Harvey Weinstein

[CharonY]

48 minutes ago, Lord Antares said:

I gave an example where I remember looking for jobs as a student and about 50% of them explicitly asked for females (the other 50% were available to both sexes) and they were the better paying jobs too. But no one cares about that. If the situation was reversed, I guarantee you people would lose their shit.

The problem is that you provided an anecdotal account of a personal experience. To care about that one would need to see the context. For example if this situation results in young men being struck with an higher unemployment rate, for example. Or even if one showed that in all other cases there was gender balance and salary equity. Start a new thread and show some data on how badly men fare in the workforce and we can go from there. 

Of course there are challenges for men and while often there is a certain general umbrella of reasons (e.g. a mostly patriarch organization of society) the mechanisms are different, though no less distressing.  Take a study on US military personnel by Harrell and Buchanan:

Quote

Sexual harassment was a problem for both sexes, the study found. More than 50 percent of women and nearly 20 percent of men reported at least one incident of sexual harassment during a 12-month period.

The study is one of the first to examine how both men and women view harassment – whether they saw it as bothersome or frightening – and how these perceptions relate to their psychological well-being, Settles said. The survey covered 16 types of verbal and physical harassment, including offensive stories or jokes and touching that made the person uncomfortable.

For women, sexual harassment was distressing when they saw it as frightening, but not when they saw it as bothersome. “We were surprised by this finding,” Settles said. “We thought women would be negatively impacted if they saw their harassment as frightening or bothersome.”

For men, sexual harassment was distressing when they saw it as either frightening or bothersome, she said.

“People tend to underestimate the impact of sexual harassment on men,” Settles said. She added that men “typically haven’t had a lifetime of experiences dealing with sexual harassment and may not know how to deal with it when it happens to them.”

Settles said the study does not suggest sexual harassment is less distressing for women than men.

In other words, it is not that people don't care about males, but that your examples are too inconsequential and if taken a broad view, it still seems that women are disproportionately affected. There are areas where men are affected more, including suicide rates (there is a thread on that) and violence (as perpetrators as well as victims), for example. These are worthy of discussion but not if they are merely used to invalidate the experience of women. 

[Ten oz]

3 minutes ago, CharonY said:

 

In other words, it is not that people don't care about males, but that your examples are too inconsequential and if taken a broad view, it still seems that women are disproportionately affected. There are areas where men are affected more, including suicide rates (there is a thread on that) and violence (as perpetrators as well as victims), for example. These are worthy of discussion but not if they are merely used to invalidate the experience of women. 

You are explaining this more patiently I than I would. I see the comparison as standard Whataboutism which reveals a lack of empathy via an inability to focus actual victims. Harvey Weinstein's victims weren't men, posters who get negative rep points, exclusively Liberal or Conservatives, or etc. They were women (girls in some cases) Weinstein sought to exercise leverage over in return for sexual gratification.

[CharonY]

Another aspect that is also relevant with respect to OP is that especially when there is a strong power imbalance is that peers to the abuser speak up. The reason is that this creates an environment which makes it easier for victims to believe that they are going to be heard and not just further abused.

I think someone else mentioned training courses and suchalikes. I will add that these events are technically not designed to create a better environment. For the most part they are part of the due diligence of employers so that they can claim that they did everything to ensure professional environment in case someone starts filing complaints. While there may be some interesting takeaways, I doubt that that many believe that they are terribly effective  for day-to-day events (similar to many other yearly training/safety exercises). 

[Lord Antares]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

...show some data on how badly men fare in the workforce and we can go from there. ..

...but not if they are merely used to invalidate the experience of women...

See, this is the sort of strawman argument I always get. I've seen this type of sarcastic comment before; something like ''oh yeah, men have it so badly.''

That is not my point. I wouldn't disagree that women, in general, have it somewhat worse than men. The truth of that depends on the context of the situation though. As far as sexual harrassment goes, obviously women are more affected, but as far as general violence goes, men have it worse. What about emotional support for men? What about ''needing to be strong''? The point is, for every female inequality (which should be talked about), there is almost certainly a male inequality (which should also be talked about). Yet it almost never is. And when it is, someone just says ''but look how worse it is for women in this and that regard'', the same thing I'm doing right now.

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

The problem is that you provided an anecdotal account of a personal experience.

It depends on what you mean by anecdotal. It's not a ''one man's experience''. The students from all throughout my country are affected by the same inequality. They couldn't apply for half of the jobs and the ones they could generally paid less than the ones given to women. I wouldn't exactly call a sample size of a country ''anecdotal''. I would link you the evidence if you spoke my language. 

