It Begins With Us
Some philosophical thoughts and a critical look at this Hollywood scandal.
I need to preface my first article this year, and return to writing with some sort of regularity. I never would have decided to write about a pop culture event such as this, however I think there are some interesting themes worth exploring. Also I was in a hospital waiting room for 3 hours and did a deep dive on this issue, and now I pass on my findings to you. I’ve never seen this movie, nor had any interest in doing so but here we are. 2025….what a year ahead of us.
My goal is to apply some critical thinking to this case. I remember when I first went back to school, critical thinking was one of the first things you learned in philosophy and psychology 101. How to look at a situation, and yourself from a critical perspective with the least amount of bias and heuristics. Often times we are so emotionally charged by a news story or a confrontation in our personal lives, we prohibit ourselves from taking an objective look at a particular situation. We are very much influenced by our confirmation biases and unconscious projections we place upon the outside world. It is so easy to read a tweet or watch a Tik Tok video, and feel charged up from the content without even really having a balanced look at the issue at hand. When I was sitting in the emergency room, and came across this story, I could immediately feel myself drawn to a conclusion, without a wholistic approach to the information, and I thought to myself, “how interesting, where is this coming from?”. Well let’s explore that.
To briefly explain the vehicle for this substack, over the winter holidays movie star, Blake Lively, filed a legal complaint against her co-star, Justin Baldoni, claiming he and his partner, Wayfarer Productions, more specifically the producer Jamey Heath, of sexual harassment and facilitating a toxic work environment while filming It Ends With Us, a film about domestic violence. Her complaint also claimed Baldoni and Heath hired a PR company to defile her name in order to discredit her sexual harassment allegations. The complaint and an investigation into it, was written about in an article by the New York Times. I should add one of the writers was Megan Twohey, who won the Pulitzer Prize1 for her investigative reporting of Harvey Weinstein, which helped ignite the #Metoo movement. Her reporting has also led to legislative changes to ensure police departments test for DNA evidence in all rape kits, that had previously been reported as failing to do so.
Baldoni is suing the Times and Lively for false accusations, and claiming Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, tried to bully their way into taking over the film and used their power to sully his name and tarnish his reputation as an advocate for empowering women.
I highly recommend you read both of their official legal documents to understand their perspectives.
Blake’s complaint
Baldwin’s lawsuit
I read his lawsuit first, start to end and immediately felt that he was wronged. I was convinced that Lively was this patriarchal women exercising her power with her husband to bury this man and usurp him as the lead creator on this film. I had read and watched some videos of him advocating for women in a post #metoo world, where he took accountability for his actions and was adamant that men listen to women and do the countless little things that help women feel safe and heard in the world.
Here’s a great interview embodying his argument towards ameliorating toxic masculinity.
This is the poster boy for masculine vulnerability and a man who is not afraid to take responsibility for his past actions to help men understand the work involved to heal old wounds and to reframe how we engage with the opposite sex in our professional and personal lives. I remember reading his lawsuit, and thinking here is another situation of a diva, Lively, twisting some harmless misunderstandings. It is clear that she is suing him in an attempt to scuttle his career while detracting from her own public blunders, and elevating herself as a producer and creative boss on this project. My gut told me that he was a victim in this power move by Lively and Reynolds. Here was a man doing all the right things. He’s speaking out against toxic masculinity and putting himself out there publicly, looking to become a better human and support woman and elevate their voices.
I then read her legal complaint which prompted the lawsuit by Baldoni. In her complaint, Lively provides an itemized list of demands for her to return to the set, after a brief writer’s strike in 2023. The list is at the top of her legal complaint. She had a list of 30 items required to make the set safer for her as a woman, and further down the complaint, there was a list of 17 items, that was signed off from the producer Heath, in order for her to return. Her complaint also stated that Baldoni, in an attempt to overshadow or dissipate any of the harassment claims, set out to destroy her credibility through an aggressive PR campaign.
Now I, briefly, would like to step aside and address where I think there will be a lot of contention in this trial amongst triggered people, lacking critical skills to make a weighted judgment. If you go on to X.com, Tik Tok or Threads, you will already find a plethora of videos and opinions attacking both Lively and Baldoni, where people are shooting from the hip with conclusions, that clearly hinge on one specific nugget of information they absorbed from the media. There are many who believe all women are obvious targets of sexual harassment and this is just another case where a woman is silenced under the weight of a system that has for thousands of years subjugated women to a second class citizen. There is also a large contingency that feel this is a case of women, taking advantage of the #metoo movement and asserting themselves within the patriarchy, using their power to tear down men, while unconsciously exacting revenge on men for their collective past transgressions. Both come out guns blazing, making observations that show they have not spent more than thirty seconds on the topic.
