Harvey Weinstein

[iNow]

Quote

What, is it the vibe of the thing?

I think perhaps it misses the bigger picture, the recognition that these things continued even when women did speak up and that women were frequently punished for doing so. 

You likely grasp this, but (unless I’m forgetting/misreading) you haven’t acknowledged this in your posts or adjusted your position to account for that important fact. 

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/all-the-other-harveys

Quote

We all seem to have a Harvey story, each one a little different but with essentially the same nauseating pattern and theme. Women were bullied, cajoled, manipulated, and worse, and then punished.

(...)

I have had plenty of Harveys of my own over the years, enough to feel a sickening shock of recognition. When I was thirteen, a fifty-year-old crew member told me that he would teach me to dance, and then proceeded to push against me with an erection. When I was fourteen, a married film director stuck his tongue in my mouth on set. At a time when I was trying to figure out what it meant to become a sexually viable young woman, at every turn some older guy tried to help speed up the process. And all this went on despite my having very protective parents who did their best to shield me. I shudder to think of what would have happened had I not had them.

 

Edited October 19, 2017 by iNow

[swansont]

9 hours ago, waitforufo said:

Who is being obtuse?  I made a comment that all people have a measure of vanity.  I then made a self depreciating comment to prove that this is true about myself.  You then implied that since you are not concerned about going bald my view of the world isn't universal.  You then admitted to being vain, proving my point.  So,  please explain oh wise one the depths of your wit and understanding to this dense mortal.

No, the way the comment was phrased implied that it was universal, and it's not. That was my point. Your experience is not others' experience. And that has an impact in this discussion. There's an all-too-common position that if someone hasn't experienced something, then that phenomenon doesn't exist. It's been displayed, perhaps somewhat subtly, here in this thread. It's not believing women when they convey their experiences.  

16 hours ago, waitforufo said:

Somehow however this noble objective has moved into a form of zealotry where kindnesses such a paying each other complements on our appearance, or enjoying the beauty of the opposite sex are taboo.

Baloney. 

Harvey Weinstein was not outed because he paid women compliments, or admired their curves. This straw man keeps getting built. It's intellectually dishonest.

[tar]

SwansonT,

Well perhaps that is the problem I am having with this, that sexual harassment in the workplace was tied to anti-discrimination laws meant to force entities that enjoyed government contracts to not discriminate.  This was already unfair to whites who then had to unfairly compete with less qualified blacks for certain positions in education and employment, but this was understood as a way to undo past discrimination so everybody yielded to each others desire for social justice.   However, people that already did not look at a man or woman based on their skin color, but just as a human with whatever character and capability they brought, were now forced to look at the skin color, and treat blacks with a preference.  Like in a race where you know the other is slower than you, you give them a head start.  Then it was women, and people with disabilities and gay people, and then transgender or immigrants till everybody got so fed up with all the identity politics that gave this or that group a head start or a leg up over the overbearing, rich, hateful, mean, white devil that we got Trump.  Never does the left give the right the benefit of the doubt that they would have and did treat people always as fellow equal citizens in a grand experiment, where individual effort counted and taking care of each other counted.

Making a law that forces me to do what I already would have done, based on the fact that some others would not do it without coercion is doubly bad.  First it takes away my right to discriminate ( in the sense of having discriminating taste) and secondly it paints me as the problem in society because I am old and white, male, and  heterosexual, living in the suburbs.

And worse, I am registered republican.

None of those characteristics have much to do with the content of my character or my capabilities, nor how I view or treat my fellow man.   

Regards,  TAR

There is a quality in the American heart that has to do with self help,  helping oneself and ones neighbor automatically.   People with such in their heart do not wait for the government to come in, before doing the right thing.

[DrP]

8 minutes ago, tar said:

There is a quality in the American heart that has to do with self help,  helping oneself and ones neighbor automatically.   People with such in their heart do not wait for the government to come in, before doing the right thing.

... but they are happy to vote in an inexperienced clown who promises to take away what little social net the underclasses have already. You already know I think it is despicable how you treat the poor in your country...  It isn't great here either, but at least they can get health care.

 

12 minutes ago, tar said:

Making a law that forces me to do what I already would have done, based on the fact that some others would not do it without coercion is doubly bad. 

So the law prohibiting murder is bad because you already know that murder is wrong and are not going to do it?

[waitforufo]

 

10 hours ago, iNow said:

I think perhaps it misses the bigger picture, the recognition that these things continued even when women did speak up and that women were frequently punished for doing so. 

