes across the Pond wouldn’t react to the same level for numerous reasons, it’s sensible not to simply group them in with the Hollywood industry. Plus we can’t fix the whole world, people will inevitably slip through the cracks, but that doesn’t mean the efforts are meaningless with no tangible impact.
I share the thoughts on how Joss Whedon probably didn’t start as the monster many of his colleagues came to regard him as, and likely slipped into it by being enabled. It’s heartwarming that he even realised his own issues with religion shouldn’t let him abuse people who ARE NOT the kind that soured him to it (institution is not people), and that Pete Docter made amends with him like that; at this point Whedon realising this with the intervention seems reasonable. Same for the idea that work pressure and clashing with others probably played a part in how he used passive-aggression… Earlier this year, James Marsters even followed up the story about how Joss took out the “need” to keep Spike alive (which contradicted his thematic goals for the vampires to symbolise obstacles) on him, stating he understands why Whedon felt that his artistic vision was being threatened; he even said that if HE was in that same position he’d have simply killed Spike off episodes sooner contract for 5 episodes be damned! Which wasn’t to excuse his actions, but there’s a lot to it that can develop these attitudes…
As for John Lasseter, assuming he is indeed remorseful and genuinely failed to realise how much he was hurting his female colleagues in both timelines? Seeing Jim’s clear feelings of hurt and betrayal for not being as good as he’d thought of him definitely WOULD be worse than even scolding like a misbehaving child; more effective too. While his reputation IOTL has pretty much become beyond salvaging (who was it that hired him, leading Emma Thompson to quit in protest, again?), it’s nice that he’s given some punishment but then allowed to earn back trust and forgiveness even if he’s not able to regain his high position (a small price IMO for learning to be a better person); the fact his friend Joe Ranft gets his former job position is only fitting
Cosby at this point has already racked up quite the rap sheet, and it’s probably better to demonstrate that he’s not exempt from scrutiny just because he’s a “good” black man; the fact that fellow African-Americans bring the evidence forward means that even Cochrane (who to be charitable I see as an idealistic fool with some deluded concepts on improving black peoples lives) can’t ultimately cover him; I’m not even going to speculate concerning OJ Simpson given how many variables can effectively happen to avert his murders from OTL.
Weinstein… yep, I agree with this; it’s not clear how much he’d have done by now or even when exactly he’s brought down ITTL, but the knock-on effect probably helped to weaken the resources he’d used to “Catch and Kill” the stories about him (the terminology, while the name Ronan Farrow used for his book and podcast about how he accumulated the research which brought Harvey down IOTL, wasn’t actually Farrow’s; that’s what those who actually did that called it).
Sadly ABC and some others haven’t improved, but it is as it is… including the witch hint allegations like Bakshi; in which case I’m hardly surprised, but definitely disappointed that he doubled down and refused to admit to anything. Kricfalusi OTOH almost impressed me, if only for admitting he has a problem… though he failed to truly improve himself, and ultimately couldn’t face himself by the looks of it. Sorry Ralph, but you and your friend being genuine innovators doesn’t give you special privileges and lashing out at those trying to do the right thing as they understand it doesn’t change that; it’s unfortunate that John K. couldn’t improve himself, but art isn’t worth the price of the pain his and you inflicted on others… Though I don’t regret my statement that the men clearly were friends and shared a passion for animation, I never could ignore the simple truth of what they did.
As always, you tackle this with grave and self-awareness that I admire Geekhis; thank you as always for that.
EDIT: I just reread your last post again; noticed the nod to the Flash and such, but did you edit the stuff pertaining to The Spirit rights to acknowledge the Will Eisner estate yet? If you did I didn’t notice anything that suggested the difference… just might want to double check that, I think.
If you did account for that though, could you highlight the part of the paragraph for me in a response, so I know you did get around to that?
Thanks for listening mate, take care.
Last edited:
Well let’s see how he handles his bankruptcies for his casinos first. Also he has to be more if an icon. (without the apprentice I don’t think he’d have been president.)
I wonder how this affects Woody Allen--not only did he leave Mia Farrow for her daughter, Soon-Yi Previn (her adopted daughter with her former husband, Andre Previn (1)), he was also accused of sexually abusing their 4-year-old daughter, Dylan. I wonder if the allegations stick sooner in TTL, regardless of whether he was guilty or innocent in both TLs (while he could have done it, IMO, Mia also could have coached Dylan into making up the allegations to destroy his reputation in order to get back at him for leaving her--remember, she sent a Valentine's Day card to him featuring a photo of their adopted and bio kids with needles through them and with a steak knife stuck through the heart of the thing!!! (2))...
(1) Andre left his wife, Dory, for Mia Farrow--Dory would write and record a famous song "Beware of Young Girls" about Mia Farrow, which Mia, ironically enough, was on the receiving end of with Woody and Soon-Yi.
