Terry Richardson banned from working with Conde Nast

[dodencebt]

More Publishers Cut Ties With Terry Richardson

Terry Richardson is losing more clients. Sources at both Hearst and The Wall Street Journal’s luxury supplement WSJ confirm that they have no plans to work with the controversial fashion photographer, who last faced allegations of sexual misconduct in 2014.

The news comes as the fallout from the allegations against Harvey Weinstein continues to shine a light on other industries, including fashion photography and modeling.

Earlier this week, Condé Nast International made headlines after Britain’s The Daily Telegraph published an internal e-mail from the publisher banning the company’s titles from working with Richardson. “I am writing to you on an important matter. Condé Nast would like to no longer work with the photographer Terry Richardson. Any shoots that have been commissioned or any shoots that have been completed but not yet published, should be killed and substituted with other material,” the e-mail from James Woolhouse, executive vice president and chief operating officer of CNI, said.

Condé Nast U.S. followed suit: “Condé Nast has nothing planned with Terry going forward,” the publisher said. “Sexual harassment of any kind is unacceptable and should not be tolerated.” W magazine’s November issue featured a shoot by Richardson, as did the September issue of WSJ. Hearst-owned Harper’s Bazaar has been known to use the photographer with some regularity over the years, and Richardson was spotted at Harper’s crowded fashion week party in September.

Fashion brands have followed Condé’s lead, and Bulgari, Valentino and Diesel have all said that they will not work with Richardson.

A representative for Richardson told The Daily Beast that the photographer was “disappointed” by Condé Nast’s decision to blacklist him. Looks like he is in for some more disappointment.

wwd.com

 

[Les_Sucettes]

Little rant and not aimed personally, but having just seen this in a Designers & Collections thread too, I cannot for the life of me stand 'insider information'... the proximity is up in the air when anonymity is involved, same for professionalism (employment leaks) and as a result, veracity... and in my years here, time after time, it's BS. But yeah you'll get the kids "tell us more!". It's as useless as the anonymous people speaking up on IG "one time I was walking into a casting and my skirt got lifted".. okay, thanks? glad we're talking about it, I was assaulted in Paris not long ago and the response (from both male and female officers) was probably more traumatizing than the incident itself. Does sharing incidents contribute to changing perceptions and turning something no one cares for into something openly and immediately reprehensible? yes and that's positive, but does it cut heads or even damages anyone? does it create consequences? not any time soon, and that just gives plenty of time for these people to cover their tracks. Unfortunately, as proved by Asia and Rose, you have to take a "nothing to lose" approach, even if you clearly have your career and sanity to lose... you can barely get somewhere with names/locations/dates, so eliminating that from incidents with people in power is kind of just noise. I know it's hard even just talking about it, but I think that once you've taken that brave risk, it shouldn't be just "one time I was raped........ and it was awful".

Thank you for this. I could not pin point what exactly left a bad taste in my mouth after after this revelations. But you hit the nail on the head, and made things clear for me. It just feel like the status quo is being maintained at all costs if people are prepared to tell their story in general terms but refuse to be specific and name the perpetrators. I hope people do not get me wrong, my criticism is not directed at the people that had the courage to speak, something that is extremely hard, but anger at whole situation, that nothing is changing if the victims still feel that they will be ruining their own lives if they identify their abusers. It does became a sort of "noise" and we are running the risk that people reading their stories will become desensitised to what are actually quite shocking and traumatic events.

 

[Benn98]

.....we are running the risk that people reading their stories will become desensitised to what are actually quite shocking and traumatic events.

I'd say we are already there, LS. Not related to what you're saying, but while I'm sure Alyssa Milano meant well, I feel that the #MeToo tag is blanketing something so personal to a sort of mass epidemic. I'm not sure how this will really help individual victims nor the cause.

 

[cienne]

I'd say we are already there, LS. Not related to what you're saying, but while I'm sure Alyssa Milano meant well, I feel that the #MeToo tag is blanketing something so personal to a sort of mass epidemic. I'm not sure how this will really help individual victims nor the cause.

I consider #MeToo to be largely positive. Even if nothing concrete happens as a result of people sharing their story, I think there is often emotional relief to be found in revealing something that is often perceived as being a shameful secret. Hopefully, it will also help remove people's feelings of shame to see that harrassment/assault/r*pe is so common and can happen to practically anyone, even the wealthy and well-connected.