You likely grasp this, but (unless I’m forgetting/misreading) you haven’t acknowledged this in your posts or adjusted your position to account for that important fact. 

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/all-the-other-harveys

 

You are forgetting.  You previously posted the following

On 10/15/2017 at 6:16 AM, 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

I replied as follows.

On 10/15/2017 at 6:40 AM, waitforufo said:

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.

 

[swansont]

41 minutes ago, tar said:

SwansonT,

Well perhaps that is the problem I am having with this, that sexual harassment in the workplace was tied to anti-discrimination laws meant to force entities that enjoyed government contracts to not discriminate.  This was already unfair to whites who then had to unfairly compete with less qualified blacks for certain positions in education and employment, but this was understood as a way to undo past discrimination so everybody yielded to each others desire for social justice.  

However, people that already did not look at a man or woman based on their skin color, but just as a human with whatever character and capability they brought, were now forced to look at the skin color, and treat blacks with a preference.  Like in a race where you know the other is slower than you, you give them a head start.  Then it was women, and people with disabilities and gay people, and then transgender or immigrants till everybody got so fed up with all the identity politics that gave this or that group a head start or a leg up over the overbearing, rich, hateful, mean, white devil that we got Trump. 

Not sure what "affirmative action" has to do with the topic. 

41 minutes ago, tar said:

Never does the left give the right the benefit of the doubt that they would have and did treat people always as fellow equal citizens in a grand experiment, where individual effort counted and taking care of each other counted.

I'd have to say it's pretty obvious that there are many who did not, and continue to fail to do so in the present. North Carolina voting restrictions, for instance. 

41 minutes ago, tar said:

Making a law that forces me to do what I already would have done, based on the fact that some others would not do it without coercion is doubly bad.  First it takes away my right to discriminate ( in the sense of having discriminating taste) and secondly it paints me as the problem in society because I am old and white, male, and  heterosexual, living in the suburbs.

If you are already doing it, then the law doesn't force you to do anything. It prevents you from some other path.

41 minutes ago, tar said:

And worse, I am registered republican.

Admitting that it's worse is the first step to recovery.

 

Can we get back on topic, and maybe have you address some of the on-point issues that have been raised?

[tar]

DrP,

Laws are another subject, in general I have been of the opinion that a law that is not codifying a rule that 90 percent of the population already follow, should not be a law.

A law that creates winners and losers is self destructive.   The losers should be the people that are not pleasing the 90 percent.  They should be the criminals.  Our laws are built to protect the 10 percent from the tyranny of the 90 percent, but along with that should not come the understanding that the 90 percent ARE tyrants.  Laws should not create a we against them situation where someone is a criminal because of their beliefs and their expectations of responsible behavior in others.

The article with the broadened definition of sexual assault illustrates the issue I have.  It gives governmental legal power to a class of people over another class, based on a definition the one class never agreed to.  Meaning 90 percent were not already on board.   I am certainly onboard to consider rape illegal.  It already was. I am not onboard having  jokes in the workplace outlawed that make someone uncomfortable.  What if, for instance, I felt uncomfortable taking a shower in the army with a guy I knew to be gay, at a time when it was illegal to be gay in the Army.  I did not tell on the guy, I just took my shower uncomfortably.  Do you see how a law forcing me to take showers with a gay guy might be not proper according to my 90/10 rule?  The law does not make me feel any more comfortable, in fact makes me feel victimized.  It makes winners and losers and more likely two losers.  You can't make a law that changes anybody's heart.  That has to be done slowly, person by person with examples.

 And a law that makes me a criminal, when I didn't think I was doing anything wrong in the first place is some sort of governmental interference in personal ethics and beliefs, which I think we are pretty much against in principle.

Regards, TAR

swansonT,

I am on point.

I had an insight concerning my problem with the law, and I am exploring that avenue.

It is pertinent because you said that harassment has been against the law since the civil rights act.  

Ten Oz posted a telephone survey with a "broadened" definition of sexual assault.  This is central to the discussion because what the starlets experienced on the couch, might have been, at the time, a moment where they were selling their body, for a chance at stardom.   Now, after the broadened definition, they are victims of sexual assault.

Regards, TAR

Edited October 19, 2017 by tar

[iNow]

37 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

I replied as follows.

Fair enough. That was, indeed, a post you made AFTER the post about Ashley Judd.

My suspicion, though, is that despite acknowledging it as a serious issue you still likely feel that the tenor and core points of that post are valid... That the victims are (to use your word) culpable for not doing more or speaking more loudly to prevent other women from being victimized in the future.