I have no issue with talking about women's issues. In fact, I'm opposed to mysogyny (as any reasonable person should be); I'm just pointing out that only women's societal issues are being solved and talked about. Rarely ever men's.

[waitforufo]

I have been quite busy today and have not had time to comment, but I thought this topic was about Harvey Weinstein, the conspiracy of silence that permitted Harvey's sexual harassment and abuse of women to continue, particularly the hypocrisy of famous feminist actresses who remained silent after personally experiencing Harvey's abuse, and sexual harassment and abuse of women in the entertainment industry including television news agencies.    I think that is enough for one topic.  It was not my intention to have a general topic of workplace discrimination.  If you want to talk about that open your own topic  Now let's stay on topic.

As I have said before, who cares about administrators warnings, or reputation points.  Personally I enjoy both when directed against me.  In fact I'm going for the record on negative reputation points.  I laugh every time I get another one.  As a minority conservative on this blog, negative reputation points and moderator admonishment is what I expect.  It doesn't bother me a bit.  Tar and Lord Antares simply need to grow a thicker skin and quit crying about the bullying of the majority.  You choose to play in this sandlot.  

Now let's get back to the topic I opened. 

Edited October 20, 2017 by waitforufo

[swansont]

2 hours ago, waitforufo said:

I have been quite busy today and have not had time to comment, but I thought this topic was about Harvey Weinstein, the conspiracy of silence that permitted Harvey's sexual harassment and abuse of women to continue, particularly the hypocrisy of famous feminist actresses who remained silent after personally experiencing Harvey's abuse, and sexual harassment and abuse of women in the entertainment industry including television news agencies.    I think that is enough for one topic.  It was not my intention to have a general topic of workplace discrimination.  If you want to talk about that open your own topic  Now let's stay on topic.

How is it hypocrisy to not report sexual harassment or assault? (Ignoring, for the moment, and not for the first time, that the behavior was reported. But let's not let facts get in the way)

[MigL]

H Weinstein has fallen from favor, and everyone has a story about the things he did.

Yet not one of these people ( who have suddenly found a conscience ) will speak badly about R Polansky.
Remember him ? The self-admitted rapist of a 13 yr old girl ? Who served 42 days before he fled the country, never to return ?

Many 'stars' gush about what a wonderful human being he is, and the great experiences they've had working with him over the years ( but in Europe ).
He is still receiving awards from the Academy and other Actor's guilds. and may even be a member ( I don't recall ).

It seems that for all its soul-searching over the last few weeks, hypocrisy and ass-kissing for career advancement are still alive and well in Hollywood.

[swansont]

41 minutes ago, MigL said:

H Weinstein has fallen from favor, and everyone has a story about the things he did.

Yet not one of these people ( who have suddenly found a conscience ) will speak badly about R Polansky.
Remember him ? The self-admitted rapist of a 13 yr old girl ? Who served 42 days before he fled the country, never to return ?

Many 'stars' gush about what a wonderful human being he is, and the great experiences they've had working with him over the years ( but in Europe ).
He is still receiving awards from the Academy and other Actor's guilds. and may even be a member ( I don't recall ).

It seems that for all its soul-searching over the last few weeks, hypocrisy and ass-kissing for career advancement are still alive and well in Hollywood.

Maybe the main problem is men covering for other men, and money taking priority over decency. That seems to be the common theme here. It just broke that FOX shelled out tens of millions in settlements for Bill O'Reilly...and then renewed his contract. So they knew, and covered it up.

[Ten oz]

17 hours ago, MigL said:

H Weinstein has fallen from favor, and everyone has a story about the things he did.

Yet not one of these people ( who have suddenly found a conscience ) will speak badly about R Polansky.
Remember him ? The self-admitted rapist of a 13 yr old girl ? Who served 42 days before he fled the country, never to return ?

Many 'stars' gush about what a wonderful human being he is, and the great experiences they've had working with him over the years ( but in Europe ).
He is still receiving awards from the Academy and other Actor's guilds. and may even be a member ( I don't recall ).

It seems that for all its soul-searching over the last few weeks, hypocrisy and ass-kissing for career advancement are still alive and well in Hollywood.

Is this really an issue unique to "Hollywood" or one which is common amongst many groups. Whether we are talking about wealthy stock brokers like Jordan Beltfort or athletes like Wilt Chamberlain who claimed to have slept with over 15,000 women; misogynistic behavior and sexual exploitation of women seems to be game everywhere it can be. From Bill O'Reilly to Ray Rice, Anthony Weiner to Bret Farve Harvey Weinstein to Ted Haggard or Warren Jeffs; why is Hollywood any more uniquely hypocritical than News Media, political leaders, sports leagues, mega churches, and etc? How many children were molested by Catholic priest, underage girls forced to marry by Mormon sect leaders, women sexually harrashed at FoxNews, and on and on and on.

