"We actresses are not just modeling clothing when we walk a red carpet on award show night. We are modeling a kind of behavior."

"We are speaking in a coded language to other women — even young girls — that says: The way I look and what I wear and how I wear it is the standard for women. What is being worn is not an exception. It is the rule. You must dress a certain way and look a certain way if you want to be valued as a woman, no matter what you do for a living or who you are. We never intend for this to be the message we are sending with what we wear, but often it is the perceived one, whether we like it or not."

If is not the message you intend to convey, then you are not speaking.

The writing is by the actress Amber Tamblyn, published in the NYT as the Golden Globes are about to happen this evening. The plan tonight, which Tamblyn supports, is for all the women to wear black. I'm going to watch to see how that works out. I'm not sure that everyone wearing the same color is the best way to send whatever the message is supposed to be, but Tamblyn says:

What we are wearing is not a statement of fashion. It is a statement of action. It is a direct message of resistance. Black because we are powerful when we stand together with all women across industry lines. Black because we’re starting over, resetting the standard. Black because we’re done being silenced and we’re done with the silencers. Tonight is not a mourning. Tonight is an awakening.

So that is the message that Tamblyn intends to convey, but is it the message every woman who feels disciplined into wearing black wants to send? Is it the message that will be received? Tamblyn tries to preempt one meaning of black clothing: mourning. But she just got done saying that unintended messages are "often... perceived... whether we like it or not."

She doesn't want to be controlled, but she aims to control us, the audience, but she knows she can't. Moviemakers show us images, and there is complexity to the meaning. You can't force us to see the images in a particular, controlled way, even in the most carefully made film. So it is clearly impossible to dictate the impact that will be made by giant crowd of actresses in black and by individual actresses within that crowd.

I'll watch with an open mind.

"We’re in the midst of a reckoning. It’s what toxic masculinity’s own medicine tastes like."

"And people should allow the consequences to unfold, regardless of how it affects those they consider to be friends. The only way to enforce seismic, cultural change in the way men relate to women is to draw a line deep in the sand and say: This is what we will no longer tolerate. You’re either with our bodies or against our bodies. The punishment for harassment is you disappear. The punishment for rape is you disappear. The punishment for masturbation in front of us is you disappear. The punishment for coercion is you disappear."

Writes Amber Tamblyn in a NYT op-ed... before going on to clarify that "no one is saying a disappearance from the public eye has to be forever." She's "not talking about banishment," just "about ceding the floor." These men just have to "disappear for the time being so that all women see and believe that consequences do exist." Harvey Weinstein can never come back, but Louis C.K. can:

When he goes back out on that standup tour someday, I’ll role [sic] my eyes and say, ‘All right, get on with it, then.’ But for now, his old power is over. He’s going to have to find a new power if he ever wants to come back.