Also, in my country, some of the people who originally posted anonymous stories eventually found the courage to name their abuser. This in large part because those people had read other stories and realized it had to be the same guy. So as a result, the victims collectively went public with the name and two guys (a well-known journalist and a famous TV host) were sacked. If it's ten victims saying the same thing, they will obviously be believed far more easily than a lone victim.

I think the main downside of #MeToo is that whenever people hint at the abuser's identity, innocent people could end up being wrongly suspected. Björk talking about a Danish director made it very obvious who she was talking about. Reese Witherspoon mentioning a director when she was 16 got people suspecting five different directors and speculating which one it might've been. Speculation like that could end up damaging the reputation of other directors who never did anything.

 

[MissMagAddict]

‘Terry Richardson Is Just the Tip of the Iceberg’
By VANESSA FRIEDMAN AND ELIZABETH PATON
OCT. 27, 2017

This week, in an apparently defensive move after a social media outcry, the biggest fashion magazines cut ties with the photographer Terry Richardson over his history of alleged sexual harassment.

On Monday, The Telegraph broke the news that James Woolhouse, the Condé Nast International executive vice president, had sent a memo to select staff saying that the company would no longer be working with the “controversial” fashion photographer.

“Any shoots that have been commissioned or any shoots that have been completed but not yet published should be killed and substituted with other material,” the memo said.

The next day, Condé Nast International’s American sister organization released a statement saying: “Condé Nast has nothing planned with Terry Richardson going forward. Sexual harassment of any kind is unacceptable and should not be tolerated.”

Porter, the Net-a-Porter magazine, also said it was no longer working with Mr. Richardson. So did Hearst magazines, which owns Elle, Harper’s Bazaar, Esquire and Marie Claire. Mr. Richardson had already been commissioned to shoot the January cover of Elle and had recently done so. It is now being redone by another photographer.

Bulgari, Diesel and Valentino, all brands that recently worked with Mr. Richardson on their ad campaigns, issued statements stating that they had no plans to work with him in the future.

It all sounds very responsible. But some industry insiders have begun to question whether fashion’s efforts to distance itself from Mr. Richardson is an attempt to Band-Aid over a deeper crisis, to make a public example of an offender already accused in order to appear to be taking action, when a much broader and more systemic approach needs to be adopted.

Edie Campbell, a model who has been featured in campaigns for Chanel and Dior, among others, said: “The reality is that the floodgates are already open regarding Terry Richardson. He’s been blacklisted once before, and it’s not that much of an emotional, psychological or commercial leap to blacklist him again. The difficulty is addressing the other people — the ones who are celebrated by the fashion industry, and who are still at the very heart of it. This will not be solved simply by banning the use of one photographer.”

While there are many creative and morally reputable professionals in the industry, it is also rife with reports of lines being crossed.

“The problem is much larger than Terry, who has become the scapegoat, and the quickest means for this industry to absolve itself from any responsibility,” said David Bonnouvrier, the co-founder of DNA Models.

Katie Grand, the editor of Love magazine and a stylist who works with brands including Marc Jacobs and Miu Miu, and who earlier this week reposted a statement from Ms. Campbell on Instagram to the same effect, wrote in an email: “I don’t want to sound like I’m defending him, but I thought it was important to put into perspective that every model has a story of a photographer, client, art director, stylist behaving inappropriately.”

Mr. Richardson was widely pilloried in 2014 when allegations of behavior that included cavorting naked on shoots and forcing his penis on models surfaced in the news media.

Mr. Richardson has not denied his behavior but has always maintained that any sexual activity was consensual, and no criminal charges were ever filed. No major new allegations have appeared since 2014, and he had reportedly gone through therapy. He recently had twins and got married.


Numerous magazines cut ties with Mr. Richardson around 2014, though he had gradually returned to the industry, working with celebrities including Miley Cyrus and Beyoncé as well as magazines and brands.

When Roberta Myers was the editor of Elle (she recently stepped down), she had forbidden the magazine to work with Mr. Richardson, but after Nina Garcia was appointed as Elle’s new editor, he was commissioned to photograph the actress Zoë Kravitz for the January 2018 cover.