Surely, as the trial nears, we will hear more from those on Lively’s side in defiance of an oppressive patriarchy, and those on team Baldoni, to combat a cultural over correction by a vindictive wave of feminism, out to tear down “antiquated” traditions and destroy western values altogether. Both parties seemingly having all the answers from short truncated biased presentations.
I would like to think that the truth is usually buried in places we are not comfortable to accept. Sometimes the real story does not align with our own perceived perception of where society is or should be.
Let’s begin by defining a patriarchy. There are a plethora of definitions out there but I feel this can define it succinctly2:
The patriarchy is a power system where gender inequality exists, favouring men and masculinity over women and femininity, and is embedded in the political, social and cultural institutions of society.Now we can disagree that there is even a patriarchy and that both men and women have an equal footing in dealing with an unforgiving Nature that does not discriminate nor care about our feelings, and although there is a messy history of human beings failing over and over again, it has yielded a system that best protects ourselves from how animalistic our species is, warts and all. This utilitarian experiment seems to be the outcome that best prevents ourselves from regressing to violent hordes of ethically debased primal marauders…..however even with that in mind, there is an unbalanced legacy, dating back to even Aristotle, that women are ‘deformed males’, incapable of rational thought, so on and so forth 3
So how do we differentiate the struggle for women to have equity in their social and political circles, and women who gain power within the patriarchal system, continuing to perpetuate the system they may openly deny? There is a difference. The one-sided masculinity of a patriarchy does not seem to favour a wholistic, communal approach within our institutions. It is self-interested and power driven. There is no difference if the CEO of Coca-cola or Lockheed Martin is a man or a woman, only that their behaviours and decisions favour the needs and insatiable wants of the corporation.
When applied to the Lively v. Baldoni case, there is a strong tendency to view Lively as a female patriarch, using her power to diminish the standing of Baldoni, who is lower on the Hollywood hierarchy. This may simply be another case of a woman besmirching the good name of a progressive movement by taking advantage of her position to squash a noble man. On the other hand, perhaps Lively is a woman who has worked in the predatorial Hollywood industry for twenty years, and is finally using her position to stand up for herself and other women. Which is it? Which is most likely. Is there such a backlash to “believe all women”, that this is such a case, not unlike the Heard v. Depp situation? Another good man being dragged down in the next wave of vengeful feminism? Perhaps Lively and her husband were trying to steal this movie away from a man who went out of his way to support women and advocate for men to listen to women and introspect on how the system perpetuates misogyny, both covertly and overtly.
Let us also set aside how rich and privileged both parties are, and how unfortunate that these issues have to be brought into the light by those who live a life above 99% of society. However, as we have seen from Weinstein, there is a trickle down effect of putting in place parameters to protect women in their place of employment . Hopefully it will apply in this case. Only time will tell.
Stepping back from my initial gut reaction, and reflecting on all parties involved and my own perspective as a man, what I find here is a case where a man perhaps has done so much inner work, that he may feel he is now firmly on the other side of the coin, absolved from past habits and behaviours. Perhaps Justin Baldoni, who is so on the mark with his crusadership for combatting toxic masculinity, can actually be tone deaf when it comes to the application of equality and respect, when put to the test.
We have to ask ourselves some questions. Is it possible that an actress, after 20 years of being objectified as an object of desire for men, no doubt being exposed to sexual harassment as a young woman on set, was finally in a position to assert her demands to feel safe at work, during a project that was already sensitively charged by its dramatic content, in domestic violence?
Is it also possible that Justin Baldoni and his producer created an environment that, although was comfortable for them due to a normalized amount of sexual harassment, that women should just accept while at work and especially in Hollywood, was not acceptable to Blake Lively? Is there an acceptable amount of sexual harassment that women should have to just deal with? There are no doubt stories of past generations, where women had to endure far more overt cases of harassment, that men feel are long and gone. We are not living in the age of Mad Men. Clearly things are way better now. That said, it’s not like Matt Lauer or Louis C.K. did not happen just within the last ten years. Even with Louis C.K. the bounce back was quick and relatively painless. It wasn’t that bad, right?
