Harvey Weinstein

[iNow]

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

In B Cosby's case, charges have been brought up against him, so he, for one, can't simply go to re-hab. Hopefully he'll do time. But the chances of a conviction would have been much greater if the complainants hadn't taken so long to come forward.

We largely agree, but you need to know even in Cosby’s case allegations began and grew in number for decades: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Cosby_sexual_assault_allegations#Allegations

They too were ignored 

[swansont]

FYI, I am going to cease moderating in the thread so that I can participate. 

On 10/12/2017 at 3:59 PM, StringJunky said:

I think we need to define sexual assault. If Harvey Weinstein says - implied or explicitly stated - "I'll do this for you if you do this for me" and they concede, is that sexual assualt?

Sexual assault and sexual harassment are fairly well-defined.

Sexual harassment is defined as unwelcome repeated sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature under conditions where it's related to employment or one's career, and/or it creates a hostile environment for work/learning. 

Sexual assault is when you physically accost someone and, of course, includes rape. (But e.g. grabbing someone's crotch is also sexual assault)

So the above example is sexual harassment — someone in a position of authority has made sex a condition for employment. If they actually have sex, that can be considered assault, if the person was coerced — they felt they had no choice in the matter.

On 10/12/2017 at 4:13 PM, waitforufo said:

 If we as a society are going to push for an end to sexual harassment and abuse of women, then women need to report these crimes.  This is what I tell the women who report to me.  This is corporate policy in every company I have ever worked for and I have been working professionally for 33 years.   

It's corporate policy in a lot of places. But corporations don't always follow official policy. There are many instances where they would rather cover up the behavior of a senior employee, and quash any investigation. Brush it aside as being "your word against theirs". They can make trouble for the person filing the complaint.

On 10/12/2017 at 4:55 PM, Area54 said:

If it is accompanied by - implied or explicitly stated "And if you don't do this for me, I'll make certain that no one in this industry does anything for you again" then it would certainly be sexual assault.

That would be harassment

On 10/12/2017 at 11:05 PM, MigL said:

No, I'm not saying that at all.
What I am saying is that, in the film industry, these bastards have gotten away with this sort of behavior for years.

In a lot of industries. and in academia. And the military. Everywhere.

Quote

The only way this behavior stops, is if these people start doing jail time.

People do jail time for a lot of things, and doesn't seem to dissuade behavior. Many people who do these things simply don't think they'll get caught, or, if they even give any thought to the repercussions, think they'll be able to deflect any serious punishment. The systems tends to cover for the rich and powerful.

On 10/12/2017 at 2:24 PM, waitforufo said:

Imagine that you are a young aspiring actress who gets what she believes is the break of her career, a private meeting with movie mogul Harvey Weinstein.  After that meeting she realizes that the entire point of the meeting was for her to be raped by a dirty old man.  Then a week later A-list stars such as Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie, Ashley Judd, etc come out  publicly claiming the Harvey Weinstein sexually abused them years if not decades ago.  How do you think that woman feel about those A list stars never saying a word for years?  Women she looked up to and hoped to emulate? Women she looked up to because they were vocal feminists.  Do you think she would believe those women were culpable in her rape? 

Women tell each other things, because they system will not protect them — they protect each other, informally, as best they can. That's why there are comments about this being known. 

https://www.buzzfeed.com/annehelenpetersen/women-believe-other-women?utm_term=.ysbgVzdL6#.otMw4blQ1

Unfortunately, I can't locate the link to the story I read on whisper networks. Where the women warn the interns who to stay away from, etc. because going through channels doesn't work.

"When a man harassed you, who were you going to tell? Your bosses, who were all male?"
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/schmich/ct-met-harvey-weinstein-mary-schmich-column-20171006-story.html

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

.

People do jail time for a lot of things, and doesn't seem to dissuade behavior. Many people who do these things simply don't think they'll get caught, or, if they even give any thought to the repercussions, think they'll be able to deflect any serious punishment. The systems tends to cover for the rich and powerful.