Harvey Weinstein is a terrible person and so are all the people who knew he was criminally assualting women and did nothing. Sadly his behavior and that of those around him who did nothing exists all over and isn't unique to some projected singular notion of "Hollywood".

On 10/20/2017 at 4:59 PM, waitforufo said:

I have been quite busy today and have not had time to comment, but I thought this topic was about Harvey Weinstein, the conspiracy of silence that permitted Harvey's sexual harassment and abuse of women to continue, particularly the hypocrisy of famous feminist actresses who remained silent after personally experiencing Harvey's abuse, and sexual harassment and abuse of women in the entertainment industry including television news agencies.    I think that is enough for one topic.  It was not my intention to have a general topic of workplace discrimination.  If you want to talk about that open your own topic  Now let's stay on topic.

 

Do you feel this way about FoxNews and Ruport Murdochs News Corp broadly because they paid women off all while they star personalities were preaching family values? Can we dismiss everything Sean Hannity, Fox and Friends, and the Republicans politicians who guest spot of those shows as big fat hypocrites?  As a self label conservative do you really have a high horse to sit here. The President you voted for is a well known misogynist who brags about trying to slept with married women and using his fame to grab women by the p####. The news media outlets who support conservative political views have been paying women off to keep them quiet for years. Yet I am to believe you are offended by the fact Reese Witherspoon didn't have the courage to speak up sooner about her victimization; seriously?

I think you are painting with a very large brush. Not everyone to a person in the film industry knew every detail about Weinstein and not everyone in the film industry is politically liberal. Besides sex scandals the film industry is also rife with addiction, personality disorders, and etc. How many of the women who have come forward with stories about Weinstein have also been through rehab for addiction or other forms of treatment for depression and what not. I don't think it is fair to demagogue Weinstein victims or those who might haveknown victims unless we know for a fact they were in a position to act. People like Courtney Love claim they knew and warned women about Harvey Weinstein but can we really sit hear and blame Courtney Love for Harvey Weinstein because she never went public; would anyone have listened to Courtney Love and between her bouts of depression and addiction could she have really even handle the additional responsibility/attention.

Overall I think EVERYONE in this thread has already agreed that those who knew of crimes and were in a position to act should have acted. Those in a position to stop Weinstein had a responsibility to act and it is unethical for them not have. That said I think the definition of what "being in a position to act" is can be very difficult to define. I think those involved in paying women off are guilty and should be ashamed for sure. The victims themselves hoowever is something entirely different. To me the analogy would be blaming those who have overdose on opiods for the opiod crisis itself because if they just did overdose there would be no crisis. It is closed loop thinking and doesn't lend itself to a workable solution.

[CharonY]

On 10/20/2017 at 2:22 PM, Lord Antares said:

That is not my point. I wouldn't disagree that women, in general, have it somewhat worse than men. The truth of that depends on the context of the situation though. As far as sexual harrassment goes, obviously women are more affected, but as far as general violence goes, men have it worse. What about emotional support for men? What about ''needing to be strong''? The point is, for every female inequality (which should be talked about), there is almost certainly a male inequality (which should also be talked about). Yet it almost never is. And when it is, someone just says ''but look how worse it is for women in this and that regard'', the same thing I'm doing right now.

Your argument would be more poignant if you discussed them in a thread focusing on men or at least when societal issues  in general (e.g. patriarchal pressures) are brought up. Yet it at least seems that you have the tendency to try to bring the issues up exclusively as a counterpoint to women issues (which, I recognize, is almost exclusively discussed by males on the board. I wonder why that is). At best, that weakens your overall argument. At worst it seems that you may not be arguing in good faith. What I suspect is that you have a hard time reconciling the issues with your personal experience. And again, there are challenges for men, and according to some schools of thought they are borne from similar sources that create other challenges for women. But if you want to discuss them I suggest using existing research to contextualize findings. Because, seriously, saying that guys have a harder time finding a summer job in a certain area is an extremely weak argument for any of this (even if it may resonate most strongly to you personally).

 

On 10/21/2017 at 2:04 PM, MigL said:

Many 'stars' gush about what a wonderful human being he is, and the great experiences they've had working with him over the years ( but in Europe ).

And doesn't this indicate why victims are afraid to speak out? And again, you will find similar dynamics in many situations where the victims career is dependent on the abuser. As mentioned, we find it in sports, academia, churches and corporate environments (though the latter may be wrapped in NDAs). It is just that powerful and influential people appear to be more believable to many folks, rather than a mere nobody. 

