Marie Claire: Blake Lively, Misogyny and the Need for Nuance
Content warning: This article contains mentions of domestic violence and sexual harassment
“The majority of socials are so pro Justin and I don’t even agree with half of them lol… It’s actually sad because it shows you have people [who] really want to hate on women.”
These words – sent via text from Justin Baldoni’s crisis manager Melissa Nathan to his publicist Jennifer Abel – were intended to stay between colleagues. They were never meant for public consumption, much less legal action.
They’re certainly being consumed – and acted upon – now.
Reportedly subpoenaed by Blake Lively’s legal team, these comments have been published in an explosive story by The New York Times. The exchange forms part of Blake Lively’s complaint against Baldoni that alleges sexual harassment and a coordinated smear campaign during the controversy-ridden production and promotion of It Ends With Us.
In the wake of the sweeping and severe cancellation of Lively, these texts put a chilling spotlight on how deep our cultural bias against women *still* runs – and how readily we, as a collective, abandon nuance in favour of outrage. Especially in the grips of social media’s echo chamber.
While Baldoni denies the allegations, their existence alone begs the question: why was the public so quick to vehemently vilify Lively without pausing to consider her side of the story?
Two Truths And Alleged Lies: The Perils Of Polarised Pile-Ons
(Credit: Getty)
If you managed to resist the It Ends With Us rabbit holes, here’s the gist: a highly-anticipated film adaptation spiralled into a PR-nightmare when it became clear the leads were feuding, with Lively copping the brunt of brutal public backlash for a host of reasons.
Arguably the most incriminating among them was Lively’s ‘tone deaf’ promotion of the film, which is centred on breaking the cycle of domestic violence – an issue that unquestionably needs urgent attention.
Lively was criticised for misusing a unique opportunity to advocate for action to serve her own agenda, while Baldoni spoke about domestic violence in every interview. However, it’s since been reported by Megan Twohey, one of the New York Times journalists who broke the Weinstein story in 2017, that Sony instructed the cast to focus on the ‘uplifting message of the film’ – not DV – during its promotion. For better or worse, Baldoni was the one going off-script.
Yes, it’s hard to watch Lively’s mean girl-esque treatment of Flaa. And yes, it’s hard not to wince at her upbeat promotion for haircare and booze when gender-based violence impacts millions… But also, yes – Blake Lively, as rich, beautiful and successful as she is – could be a victim of sexual harassment.
Also in the case for cancelling Lively was a resurfaced 2016 interview in which she seems to bully journalist Kjertsi Flaa, and Lively’s opportunistic and ill-timed promotion of her haircare line, Blake Brown Beauty.
This is where nuance is needed.
Yes, it’s hard to watch Lively’s mean girl-esque treatment of Flaa. And yes, it’s hard not to wince at her upbeat promotion for haircare and booze when gender-based violence impacts millions.
Yes, it’s absolutely justified for domestic violence victims to be disappointed by the promotional tone of the film – whether the direction came from Sony or not – and speak out about that. But also, yes – Blake Lively, as rich, beautiful and successful as she is – could be a victim of sexual harassment.
Strategically coordinated or otherwise, she was most certainly the victim of online abuse from the public.
Multiple things can be true at once. And there’s still so much we don’t know. But these factors seemed to be forgotten by ‘the majority of socials’, as Nathan put it.