 

Objectification of women is a very real thing. As with many problems it simply isn't enough to change the law; attitudes broadly need to be changed. We have a sitting president who still won election after audio of him bragging about how easy it is to sleep with women when one is a celebrity. Donald Trump is 71yrs old and his wife is 47yrs old. The Sec of Treasury is 54yrs and married to a 36yr old. In society at larger, not merely Hollywood, the objectification of women is accepted. I think political figures like a Donald Trump are better examples of the problem than someone like Harvey Weinstein because political figures need public support and get it. Weinstein is just a backroom creep most know/knew nothing about till this scandal dropped. I know some people have a tit for tat partisan itch so I better be clear that this isn't a left vs right issue; Bill Clinton had sexual relations with a 24yr old in the Oval office, lied about it, and kept his job. Anthiny Weiner is heading to prison for sexting a minor. By in large society accepts that women sex objects.

 

To a large extent dominance over women is viewed as part of what it means to be successful. Sayings like "women want him and men want to be him" encapsulate the attitude. Art reflects life. When we live in a society where the President publicly teases Boy scouts of America about the things old rich men do with young women on private yatchs why is Havery Weinstien even news?

[waitforufo]

Finally

http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/12/media/harvey-weinstein-jane-fonda/index.html

My opinion of Hanoi Jane is slightly improved.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/seth-macfarlane-harvey-weinstein-oscars_us_59df3449e4b00abf36466ea1

Seth Macfarline makes this joke at the Oscars and the media gives it a pass.  This goes along with NBC spiking the Ronan Farrow story. 

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nbc-harvey-weinstein_us_59de5688e4b0eb18af059685

Shameful.   

[waitforufo]

Harvey's contract with The Weinstein Company is pay to prey.

https://hotair.com/archives/2017/10/12/pay-prey-weinsteins-contract-basically-allowed-sexual-harassment-long-paid-company/

[Arete]

22 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I think we need to define sexual assault. If Harvey Weinstein says - implied or explicitly stated - "I'll do this for you if you do this for me" and they concede, is that sexual assualt?

Legally quid pro quo sexual harassment and sexual extortion are both crimes - and unwanted intercourse as a result of both is considered rape, so yes, it is. 

As for the responsibility to report sexual assault - women have historically and still suffer significant negative consequences when reporting sexual assault, especially by an authority figure: 

"Despite widespread rape reform laws that have been implemented in this country, victims of rape still face the risk of receiving social stigma should they decide to make their victimization known to authorities" http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0093854893020003003

"A few examples from the DOJ report on Baltimore’s police department:

• Officers routinely questioned sex crime victims in a way that put the blame on the victims themselves, like suggesting they were responsible. Detectives would ask “Why are you messing up that guy’s life?” and suggest the victims were lying by not reporting the assault immediately. 
• A prosecutor handling a sexual assault case wrote in an email to a BPD officer that the woman who reported the crime was a “conniving little whore,” and the cop responded “Lmao! I feel the same.”
• Detectives made “minimal to no effort to locate, identify, interrogate, or investigate suspects,” the DOJ said. BPD sex crimes unit officials would complain that all of the sexual assault reports were false, saying at a social event, “In homicide, there are real victims; all our cases are bullshit.”https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3009376/BPD-Findings-Report-FINAL.pdf

Given the prevalence of this kind of response, both by society and law enforcement to victims of sexual assault, I would say it's rather obvious why a person might not report it, and I think it's pretty disgusting to place any blame on prior victims. The guilty party is the one committing the assault - that should be pretty uncontroversial. 

Edited October 13, 2017 by Arete

[iNow]

21 hours ago, waitforufo said:

Harvey's contract with The Weinstein Company is pay to prey.