[MigL]

Actually CharonY, the 13 year old girl raped by Roman Polansky was not an actress, so her career did not depend on him.
His charges, admission of guilt and conviction is well known to everyone, yet actors/actresses continue to work and laud him.
Why doesn't anyone in Hollywood speak out against him ?

But maybe things are starting to change.
The Weinstein domino knocked over the J Toback domino. The originator of the Just-for-Laughs comedy festival in Montreal has had charges brought against him. I bet B Singer is more than a little worried. Not to mention all the News networks who have been pimping young women to some managers/broadcasters in exchange for money/fame through NDAs.

We'll see how far it goes.

[swansont]

4 hours ago, MigL said:

Actually CharonY, the 13 year old girl raped by Roman Polansky was not an actress, so her career did not depend on him.
His charges, admission of guilt and conviction is well known to everyone, yet actors/actresses continue to work and laud him.
Why doesn't anyone in Hollywood speak out against him ?

Because you're wrong, and many have done so?

https://chrismm.dreamwidth.org/577422.html?view=1709454

[MigL]

Come on Swansont, where on this list are the BIG stars, the Hollywood royalty if you will.
The big names missing from this list are the same ones who waited about two weeks, after the Weinstein scandal broke, before condemning H Weinsteins despicable actions.

I find it really messed up that there's actually a petition 'discouraging' the attempt to extradite R Polansky, and that a counter-petition had to be circulated. Some of the people on the original petition, have changed their minds, and now support the counter-petition and the extradition.

I guess they just realized now, that raping a 13 yr old is a crime.
( wanna supply me with more evidence that Hollywood is fu**ed up ? )

[Ten oz]

6 hours ago, MigL said:

Come on Swansont, where on this list are the BIG stars, the Hollywood royalty if you will.
The big names missing from this list are the same ones who waited about two weeks, after the Weinstein scandal broke, before condemning H Weinsteins despicable actions.

I find it really messed up that there's actually a petition 'discouraging' the attempt to extradite R Polansky, and that a counter-petition had to be circulated. Some of the people on the original petition, have changed their minds, and now support the counter-petition and the extradition.

I guess they just realized now, that raping a 13 yr old is a crime.
( wanna supply me with more evidence that Hollywood is fu**ed up ? )

Swansont supplied names  but since they were not the specific ones you want they don't count? It is reminds me of arguments I have had with Republicans who claim all of Hollywoodin liberal; when I mention Reagan, Schwarzenegger, Heston, and etc the comeback is always that Reagan wasn't a big enough star, Schwarenegger wasn't conservative enough, Heston too old, and etc. From Mel Gibson to Bruce Willis there are plenty of Hollywood actors who openly support Republicans. Sylvester Stallone is a Republican and just won an oscar in 2016 for his work in "Creed".

Are you using the title Hollywood to mean the entire U.S. and Canadian Film industry? You haven't really defined what Hollywood is or who the "royalty" you reference are. If Royalty is defined by how they perform at the box office any of the names I listed above count. The names above have had done better numbers than the open liberas like George Clooney and Ben Affleck. The reality is that the title Hollywood only describes a type of industry. It does not accurately describe a type of political ideology. As with all industries the film industry is made up of many different types of people. There are Jewish film producer/writer/actor/directors like Mel Brooks and then they are anti semite producer/writer/actor/directors like Mel Gibson. You have liberal actors like Angelina Jolie who endorsed Hillary Clinton and you have conservative actors like Jolie's father Jon Voight who endorsed Donald Trump. Niether side of the coin is more hollywood than the other.

Edited October 25, 2017 by Ten oz
Correct spelling error

[swansont]

7 hours ago, MigL said:

Come on Swansont, where on this list are the BIG stars, the Hollywood royalty if you will.
The big names missing from this list are the same ones who waited about two weeks, after the Weinstein scandal broke, before condemning H Weinsteins despicable actions.

I find it really messed up that there's actually a petition 'discouraging' the attempt to extradite R Polansky, and that a counter-petition had to be circulated. Some of the people on the original petition, have changed their minds, and now support the counter-petition and the extradition.

I guess they just realized now, that raping a 13 yr old is a crime.
( wanna supply me with more evidence that Hollywood is fu**ed up ? )

Can't really tell Which it is: moving the goalposts or invoking the no true scotsman fallacy. 

[zapatos]

Admittedly swansont provided a list that met the conditions MigL asked for, but a list car mechanics in Hollywood who spoke out against Polanski would also have satisfied the conditions. I think the 'spirit' of MigL's query was clear from the beginning and acting like he is being illogical after being forced to clarify his point is a bit unfair.