(Before I continue, I can feel this pressure to maintain my ‘Man Card’, that I must claim all men and their troubled past. Nobody is perfect and everyone is just doing their best. But with that, can we not draw lines with how to act on a professional level, especially where there are power dynamics in play? I know many a men, not unblemished on the lothario spectrum, myself included, that can still draw lines between ‘shooting one’s shot at a bar, and coercing a subordinate or peer against a mutually agreed upon code of conduct.)
Here is where I find myself stymied. If we are to believe that Justin Baldoni is a trailblazer for women’s rights in a post #metoo world, and that he is genuine in his efforts to create a better world for women and reframe the role of men in society, would it not seem logical that in his first big opportunity as co-producer and director of a big Hollywood film, there would be redundancies in place to ensure this set was safe for his female employees? I think we would assume this set would be “extra safe”, because it would represent his values, the same values he has been advocating for over 7 years, on Ted Talks, podcasts, and countless interviews and seminars. His philanthropy is centralized around a theme of rallying against old-guard machismo, while encouraging emotional intelligence from men.
For me, it is hard to imagine that Blake Lively could have had a list of 30 things that she needed, to feel safe on set, when Justin Baldoni was, and is, such a strong advocate for women’s rights. Based on his public persona, I feel his set would have been annoyingly and anally over-the-top filled with meetings upon meetings to make sure everyone was feeling comfortable at all times, in their language and any intimate situations.
I remember working on a union construction project that took place in the HQ of IBM in Canada. We were a bunch of welders, pipe fitters, plumbers and ne-er do-wells and every morning, in our safety meetings we were reminded of our language and the ‘two second rule’. If you see a woman do not stare at her for more than two seconds, or engage her in inappropriate conversation. We had guys with face tattoos, smiling and bowing, minding their P’s and Q’s, no matter how much they wanted to ask them to spend an afternoon at the track drinking PBR’s, followed by a couple hours at the local Sandman hotel. Even us lustful heathens were able to compartmentalize our base sexual drives for 8 hours a day.
The odds that after a couple months of shooting, on a safe set, Baldoni’s female star would need to tell him to “stop talking about porn”, “don’t come into my trailer without consent”, “don’t talk about past problematic sexual encounters where there was a lack of consent”, “don’t improvise sexual scenes without my consent”….seems extremely unlikely. Either she felt unsafe, or she was setting the groundwork needed, to slowly overtake this movie set and wrestle creative control in the most public way, and then file a complaint which ultimately would bring everything into the very forgiving and empathizing court of public opinion.
Let’s look at this from another way. If someone were to say “Hey Justin, I love the progress you’ve made as a man, and how well you listen to women, and how much work you’ve done to address your internal, unconscious misogyny, that most men are too afraid to confront, especially as it seems prevalent in our society and normalized. Also I’m so excited for your recent project of adapting this book about domestic violence, which is so bold of you and so needed in a political climate that seems to elevate men with sexual violence from their past. I think its’s brave to put yourself out there. I think women need to know there are good men out there advocating on their behalf. To do this in the most predatory of industries in Hollywood, is such a beautiful symbol of progress and solidarity that crosses gender lines…..You know what would be unfathomable and dumbfounding, if on this set, you are accused of sexual harassment almost immediately and it gets so out of hand, that you are then also accused of hiring a PR company to silence this woman, to protect your false persona, revealing yourself as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Even crazier, in an attempt to defend yourself for this obvious libel and slander to bring down a good man, you sue your female co-star and the journalist who won a Pulitzer Prize for bringing down Harvey Weinstein, which started the effing #metoo movement?”. If someone were to say that, do you think it would be likely to happen or impossible?
I know as a man, that there are times when I have confronted my misogynsitc past that I thought had absolved me or drastically altered my personality, but the work was, and still is, never really done. I remember, when in addressing past infidelities to a partner, that I felt I had seen the errors of my ways, and was so confident that I had turned a new leaf. I remember so vividly feeling that a page had turned that when my partner, at the time, would share her continued feelings of being unsafe or unheard, I was offended. I was offended that she did not automatically see me as a different man. I guess what I am trying to say that it is possible that Justin Baldoni did so much work, that he took for granted that the work he did really does not translate to an overhaul of a personality. Our unconscious behaviours tend to linger, when left unchecked, and perhaps it is possible that Baldoni never saw the errors of his ways, or perhaps felt entitled because of how hard he had tried to change or show his change to the world. There is not always an end game to personal progress.