(2) Moses Farrow, one of her adopted children, has claimed this on a blog he writes, but take anything he says with a massive grain of salt, IMO...
(1) Andre left his wife, Dory, for Mia Farrow--Dory would write and record a famous song "Beware of Young Girls" about Mia Farrow, which Mia, ironically enough, was on the receiving end of with Woody and Soon-Yi.
(2) Moses Farrow, one of her adopted children, has claimed this on a blog he writes, but take anything he says with a massive grain of salt, IMO...
Last edited:
Yeah, this is the one I was waiting for. But my brain didn't connect it to the Clarence Thomas hearings, so that's interesting.
Honestly good on Jim for recognizing his flaws in this area. I mean the Marshall replacement in this timeline seems a lot less controversial, but it was the reaction at large that was fascinating. My first thought when I read what was happening was "Ah fuck, I hope they find out about John Lasseter." and yeah, sure enough you brought it up nice and quick. Your read of Lasseter's apology and subsequent behaviour is...a little more optimistic than my own. But I will accept that while the damage he was severe, catching it relatively early in the process before he gets into a real position of power might have been enough to knock it on the head. So yeah, in this context I can accept it. Same with Whedon honestly. Not having become a mega-star yet, maybe this shit'll get him to cool his heels. Or not. This is a more optimistic timeline in some ways, so...yeah. Weinstein getting taken out is terrific as well.
Bakshi-Kricfalusi Productions collapsing is...yeah. Honestly the new owner would be best to tear the name off most of the films in productions. It's a little depressing to hear how Bakshi handled it, but then again I suppose that's the problem isn't it? If you're so used to attacks coming at you for being obscene or stepping over the line, then it can make you forget that on some things it is absolutely essential you remain on the right side of it.
Good fucking riddance to Cosby. Johnny Cochrane trying to defend him makes me curious as to the future of OJ and how that trial will go. Cochrane's got a little infamy here already and where he'll take that could be anyone's guess. The right wing getting riled up is depressingly predictable, and it does make me wonder if we'll be up for another batch of exposes in the coming years. I mean fuck, you've still got people like Thurmond and Packwood in the senate who have dodgy records with the opposite sex.
I appreciate your efforts to work out what is best to be done with the people you've listed here. I agree to some extent with the psychology o f how you approached these and I understand that it must have been a difficult one to deal with. I think that the ones you have 'punished' if that is the word are the ones least likely to change the pattern of their behaviour and were in high enough positions to get away with it. As to the ones who have been 'saved'....hm. Well, only time will tell, right? You handled this sensitively enough in my opinion, as you have done with all of the sexual misconduct posts thus far.
Honestly good on Jim for recognizing his flaws in this area. I mean the Marshall replacement in this timeline seems a lot less controversial, but it was the reaction at large that was fascinating. My first thought when I read what was happening was "Ah fuck, I hope they find out about John Lasseter." and yeah, sure enough you brought it up nice and quick. Your read of Lasseter's apology and subsequent behaviour is...a little more optimistic than my own. But I will accept that while the damage he was severe, catching it relatively early in the process before he gets into a real position of power might have been enough to knock it on the head. So yeah, in this context I can accept it. Same with Whedon honestly. Not having become a mega-star yet, maybe this shit'll get him to cool his heels. Or not. This is a more optimistic timeline in some ways, so...yeah. Weinstein getting taken out is terrific as well.
Bakshi-Kricfalusi Productions collapsing is...yeah. Honestly the new owner would be best to tear the name off most of the films in productions. It's a little depressing to hear how Bakshi handled it, but then again I suppose that's the problem isn't it? If you're so used to attacks coming at you for being obscene or stepping over the line, then it can make you forget that on some things it is absolutely essential you remain on the right side of it.
Good fucking riddance to Cosby. Johnny Cochrane trying to defend him makes me curious as to the future of OJ and how that trial will go. Cochrane's got a little infamy here already and where he'll take that could be anyone's guess. The right wing getting riled up is depressingly predictable, and it does make me wonder if we'll be up for another batch of exposes in the coming years. I mean fuck, you've still got people like Thurmond and Packwood in the senate who have dodgy records with the opposite sex.
I appreciate your efforts to work out what is best to be done with the people you've listed here. I agree to some extent with the psychology o f how you approached these and I understand that it must have been a difficult one to deal with. I think that the ones you have 'punished' if that is the word are the ones least likely to change the pattern of their behaviour and were in high enough positions to get away with it. As to the ones who have been 'saved'....hm. Well, only time will tell, right? You handled this sensitively enough in my opinion, as you have done with all of the sexual misconduct posts thus far.
- Status