There's some merit in that stance, of course, but the counterpoints are many... Not the least of which that many women DID speak out and were silenced and ignored. I suppose I mostly just hope that you've softened your stance a bit since that post. I acknowledge that you've clarified your awareness of these bigger problems about why speaking out wasn't always the best path for those affected by these aggressors.

35 minutes ago, tar said:

what the starlets experienced on the couch

Will you please stop referring to them as "starlets" on the couch? It unnecessarily demeans them and diminishes their experience, as if their stories are silly. It also ignores the rather obvious issue that these issues under discussion aren't limited to Hollywood or the film industry. Seriously. Just. Stop. Enough, already.

[swansont]

19 minutes ago, tar said:

DrP,

Laws are another subject, in general I have been of the opinion that a law that is not codifying a rule that 90 percent of the population already follow, should not be a law.

~14,000 murders in a population of ~300 million is a lot less than 10%. So, as above, no laws against murder? That seems...ludicrous.

No laws needed against terrorism, either. Let's run that one up the flagpole, and see who salutes.

19 minutes ago, tar said:

A law that creates winners and losers is self destructive.   The losers should be the people that are not pleasing the 90 percent.  They should be the criminals.  Our laws are built to protect the 10 percent from the tyranny of the 90 percent, but along with that should not come the understanding that the 90 percent ARE tyrants.  Laws should not create a we against them situation where someone is a criminal because of their beliefs and their expectations of responsible behavior in others.

More men of straw. Laws don't make you a criminal because of your beliefs.

19 minutes ago, tar said:

  And a law that makes me a criminal, when I didn't think I was doing anything wrong in the first place is some sort of governmental interference in personal ethics and beliefs, which I think we are pretty much against in principle.

Lots of people think they aren't doing anything wrong when they break the law. Lots of ways to justify to one's self such actions .

19 minutes ago, tar said:

 I am on point.

I had an insight concerning my problem with the law, and I am exploring that avenue.

It is pertinent because you said that harassment has been against the law since the civil rights act.  

Ten Oz posted a telephone survey with a "broadened" definition of sexual assault.  This is central to the discussion because what the starlets experienced on the couch, might have been, at the time, a moment where they were selling their body, for a chance at stardom.   Now, after the broadened definition, they are victims of sexual assault.

They are not "selling their body" if the act happened without their consent. Look at the events described above by Molly Ringwald, in iNow's link. How is "a fifty-year-old crew member told me that he would teach me to dance, and then proceeded to push against me with an erection." to be considered "selling her body"?

And the tie-in to affirmative action is what, exactly? 

[tar]

iNow,

If penetration happened without their consent then it was rape.   If it happened with their consent, then they were selling their body for a chance at stardom.  

It cannot be rape, if they said yes then and are saying no now.  Nor is it sexual harassment if they knew exactly what and why they were doing at the time, and are just now deciding that they are not whores at all, but victims, in retrospect.

Regards, TAR

 

[DrP]

53 minutes ago, tar said:

Laws are another subject, in general I have been of the opinion that a law that is not codifying a rule that 90 percent of the population already follow, should not be a law.

...then it is a good job that your opinion is totally worthless when it comes to the law. The law is what it is whatever your opinion about it.

The world is slowly changing for the better - we are finally dragging ourselves out of the dark ages with respect to quashing ancient superstitions, educating people against fear and oppression and the ill treatment of women.  Did you know, it was only back in the 1990's that a law was passed in the UK making illegal to rape your wife!? Seriously,, non consensual sex between a husband and wife was not considered illegal because of the contract of marriage was supposed to make you 'belong' to each other and by the contract of marriage you had already given your consent. Totally fucking retarded law (by proper definition of the word - retarded, held back, out of date, backwardly progressive, behind with the times etc..).  

So - with terrible laws like that only being abolished 20 years ago...  there is still a long way to go for proper equality to take hold. Maybe we just need to let the older rapey generation die out before we can move ahead with improving the lives of all people around the world. Nationalism and 'I'm alright Jack, why don't they work for a living' types of attitudes aren't speeding things up and will probably hold us back for another few hundred years of wars and inhumanity before we can start to pull away from the animal kingdom with a sense of higher morality.

 

[tar]

DrP,

Yeah, the world would be perfect, if it were not for all these damn people.

Give me a break.   Your utopia is obviously not very well thought out, as it outlaws the behavior of everybody but progressives.

Regards, TAR

And as an aside, since this is a politics forum, exactly why Hilary lost the election.  She called a third of the country she was looking to lead, deplorable.