Clever turn of phrase. Given your predisposition toward libertarianism and mention of predatory behavior, I’d be curious to hear your thoughts about the NDAs so often in place at these companies to protect the powerful men at the top. In many cases, the victim can be terminated and heavily fined for speaking out about being harassed and sexually assaulted. 

NDAs clearly have an important role to play in protecting IP, but I think it’s wrong for them to be used to protect a predator and silence their victims. Do you agree?

[waitforufo]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Clever turn of phrase. Given your predisposition toward libertarianism and mention of predatory behavior, I’d be curious to hear your thoughts about the NDAs so often in place at these companies to protect the powerful men at the top. In many cases, the victim can be terminated and heavily fined for speaking out about being harassed and sexually assaulted. 

NDAs clearly have an important role to play in protecting IP, but I think it’s wrong for them to be used to protect a predator and silence their victims. Do you agree?

This question is at the heart of my opener for this topic.  No one should be required to comply with an NDA on a settlement related to a criminal act.  Some will likely make a innocent until proven guilty argument, but I think there is a difference between publicly accusing person X of criminal behavior and stating a fact that Person X paid me $Y based on my accusation of criminal behavior.  

With regard to the victims of Harvey Weinstein who have accepted settlements for his criminal acts, I have several thoughts.  First, at least they punished Harvey Weinstein in some way, and I'm sure they hopped that in so doing Harvey Weinstein would change his future behavior towards women.  Since he did not, obviously the amounts involved were chump change to Harvey.  Second, shame on them for keeping his behavior secret thereby allowing his behavior to continue.  In my opinion they are culpable of the harassment and rape of other women.  Third, I think all of them should now make there accusations public, and their settlement amounts public and then dare Harvey Weinstein and The Weinstein Company to sue them in public court to have the settlements returned.  What jury would find in the favor of the Harvey or The Weinstein Company in this case?  This in my opinion would in part redeem these women of their culpability in the crimes committed against other women following their own.

[dimreepr]

52 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

This question is at the heart of my opener for this topic.  No one should be required to comply with an NDA on a settlement related to a criminal act.  Some will likely make a innocent until proven guilty argument, but I think there is a difference between publicly accusing person X of criminal behavior and stating a fact that Person X paid me $Y based on my accusation of criminal behavior.  

With regard to the victims of Harvey Weinstein who have accepted settlements for his criminal acts, I have several thoughts.  First, at least they punished Harvey Weinstein in some way, and I'm sure they hopped that in so doing Harvey Weinstein would change his future behavior towards women.  Since he did not, obviously the amounts involved were chump change to Harvey.  Second, shame on them for keeping his behavior secret thereby allowing his behavior to continue.  In my opinion they are culpable of the harassment and rape of other women.  Third, I think all of them should now make there accusations public, and their settlement amounts public and then dare Harvey Weinstein and The Weinstein Company to sue them in public court to have the settlements returned.  What jury would find in the favor of the Harvey or The Weinstein Company in this case?  This in my opinion would in part redeem these women of their culpability in the crimes committed against other women following their own.

This strikes at the very heart of what justice means; the balance between revenge and forgiveness.

[iNow]

8 hours ago, waitforufo said:

This question is at the heart of my opener for this topic.  No one should be required to comply with an NDA on a settlement related to a criminal act.  Some will likely make a innocent until proven guilty argument, but I think there is a difference between publicly accusing person X of criminal behavior and stating a fact that Person X paid me $Y based on my accusation of criminal behavior.  

With regard to the victims of Harvey Weinstein who have accepted settlements for his criminal acts, I have several thoughts.  First, at least they punished Harvey Weinstein in some way, and I'm sure they hopped that in so doing Harvey Weinstein would change his future behavior towards women.  Since he did not, obviously the amounts involved were chump change to Harvey.  Second, shame on them for keeping his behavior secret thereby allowing his behavior to continue.  In my opinion they are culpable of the harassment and rape of other women.  Third, I think all of them should now make there accusations public, and their settlement amounts public and then dare Harvey Weinstein and The Weinstein Company to sue them in public court to have the settlements returned.  What jury would find in the favor of the Harvey or The Weinstein Company in this case?  This in my opinion would in part redeem these women of their culpability in the crimes committed against other women following their own.