After The New York Times published its account detailing allegations of Harvey Weinstein’s sexual harassment and abuse, Joanna Coles, the chief content officer of Hearst, and Ms. Garcia decided to cancel the Elle cover photographed by Mr. Richardson and to reshoot it, a Hearst spokeswoman confirmed.

American Vogue stopped working with Mr. Richardson in 2010, when the first public statements about his behavior appeared, but in the last two years he had done shoots for Vogue China, Vogue France, Korean W, German GQ and Italian GQ, among others. Recently he shot a story for the November issue of W, a Condé Nast magazine, for the first time since 2011. (Mr. Richardson’s photographs have also appeared in T: The New York Times Style Magazine, but not since 2012.)

A Condé Nast spokeswoman said that Stefano Tonchi, the editor of W, was not available for comment. But according to a person familiar with the shoot who asked not to be named because they were not authorized to speak to the media, the magazine had decided it was time to give Mr. Richardson another chance. Editors were on set during the shoot and also handled the model casting.

In the wake of the current revelations about the behavior of men in power, including Bill O’Reilly and Leon Weiseltier, however, Mr. Richardson’s past behavior once again made news. The Sunday Times of London revisited the story (the day before Condé Nast International sent its memo). A petition was started on Change.org asking magazines and other brands to stop using Mr. Richardson; it has over 42,000 signatures.

The designer Prabal Gurung posted on Instagram: “It is important that we hold everyone accountable who worked with Terry Richardson. Not to shame them, but to understand the intention & motive behind their decision to turn a blind eye to his horrific actions. Clearly they cannot say they didn’t know, because we all knew.”

The question now becomes: What else does fashion know?

Trish Goff, a former top model who has spoken about her experience with Mr. Weinstein, said that during her modeling years, “there were other girls and agents who would warn you about a photographer. They’d say, ‘Be mindful of him,’ or “Don’t let him convince you to take off your clothes.’”

Athena Currey, who modeled from 1993 to 2008, said that when she was a 19-year-old working in Paris, her agency sent her on a shoot with a photographer who called her later that night at her hostel to describe how much he wanted to “make love to me.” The next day, she told her agent, a woman, that the conversation made her very uncomfortable and that she did not want to work with him again.

“Everyone said, ‘Of course, of course,’” Ms. Currey said now. “Then a week later, my agent called me and said: ‘I have a really important job, and I really think you should do it. Only it’s with that photographer.’ And then she put a huge amount of pressure on me to get over it and do the job. And I know they sent other girls to him afterward.” The agency, which was a minor presence in the industry, appears to have closed.

None of the models who discussed their experiences for this article said their agents ever talked to them about how to handle unwanted advances from photographers, even if they knew their clients were likely to encounter them.

Carolyn Kramer, a former co-director of Marilyn Models and a former casting director at Self magazine who currently owns an art gallery in Provincetown, Mass., said: “It all came back to the money. If an agency sees potential in a 15-year-old girl, then it doesn’t matter to them what may be happening behind the scenes if the girl can get a campaign. I give myself a C- for what I was able to accomplish to protect my girls. We all sold our souls to the devil so the model could become famous.”

Amber Valletta, a model, actress and activist, said she was asked to take her top off during her first modeling summer in Italy when she was 15 and, on another occasion, was asked by a model booker at a magazine to disrobe. When Ms. Valletta was 18 or 19, she said, a photographer came to her hotel room, asked to give her a massage and began rubbing her breasts.

She said she thought the most important next step was putting structures in place throughout the industry to protect all involved, from garment workers to models.

“My experiences were so minor compared to stories I have heard,” she said. “You start taking one person down, and the skies are going to fall.”

Condé Nast is aware of the risk. On Thursday, in a email to internal management as well as outside contractors, Bob Sauerberg, the chief executive of Condé Nast, and Jonathan Newhouse, the chairman, wrote:

“All employees, freelancers and independent contractors must understand the company’s expectations of appropriate behavior and treatment of others. Condé Nast also expects the agencies that represent hired talent to develop, circulate and reinforce with their clients what is and is not acceptable behavior in interacting with others, with particular emphasis on protecting people who are in vulnerable positions in their professional relationships.”