 

What would this country look like, if you removed all the folks you find deplorable?

who would be left running the show?

Can you name them and count them?   How many do you come up with, and do they have the required skills to make the place work and protect us from enemies?

Edited October 19, 2017 by tar

[DrP]

5 minutes ago, tar said:

 

And as an aside, since this is a politics forum, exactly why Hilary lost the election.  She called a third of the country she was looking to lead, deplorable.

 

Maybe she was right. Maybe a third of you are pretty deplorable.

 

6 minutes ago, tar said:

 

Give me a break.   Your utopia is obviously not very well thought out, as it outlaws the behavior of everybody but progressives.

 

No - it outlaws the rapists, murders and the racists and tries to shame the people that only look out for themselves not others and those that stand by and let shit happen to those less fortunate than themselves etc..  Forget it - I'm not going round in circles with you again, we've done it before.  Put your blinkers back on, live your charmed life and ignore or pretend not to see the suffering and troubles of those that are less fortunate than you that live within a short drive away.

 

[tar]

Oh come on thread.  Too many neg reps with no reason cited.

I have spent my limit of points to speak my mind here.   Sorry DrP. I see a bar that says you have replied.  I will read it, but not respond.   You guys and gals are set in your ways and have no interest in looking at your ideas critically. Or in looking for the sense that exists in my takes.  I am out.  Again.  I know I have no chance at reaching you guys.  I shouldn't even try. It is too expensive.

[rangerx]

15 minutes ago, tar said:

And as an aside, since this is a politics forum, exactly why Hilary lost the election.  She called a third of the country she was looking to lead, deplorable.

Yet nary a word about the vindictive shit-speak and lies your pathetic excuse for a leader says about the other two thirds.

Telling, very telling.

[Arete]

49 minutes ago, tar said:

iNow,

If penetration happened without their consent then it was rape.   If it happened with their consent, then they were selling their body for a chance at stardom.  

It cannot be rape, if they said yes then and are saying no now.  Nor is it sexual harassment if they knew exactly what and why they were doing at the time, and are just now deciding that they are not whores at all, but victims, in retrospect.

Regards, TAR

 

You are wrong. As I posted earlier, quid pro quo demands for sexual favors are sexual harassment and any resulting sexual interaction is sexual assault/rape, by legal definition.

Demanding sexual favors in return for career advancement is very specifically and very clearly defined, legally, as sexual harassment. It's absolutely unequivocal. 

The earth is round, water is wet, and demanding sex in return for a favor in a professional setting is sexual harassment. 

Edited October 19, 2017 by Arete

[waitforufo]

54 minutes ago, iNow said:

Fair enough. That was, indeed, a post you made AFTER the post about Ashley Judd.

My suspicion, though, is that despite acknowledging it as a serious issue you still likely feel that the tenor and core points of that post are valid... That the victims are (to use your word) culpable for not doing more or speaking more loudly to prevent other women from being victimized in the future.

There's some merit in that stance, of course, but the counterpoints are many... Not the least of which that many women DID speak out and were silenced and ignored. I suppose I mostly just hope that you've softened your stance a bit since that post. I acknowledge that you've clarified your awareness of these bigger problems about why speaking out wasn't always the best path for those affected by these aggressors.

I believe your position to be untenable.  You seem to be saying that women will not, and perhaps should not, come forward with accusations of sexual harassment or abuse until there is no chance of retaliation.    In my opinion that means women will never come forward and harassment and abuse will continue.

My position is clear.

   When women are sexually harassed or abused they should make clear accusations including naming names.

   Women should be believed and investigations should be made.

   There should be no retaliation.  In fact retaliation is no different than harassment and should be treated identically.

   Those found to have harassed should be punished including termination and when proper criminal prosecution. 

   Women who do not come forward should be shamed for allowing women after there experience to be sexually harassed and abused.

   Without these steps sexual harassment and abuse will continue.

I'm not quite sure what the point of you capitalizing the word AFTER.  My comments on Ashley Judd were made in the opener.  All of my comments in this topic have been AFTER my post on Ashley Judd.  Ashley Judd is a prime example of a person that should be shamed for not speaking out sooner.  

 

12 minutes ago, tar said:

Oh come on thread.  Too many neg reps with no reason cited.

I have spent my limit of points to speak my mind here.   Sorry DrP. I see a bar that says you have replied.  I will read it, but not respond.   You guys and gals are set in your ways and have no interest in looking at your ideas critically. Or in looking for the sense that exists in my takes.  I am out.  Again.  I know I have no chance at reaching you guys.  I shouldn't even try. It is too expensive.