I had a feeling we would agree there. Thanks for confirming, and also for those additional thoughts at the end. I hadn’t considered those angles and appreciate that you introduced them. +1

[John Cuthber]

On 10/13/2017 at 0:08 AM, waitforufo said:

There must be something seriously wrong in show business that this exploitation still exists. 

Would you like to list the professions where it doesn't exist?

Here's an interesting example; albeit rather late in the day, Weinstein is being held to account and sacked. Trump was made president.
What kind of message does that send to women who are considering reporting this sort of issue?

In the interest of fairness, feel free to consider Bill Clinton instead of Donald Trump.

Edited October 15, 2017 by John Cuthber
Political balance.

[iNow]

75% of harrassment victims experience retaliation when they speak up: https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/identities/2017/10/15/16438750/weinstein-sexual-harassment-facts

[waitforufo]

A performer who appears to be in full agreement with my sentiment.  

Quote

Speaking of the Weinstein revelations this week on the talk show “The View,” Goldberg made a plea for women to stop taking payouts in exchange for keeping silent about harassment. "We need to start talking to our sisters and say, ‘You do not have to take this,’” Goldberg said. “’Your career does not rise and fall on this. Because if you take this, people are going to assume that you’re OK with the behavior.’”

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-harvey-weinstein-film-academy-20171014-story.html

42 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Would you like to list the professions where it doesn't exist?

Other professions and been working to eliminate sexual harassment and exploitation for decades.  The same decades that Harvey Weinstein was abusing women.  

46 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Here's an interesting example; albeit rather late in the day, Weinstein is being held to account and sacked. Trump was made president.
What kind of message does that send to women who are considering reporting this sort of issue?

You really want to go down the partisan political path with this?  I seem to recall a different president, who had serious criminal allegations made against him by women, who exploited a white house intern for sex, and received campaign contributions from Harvey Weinstein.  Back then we were all told "never mind, that was just all about sex."  In fact feminists applauded Nina Burleigh when she said  "I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their Presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs."   A man with a frequent flyer card on the Lolita Express.  Why not ask "What kind of message does that send to women who are considering reporting this sort of issue?"  After we are done the Clintons, we can talk about Ted Kennedy.   

I would prefer to avoid that diversion of this topic that I opened, but if you must, please go ahead.  

17 minutes ago, iNow said:

75% of harrassment victims experience retaliation when they speak up: https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/identities/2017/10/15/16438750/weinstein-sexual-harassment-facts

This is a serious issue.  I have noticed that this topic has grown in prominence in workplace training on sexual harassment. I have yet to see anyone terminated for this reason however.

[John Cuthber]

14 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

You really want to go down the partisan political path with this? 

Here's a hint

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

In the interest of fairness, feel free to consider Bill Clinton instead of Donald Trump.

13 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Other professions and been working to eliminate sexual harassment and exploitation for decades. 

Could you list the professions that have succeeded?
The sad truth is that there's nothing very spectacular about "Hollywood". This inequality is very widespread.
One might hope that our politicians, film stars and other "celebrities" would set a good example; instead they demonstrate the truth of the assertion that power corrupts.

Edited October 15, 2017 by John Cuthber

[Airbrush]

Weinstein is only a symptom of a deeper problem, the widespread subjugation of women in society.  "Make America Great Again" means to return to a better time, the 1950s and 1960s, when subjugation of women and minorities was more accepted.

[Ten oz]

3 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

Weinstein is only a symptom of a deeper problem, the widespread subjugation of women in society.  "Make America Great Again" means to return to a better time, the 1950s and 1960s, when subjugation of women and minorities was more accepted.