Ms. Kramer said, “Terry Richardson is just the tip of the iceberg. If magazines distanced themselves from everybody that has been implicated in this kind of behavior, there would be a lot fewer contributing photographers” in their pages.

source | nytimes

 

[rubydon]

Thought this helped to put things into perspective. And I had no idea about Gauguin.

The Case Of Terry Richardson, And The Predatory Men Who Hide Behind ‘Art’

Terry Richardson, a fashion photographer who has been accused of sexually assaulting multiple women over the last decade, was finally blacklisted by publishing company Condé Nast International, The Telegraph reported on Monday.

Many domestic Condé titles like Vogue had reportedly stopped working with Richardson as far back as 2010, after rumors of his explicit behavior with models made industry rounds. In an email to HuffPost on Tuesday, a U.S. representative confirmed that “Condé Nast has nothing planned with Terry going forward. Sexual harassment of any kind is unacceptable and should not be tolerated.” Several other brands have since followed suit.

The notorious artist, who goes by the nickname “Uncle Terry,” has shot everyone from Kim Kardashian to Miley Cyrus to Barack Obama. He also photographed model Charlotte Waters, allegedly ejaculating in her face after licking her naked body, as well as Jamie Peck, who said Richardson groped her breasts during a shoot and “strongly suggested” she give him a hand job.

Richardson’s aesthetic has been described as “sleaze fashion.” His photos feature nudity, sexual innuendo and not-so-inventive uses of popsicles. The photographer, a wiry 52-year-old who’s often seen in thickly rimmed hipster glasses and flannel shirts, leans into his “pervy” reputation, projecting a certain male fantasy of a nerd-turned-horndog. In the artist’s words: “I was a shy kid, and now I’m this powerful guy with his boner, dominating all these girls.” Some of the artist’s mantras are far more unsettling, such as his now infamous 2007 quip, “It’s not who you know, it’s who you blow. I don’t have a hole in my jeans for nothing.” He’s described his artistic process as “people collaborating and exploring sexuality and taking pictures.” Waters described her experience working with Richardson as “disgusting,” leading her to feel “completely paralyzed and freaked out.”

Richardson has long shrugged off accusations of sexual assault as prude misunderstandings of his divisive artistic methods, characterizing “such rumors” as a “disservice [...] to the spirit of artistic endeavor” in a blog that appeared on HuffPost’s contributor’s platform in 2014. Richardson’s representatives proffered a similar defense once again on Tuesday, releasing a statement to BuzzFeed News in response to a leaked email announcing Condé Nast’s decision to blacklist the photographer:

Terry is disappointed to hear about this email especially because he has previously addressed these old stories. He is an artist who has been known for his sexually explicit work so many of his professional interactions with subjects were sexual and explicit in nature but all of the subjects of his work participated consensually.

In the fashion and art worlds ― realms that have historically celebrated bohemian, subversive and amoral ideas ― reportedly predatory behavior like Richardson’s can get covered up by a veneer of glamorous transgression. Artists like Richardson are cast as renegade heroes, able to pierce through societal niceties and politically correctness to capture something raw and true. As Purple editor (and Richardson defender) Olivier Zahm claimed in an interview with The Cut, “You’re not exploited in front of an artist, you’re exploited when you have to work in a boring job.”

Models (mostly female) have been posing in front of artists (mostly male) for years, their bodies readily available to painters, sculptors and photographers, amounting to a long and still under-examined record of imbalance. “One of the first things you do in art school is draw a naked young woman,” artist and writer Christen Clifford told HuffPost. “The young female body is always the object. You are literally taught that in art school.”

Museums are lined with images of undressed, often passively posed women depicted by (mostly white) male artists. And intimacy is often accepted as part of their artistic process; Pablo Picasso famously said that for him, art and sexuality are the same. In Paul Gauguin’s case, this intimacy turned into abuse when the artist’s underage, Polynesian muses reportedly became his “sex slaves.” Today critics look back uneasily on Gauguin’s oeuvre, understanding the predatory behavior that accompanied his work. Still, that work is shown in museums, taught in schools and ultimately admired.