Why worry about neg reps.  I'm sure it's obvious that I don't.  Why not start a topic on what constitutes sexual abuse.  It would be wild free for all.  For example, one question could be if a woman willfully chooses to have intercourse with a man and then later, after a break up, believes the man misrepresented his relationship intentions for sex, is that rape?   

[Arete]

6 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

My position is clear.

   When women are sexually harassed or abused they should make clear accusations including naming names.

   Women should be believed and investigations should be made.

   There should be no retaliation.  In fact retaliation is no different than harassment and should be treated identically.

   Those found to have harassed should be punished including termination and when proper criminal prosecution. 

   Women who do not come forward should be shamed for allowing women after there experience to be sexually harassed and abused.

   Without these steps sexual harassment and abuse will continue. 

The problem with your position, as has been pointed out, is that women are systematically, and routinely not believed and retaliated against for coming forward as victims of sexual assault. Your position places them in a catch 22 - come forward and you may (or even are likely to be) dismissed and retaliated against. We even have a post in this thread calling victims of quid pro quo sexual assault "whores".  Stay quiet, and you'll be shamed for not coming forward and possibly preventing the abuser from attacking others. 

Before we can obligate both male and female victims of sexuall assault to come forward, we need to ensure that a safe and supporting environment exists to protect them from vilification and retaliation. We aren't at that place yet, but we, as a society are getting better - which is why we are seeing more Bill O'Rileys, Harvey Weinsteins and Bill Cosbys being exposed and punished for this behavior. 

I think it's important to remember that the person guilty of a crime is the attacker, not the victims and approach these situations accordingly. 

[dimreepr]

12 minutes ago, Arete said:

The problem with your position, as has been pointed out, is that women are systematically, and routinely not believed and retaliated against for coming forward as victims of sexual assault. Your position places them in a catch 22 -

 

The only caveat is, catch 22 was a joke... 

Edited October 19, 2017 by dimreepr

[Arete]

27 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Why not start a topic on what constitutes sexual abuse.  It would be wild free for all.  For example, one question could be if a woman willfully chooses to have intercourse with a man and then later, after a break up, believes the man misrepresented his relationship intentions for sex, is that rape?   

There are legal definitions for what constitutes harassment, rape and sexual assault. What is ethical/unethical behavior is up for opinion and discussion - sure. The above situation you described would not be rape by a legal definition (at least in the US). Whether or not it was unethical would depend on the circumstances. 

[Lord Antares]

I think tar is the smart one in this thread.

38 minutes ago, tar said:

Oh come on thread.  Too many neg reps with no reason cited.

If you state opinions which remotely resemble something deviating from liberalism, you will get shunned and downvoted. That's why I don't participate here. I will just get negged for my efforts of stating my opinions. It creates an unhospitable atmosphere for anyone who doesn't have the majority opinion here. This is why I avoid these kinds of discussions; it's not worth it.

You should know this by now.

[zapatos]

1 minute ago, Lord Antares said:

If you state opinions which remotely resemble something deviating from liberalism, you will get shunned and downvoted.

Bullshit

[Arete]

2 minutes ago, Lord Antares said:

If you state opinions which remotely resemble something deviating from liberalism, call victims of sexual assault whores, you will get shunned and downvoted.

FTFY

[Lord Antares]

Just now, Arete said:

FTFY

Has tar called rape victims as whores? Victims by which definition? If so, I have missed it and change my opinion. As far as I can tell, you're not talking about ''actual'' rape victims; you are talking about those who traded sex for position. Am I correct?

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Bullshit

I have done that and have been shunned before. In my experience, it's not bullshit.

[zapatos]

10 minutes ago, Lord Antares said:

 As far as I can tell, you're not talking about ''actual'' rape victims; you are talking about those who traded sex for position. Am I correct?

 

What I can't get my head around is how some people on this thread can either completely ignore what is being said, or really believe they are addressing the comments given.

If someone says "I'll fuck you if you give me a better job", then that is not sexual assault and not what anyone here is talking about.

If a boss says "if you fuck me I'll give you a better job, and if you don't I'll ruin your career", then that is sexual assault and IS what we are talking about.

I am at a complete loss how you and tar keep conflating the two.

If you continue to do so you will be sure get neg reps, and it is not because it is a 'liberal' position that people not be coerced into sex. It is because it is a 'human' position.

And if you'd care to define "actual" rape I'd love to hear it.

I'm also interested in what it was like when you were 'shunned'. How did that present itself to you?

Edited October 19, 2017 by zapatos