Brit Marling uses anecdotal evidence and reliable sources to provide an argument regarding the economic powers involved in the problem of consent in Hollywood as well as the US at large. While her opinions are biased because of the experiences she had, the arguments she makes in the article are backed by sound logic and sources

Brit Marling provides an eloquent recapture and explanation of her idea "Consent is a function of power." Telling that story couldn't have been easy and I believe it best describes why "consent" may not be the best defining or deciding term, especially in legal implications. However, I believe Brit Marling only successfully proved 2/3rds of her argument. Using the entertainment industry, although proved the point that it can put women in economic exile, it alone cannot support her larger argument that financial disparity between men and women cause sexual harassment. Yes in the instance of the entertainment industry, but one industry cannot be extrapolated to the entire workforce everywhere. For this I say this article is a straw man fallacy.

This is kind of a conglomeration of article types. It's part story, part opinion, and part fact. I'm rating it as trustworthy though because the point of the article seems to be to write about an experience and connect it to a greater societal pattern and movement. It's not trying to trick anyone into believing anything, so I trust it.

Although this story is based on a personal account, it details the near criminal workings of a larger industry that wouldn't be available unless gone through personally. I'd bet there are many more instance than this given the rise in recent issues similar to Harvey's.

Want to explain your review?