In response to allegations of abusive behavior, men like Richardson often evoke the names of these erotic icons past, glossing over issues of non-consensual model-artist relations by pointing to the annals of art history in their defense. “Like Robert Mapplethorpe, Helmut Newton, and so many others before me, sexual imagery has always been a part of my photography,” Richardson has said. He makes no mention of whether Mapplethorpe or Newton used their positions as artists to exploit their subjects in the process of making these sexual images. Of course, the “but I’m an artist!” defense fails to acknowledge the connection between the transgressive ideas artists cherish and the potentially damaging behavior involved in bringing those ideas to life.

Today, that connection is still blurry. Free expression, the ultimate prerequisite for artistic creation, not only permits contemporary artists to act without inhibitions but rewards risks and transgressions. When that permission and those rewards are granted mostly to men in powerful positions, unbridled freedom can come at the expense of the less powerful ― including women. “It’s kind of like the way the term free speech has been appropriated by the alt-right to legitimize violence,” performance artist Emma Sulkowicz told HuffPost. “Sure, it’s freedom [of expression]. But freedom for whom?”

Sulkowicz is best known for her performance “Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight),” in which she carried a 50-pound dorm mattress everywhere she went on Columbia University’s campus to protest the college’s mishandling of her r*pe. While at Columbia, she also curated a fictional exhibition comprised entirely of male artists accused of sexual assault. “I wanted to show films by Woody Allen and Roman Polanski and work by Terry Richardson,” she recalled.

There’s a marked difference between abusing a woman’s body and exploiting her image. However, for Clifford, who moderated a discussion titled “Art and Sex” at an all-women’s gallery in New York in October, the night before we spoke, the two acts are hardly unrelated. “The idea that a man can take a woman’s sexy Instagram photos and put them out as his own work is very related to r*pe culture,” she said. “It’s the belief that a man has ownership over women’s bodies.”

Clifford referenced contemporary artist Richard Prince who, in 2014, took screenshots of Instagram photos showing a variety of 20-something models, artists and social media stars in sexually suggestive poses and printed them onto canvases, which he then sold for up to $100,000. The women, who are not only featured in the images but often shot the original photos themselves, received no compensation ― nor did they give Prince permission to appropriate their work.

Critic Jerry Saltz called Prince’s move “genius trolling,” and praised the artist as “a real wizard of his tastes; as honed to his needs as Humbert Humbert was to where Lolita was in the house.” Artist Audrey Wollen, whose photo was featured in the series, was not quite so moved. “An old, white, successful, straight male artist feeling entitled to the image of a young female body is not surprising,” she told i-D. “Maybe I’m idealistic, but I don’t think art should simply reiterate the status quo.”

For artist Leah Schrager, art history is largely the story of male artists like Prince and Richardson profiting off female sexuality. “Sexual women are stripped of their power unless their sexuality is bestowed upon them through the hands of a man,” she told HuffPost. “Those may be the hands of Richard Prince, Ryder Ripps or Harvey Weinstein. Women must be handed on a platter to the masses through the hands of men.”

Schrager previously worked as a model but now prefers self-portraiture, creating sexy images over which she has full economic and creative autonomy. But she says she still has trouble being taken seriously as a self-described “sexy woman in the art world.” Along with being condescended to and overlooked by men in the industry, she recalled multiple instances of being groped and verbally harassed. On one occasion, which she described as “the worst,” she says an unnamed gallery director sexually assaulted her.

“A very well-known art dealer called me on the phone,” Schrager said. “He proceeded to tell me that my selfies were embarrassing and that I was making a fool out of myself with my art. At the same time, while he was talking, it was very clear he was masturbating and coming to my pictures.” (Schrager also shared a story of being groped by a woman in her field.)

Since an alarming number of women have come forward accusing movie producer Weinstein of harassment and abuse earlier this month, women in fields outside of Hollywood have followed, shedding light on the confounding pervasiveness of predatory behavior in nearly every industry. There were allegations lodged against Amazon Studios programming chief Roy Price and director James Toback, as well as magician David Blaine, Vox media director Lockhart Steele and ArtForum publisher Knight Landesman.