Wow, can't remember ever giving you a plus one before....

[koti]

Looks like Weinstein is already done even before any convictions. On top of loosing everything theres a good chance he’s going to do some jail time since his money will be wiped out when it comes to trial. Looks like justice has been done already:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/natalierobehmed/2017/10/13/why-filing-for-bankruptcy-could-be-a-good-idea-for-the-weinstein-company/?utm_source=FBPAGE&utm_medium=social&utm_content=1115217678&utm_campaign=sprinklrForbesMainFB#43c1e38628ca

[swansont]

In case anyone is still wondering why so many incidents go unreported

Quote

 

“One 2003 study found that 75% of employees who spoke out against workplace mistreatment faced some form of retaliation,” the EEOC report found.

 

EEOC = US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/10/15/16438750/weinstein-sexual-harassment-facts

[iNow]

Nice link

 

[swansont]

13 minutes ago, iNow said:

Nice link

Ah, missed that.

[waitforufo]

On 10/15/2017 at 6:51 AM, John Cuthber said:

The sad truth is that there's nothing very spectacular about "Hollywood". 

The spectacular thing about Hollywood is there incessant moral sermonizing on every subject under the sun while giving Harvey Weinstein a pass.  Who will give them any credibility now?  

Edited October 16, 2017 by waitforufo

[zapatos]

21 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

The spectacular thing about Hollywood is there incessant moral sermonizing on every subject under the sun while giving Harvey Weinstein a pass.  Who will give them any credibility now?  

I don't know what is so spectacular about it unless you were under the impression they were somehow morally superior to any other group of humans. Democrats, Republicans, Christians, people from small towns, whites, etc. They all have individuals who are very good people, and others who are very bad.

Treating 'Hollywood' as if it is a homogeneous group of sermonizing pass givers (and liberals as socialists, or conservatives as heartless, etc.) is a very big reason we are not able to solve our shared problems.

[Ten oz]

4 hours ago, waitforufo said:

The spectacular thing about Hollywood is there incessant moral sermonizing on every subject under the sun while giving Harvey Weinstein a pass.  Who will give them any credibility now?  

Wasn't Ronald Reagan a Hollywood Actor; isn't Arnold Schwarzenegger as well? Donald Trump is a reality TV star and Kid Rock is running as a Republican in MI. I never understood the well worn claim that the entertainment industry as a whole is all a specific thing socially or politically. Mr. Hollywood royalty Charleston Heston was the face of the NRA. All entertainment celebrities aren't the same. You can't lump Jesse "the Body" Ventura's libertarianism in with Martin Sheen's left-wing activism. 

[Strange]

20 hours ago, waitforufo said:

The spectacular thing about Hollywood is there incessant moral sermonizing on every subject under the sun while giving Harvey Weinstein a pass.  Who will give them any credibility now?  

The spectacular thing about Republicans is their incessant moral sermonizing on every subject under the sun while giving Donald Trump a pass.  Who will give them any credibility now?  

Edited October 17, 2017 by Strange
spelling

[Airbrush]

When the "sexual-assaulter-in-chief" was asked recently about Weinstein, he said "I'm not surprised."  Trump was also asked recently about the Access Hollywood tape by a reporter.   Here are some snips of Trump from the famous tape of Trump boasting to Billy Bush about his routine of sexual assault on women:

"I moved on her actually. You know she was down on Palm Beach. I moved on her and I failed. I’ll admit it. I did try and f*** her. She was married."

"She wanted to get some furniture. I said, ‘I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.’ I took her out furniture– I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn’t get there. And she was married. Then all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony tits and everything. She’s totally changed her look."

"Yeah, that’s her, with the gold. I’ve got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. I just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything."

"Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-bush-transcript-20161007-snap-htmlstory.html

Trump's reply to the recent question about this tape was "That's just locker room, that's locker room."  So that makes it ok?

Yeah, "Make America the 1950s Again!"