It is also quite possible that he is an entitled, narcissistic, movie star who resisted being questioned and lashed out to defend his massive ego.
It is also quite possible, that Blake Lively is an insufferable, patriarchal man-eater who sought to slowly manipulate her way into creative control of this movie, and retroactively regain her reputation, after embarrassingly mismanaging the promotion of this movie. It is also possible that she then filed a legal complaint, and got the New York Times to run a story about sexual harassment to save face, exposing herself, the New York Times and her husband, Ryan Reynolds to a litany of expensive, exhausting intrusions from his litigation team, and social media, and the public at hand. It is also possible that she manipulated well respected journalists Megan Twohey, Mike McIntire and Julie Tate, with track records of fierce, respectable award-winning reporting, to betray their journalistic ethics, in order to compromise the reputation of Justin Baldoni and his cabal of soft boys masquerading as suffragettes.
This trial will be ugly and it will be filled with so many terrible accusations and we will learn that on the best days, women will be scrutinized by a machine that aims to defend the status quo and tear down anyone and everyone. I wish, in retrospect, that Justin Baldoni, in staying true to his public character, could have just said early on, in filming: “hey listen, I’m sorry you feel the way you do, and want to double my efforts to be a better employee, man, colleague, intimate scene partner. Although I’m messy and am still making a shit ton of mistakes. I want you to believe that I care about your welfare on this movie, and whatever you need to feel open and comfortable and safe, consider it done. If you don’t feel safe, this doesn’t work for anyone. You’ve done 120 episodes of Gossip Girl and been on 20 movies, are a mother of 4 and have been looked on as a sexual object in Hollywood since you were a teenager. Any suggestions to get your perspective on this project and making this a safe, workable relationship is greatly appreciated. Thank you”
……even if he felt compelled to (although not recommended) throw in something along the lines of “i’ve also been sexually harassed and know what it must feel like to not be taken seriously, and together I think we can find away to uphold a set rooted in dignity and mutual respect……
If he did that it would be better than deflecting blame. Whatever you do don’t say “I never said she was fat, I just wanted to know her weight because I have a bad back and cannot lift stuff.” Bro, if you have a bad back, take it out of the scene. Unless she weighs 10 pounds, you’re gonna feel it in your back regardless."
Some parting thoughts, because I do believe Baldoni has made some wonderful points and insights in the past and in his attempts to shed light on men and masculinity, which should not be lost from his messaging and advocacy, regardless of an accused poor practice.
I feel that, as man, I can confront my chauvinistic shortcomings and still be a strong man, that stands for values that have traditional masculine roots. I feel that addressing the lack of vulnerability that men are afraid to show the world, is not a sign of weakness, but also showing strength and resolve and stoic responsibility for my actions, does not automatically make me a bygone brute. Men can open ourselves to our divine feminine attributes, without sacrificing noble masculine virtue. What we have to sacrifice is our resistance to self-reflection and criticism from voices that have traditionally gone unheard. And although there is reciprocally a hope from those voices, to see men and masculinity, in the present, beyond a veil of trauma; a veil which has served to protect and discriminate from painful legacies, the burden for men, must be greater to bare. If I am to extol the virtues of my ancestors, that I have come to respect and value, surely I can hoist upon my shoulders the responsibility to carry the burden of inherited transgressions, in order to find new values that I am willing to protect and sacrifice for, and subsequently pass on to future generations. I must take accountability. It is not an easy path.
Over two thousand years ago, Plato suggested that women could hold some equal footing in society. It was not a perfect vision of equality of values, but one that should have been adequately built upon, through the rest of antiquity to today. The regression and inability to incorporate the female consciousness into the human condition, has robbed us all of an opportunity to understand our place in this cosmic dance. We can do better.
The other two authors were Mike McIntire, who has also been a part of Pulitzer Prize winning teams and Julie Tate, a 20 year vet at The Washington Post, who has done vital research on Pulitzer Prize winning stories
Nash, Catherine J. Patriarchy. International Encyclopedia of Human Geography
2009,Rob Kitchin and Nigel Thrift. Elsevier 2009 Pages 102-107
Wonderfully written. The world is not so black and white. Thank you for sharing 🙏