Sulkowicz shared her hope that, following the Weinstein reports and subsequent backlash, predatory men in every field would finally be recognized for what they are. “With Harvey Weinstein, we are literally seeing a change in the way we use the English language,” Sulkowicz said, citing the ideas of theorist Stuart Hall. “We have a new term, and that term is Harvey Weinstein. We can now say: ‘he is a Harvey Weinstein,’ as in a man who has a powerful role in an industry and takes advantage of it to have his way with women. Once something has entered into the popular consciousness in that way, it demarcates a huge shift.”

But for Schrager, a related problem still plagues the art world, and that’s a widespread fear of female sexuality on its own terms.

“The art world either supports asexual images of women or sexual images of women authored by men,” she said. “I think the saddest thing that could happen from all this is women being pushed to be more asexual, more hidden, more nun-like. I think that’s moving backwards. The other option, truly the only real option, is for women to own their sexuality and get power from it. If women could be respected for presenting their own images, that would be revolutionary.”

Richardson’s allegations have been public for years, long before stories of Weinstein’s behavior prompted powerful institutions everywhere to reevaluate the powerful men that run them. Today, women in the art world are not only calling foul on the “but I’m an artist” dodge, but pointing a finger at an imbalance of power that makes it difficult to suss out where creative direction ends and coercion begins. Beyond Richardson’s behavior, criticism lands on an art world that demands female sexuality be manufactured and sanctioned by men ― a world that shirks away from giving women the power to control their image.

huffingtonpost

 

[dsamg]

Interesting to note that I follow most prominent fashion people on Instagram. 54 people that I follow also follow Prabal Gurung and not one liked his post about Terry. I believe many people in fashion are still very hesitant to speak out about him.

 

[Les_Sucettes]

Thought this helped to put things into perspective. And I had no idea about Gauguin.




huffingtonpost

Some good points in this article but i do not think i totally agree with it.

I know the author wanted to make a point, Gauguin but did not turn his muses into "sex slaves" , the reality is more prosaic and even more crude if possible, so there is no need to misinform people. Gauguin took child brides that he "married" with the agreement of their tribes, the relationship was fluid and they were free to come and go. His motivation was clearly primarily to acquire sexual playthings, they did not came as "muses" and became something else, let's be real here, he did exactly what numerous Europeans, that never touched a paint brush, felt entitled to do. The fact that he happened to be an artist that was inspired by them as part of his idea of a sort untouched paradise and the "innocent savage" , is another layer of this relationship, but let's not deviate from the fact they were not primarily "muses".

 

[Les_Sucettes]

Thought this helped to put things into perspective. And I had no idea about Gauguin.




huffingtonpost

Some good points in this article but i do not think i totally agree with it.

I know the author wanted to make a point, Gauguin but did not turn his muses into "sex slaves" , the reality is more prosaic and even more crude if possible, so there is no need to misinform people. Gauguin took child brides that he "married" with the agreement of their tribes, the relationship was fluid and they were free to come and go. His motivation was clearly primarily to acquire sexual playthings, they did not came as "muses" and became something else, let's be real here, he did exactly what numerous Europeans, that never touched a paint brush, felt entitled to do. The fact that he happened to be an artist that was inspired by them as part of his idea of a sort untouched paradise and the "innocent savage" , is another layer of this relationship, but let's not deviate from the fact they were not primarily "muses".

 

[t-rex]

mr. Richardson had already been commissioned to shoot the january cover of elle

what?!

 

[MulletProof]

^ not surprised and somehow not bothered either... I would prefer the industry to stay true to themselves. I find it more pathetic to see them trying to pull a Hollywood move on someone that's not even the Weinstein equivalent... just a dumb scapegoat really. If they grabbed a nerve, they would know it goes beyond a photographer, or even gender... people like Katie Grand being far more toxic and negative when it comes to the role and image of women... her proud "never had a period, ever" still pops into my head when I see her name. Probably the least qualified person to communicate ideas on "beauty" through images, especially advertisements... let alone judge the offenses of another equally f*cked up character.

It would be nice to know the current thoughts of those that jumped on his defense when being a sex predator was not a big deal.

“Terry doesn’t force girls to do anything they don’t want to. He puts you in a G-string in a pile of mud because you want to do it. You touch yourself because you want to. [...]". (Abbey Lee).