Scoring technical points in a debate is not the same as making a good argument.

[iNow]

In that case, my friend, we must acknowledge that Ten Oz has already handily provided a very “good argument” in response to the spirit of MigLs post. 

[zapatos]

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

In that case, my friend, we must acknowledge that Ten Oz has already handily provided a very “good argument” in response to the spirit of MigLs post. 

Can you explain please? Maybe we are talking about different things.

MigL asked about people in Hollywood speaking out against Polanski. In what way did Ten Oz address that question? He listed people who were conservative but I saw no mention of people who criticized Polanski. It looked to me like Ten Oz shifted the question to a liberal/conservative issue rather than addressing MigL's hypocrisy/non-hypocrisy issue.

[iNow]

Hmm... I think you may be right and I may have whiffed on that previous reply of mine. 

[MigL]

Thanks Zap, You handled that much better and clearer than I would have.
And right, this has nothing to do with political leanings.

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

Admittedly swansont provided a list that met the conditions MigL asked for, but a list car mechanics in Hollywood who spoke out against Polanski would also have satisfied the conditions. I think the 'spirit' of MigL's query was clear from the beginning and acting like he is being illogical after being forced to clarify his point is a bit unfair.

Scoring technical points in a debate is not the same as making a good argument.

I don't feel the label "big star"& "royalty" really clarifies the matter. I have no idea which individuals MigL considers Hollywood royalty. Does that list include writers, producers, cinematographers, and etc or is it exclusive to actors and directors? 

There are actors, writers, producers, etc who have chosen to work with Roman Polanski we can name specifically and hold accountable. I don't think that those without any affiliation are accountable for anything. This conversation reminds me of when people accuse the entire Islamic community at large of not being sufficiently anti Islamic Terrorism. As if to a person every Muslim individually owes some symbolic display of public opposition. They do not. Every person in the film industry who doesn't come out and comment on Harvey Weinstein or Roman Polanski isn't guilty of something. A "big star" who has never met or worked with Polanski has no obligation to familiarize themselves with and speak out against him. 

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

Can you explain please? Maybe we are talking about different things.

MigL asked about people in Hollywood speaking out against Polanski. In what way did Ten Oz address that question? He listed people who were conservative but I saw no mention of people who criticized Polanski. It looked to me like Ten Oz shifted the question to a liberal/conservative issue rather than addressing MigL's hypocrisy/non-hypocrisy issue.

I addressed what Swansont provided which we all agree satisfied what MigL asked for. 

My shift, in context, merely was stating the "Hollywood" isn't a singular thing. It is an industry full of individuals. MigL keeps referencing Hollywood singular and has yet to define exactly what it it is. 

[zapatos]

10 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

This conversation reminds me of when people accuse the entire Islamic community at large of not being sufficiently anti Islamic Terrorism. As if to a person every Muslim individually owes some symbolic display of public opposition. 

I thought it reminded you "of arguments I have had with Republicans who claim all of Hollywoodin liberal".

No one here is doing either of those things. It might be an easier discussion if we just stick to what was actually said. 

 

Quote

Every person in the film industry who doesn't come out and comment on Harvey Weinstein or Roman Polanski isn't guilty of something. 

 

Quote

A "big star" who has never met or worked with Polanski has no obligation to familiarize themselves with and speak out against him. 

If you are done attacking assertions that were never made, perhaps we can get back to MigL's point.

It seems hypocritical for a group of people to take a stand against one person guilty of sexual misconduct while remaining silent when it is someone else.

Do you disagree?

[Ten oz]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

 

It seems hypocritical for a group of people to take a stand against one person guilty of sexual misconduct while remaining silent when it is someone else.

Do you disagree?

What group of people specifically; those who support Roman Polanski have names. Off the top of my head I am aware that Jack Nicholson and Woody Allen support Polanski. Have either of them spoken out against Weinstein? Who specifically are the Hypocrites MigL is referencing? Hollywood royalty is incredibly vague. I have no idea who is considered Hollywood royalty or how each of those persons have responded to both Polanski and Weinstein. 

[zapatos]

Let's just start with a general case. Is it hypocritical for a group of people to take a stand against one person guilty of sexual misconduct while remaining silent when it is someone else?

[Ten oz]

8 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Let's just start with a general case. Is it hypocritical for a group of people to take a stand against one person guilty of sexual misconduct while remaining silent when it is someone else?

Why is this where we need to start; some unspecified group. We are talking about specific people. Weinstein and Polanski are specific people and both have had specific public critics and supporters. 

I think we all know the definition of Hypocrite. So let MigL name those Hypocrites they are referencing.