Since March 2010, when the allegations were far louder than they're now, he was immediately supported by being allowed to enter a more commercial, 'consolidated photographer' stage of his career... he has shot 22 covers for Glenda Bailey's Bazaar ever since.. even the oh so feminist The Gentlewoman (Penny Martin) and Dazed deemed him alright to sell their publication. Terry and his work says nothing, what speaks volumes are the decisions of these people that chose to employ him.. you really wonder how they evaluated that one "so he may have sexually abused someone, on the other hand, he shot Miley's video and his Candy issue sold so well!".

Phuel, men are still humans and still prone to trauma, reason why male childhood r*pe often makes child molesters, childhood violence leads to domestic violence. What society does tell differently is how to deal with it and yes, as a man, you "must" internalize only... never talk about it, never cry about it or your masculinity is put into question (by both men and women).. so no, men don't have it any easier. But I think you're talking about different things... a playful pinch in the butt , which yeah, it's not a big deal coming from someone that makes you, for different reasons, feel flattered/funny instead of repulsed. Once intimidation is involved (by, among other things and as ta-ta mentioned, aggressive physical dominance/strength), the perspective and awareness of consequences is completely different, and once you've seen at least 15 times in your life that a creepy advance is often followed by being chased on the street, not getting a promotion, being touched, being raped, being hit, being insulted, shamed, then yeah.. you learn how to tell play from assault.

 

[cienne]

what?!

Yep, it was mentioned in the NY Times article quoted above:

When Roberta Myers was the editor of Elle (she recently stepped down), she had forbidden the magazine to work with Mr. Richardson, but after Nina Garcia was appointed as Elle’s new editor, he was commissioned to photograph the actress Zoë Kravitz for the January 2018 cover.

After The New York Times published its account detailing allegations of Harvey Weinstein’s sexual harassment and abuse, Joanna Coles, the chief content officer of Hearst, and Ms. Garcia decided to cancel the Elle cover photographed by Mr. Richardson and to reshoot it, a Hearst spokeswoman confirmed.

Source: NY Times.

 

[rubydon]

Thanks - I didn't know that. It's good that we're entering an era in which all of this is changing.

 

[fashionista-ta]

I didn't realize Roberta had stepped down--I'm sorry to hear that. Says a lot about Nina Garcia that the Richardson ban was the first thing she changed. Lightweight.

 

[Benn98]

I didn't realize Roberta had stepped down--I'm sorry to hear that. Says a lot about Nina Garcia that the Richardson ban was the first thing she changed. Lightweight.

I said that as well! Robbie has gone above and beyond to curate a fierce and stunning women's magazine (though I must admit I never cared for their fashion direction.) And the first thing Nina had to do was hire Terry. Unbelievable.

 

[MagFan]

Maybe she just wanted a big photographer for her first issue and all the big names are with Conde now exept this one. Thanks to crazy Glenda, Hearst lost all its stars

 

[fashionista-ta]

^ Pretty sure he's not the last photographer on earth ... and somehow, Elle had managed to produce covers without him for 7 years. She was making a statement, and I hope her bosses have noted that that statement cost them money they'll never get back.

 

[AtticusFinch]

It’s pretty sick that the impetus for cutting ties with him was fear of bad publicity after Harvey. Not because of terrys behaviour.
In fact all views of it are bad.
1) they simply fear bad publicity not his behaviour
2) no loyalty to this guy when 2 years ago they adored him. Shows how much these “relationships” mean
3) total bandwagon effect. Complete followers not the trend setters they claim to be

I think he should have been fired years ago.
The message being sent is so warped. Oh we fear bad publicity so he’s fired. What’s changed about terry in the past 6 months? Nothing. Except a third party was brought down. Something beyond terry’s control. So he’s being punished for a third parties publicity not for his own behaviour.

 

[fashionista-ta]

^ I agree that this isn't exactly leadership. However, Conde Nast isn't the primary culprit where Terry is concerned ... they can't hold a candle to Hearst.

All of that said, I'm not too picky about the impetus for anyone cutting ties with any abuser. Cut away!!!

 

[cienne]

WWD: Is Photography/Modeling Next Industry to Be Investigated?

The New York Times is said to be working on an investigative piece about abuses in the photography/modeling industry.