Harvey Weinstein

DeVlaeminck

The studies cited are very limited in scope.

The thing is anyway whether men are aware of the obstacles women face or not most people will look the other way rather than put their own ass on the line. Being more aware of issues and actually acting are different things.

rjsterry

DeVlaeminck wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

mfin wrote:

I think most men are not like that at all, pretty much all men who have daughters certainly would take notice, and most men would anyway.

Weinstein has, I think, three daughters. I think you are underestimating people's ability to compartmentalise their lives.

Dr Headgear (who frequents the Pro Race forum here), wrote a twitter thread on the 'men who have daughters' trope, in relation to this.

https://twitter.com/DrHeadgear/status/9 ... 4429973505

I think he's pretty spot on there.

For some maybe, can't say I recognise myself in his description of how fathers act.

I don't actually think having daughters is that relevant to standing up to sexual harassment. You are either the kind of person who finds a reason to look the other way or you aren't.

I'd like to think I don't act like that, too, but I think dismissing it as "that doesn't apply to me" is an easy route to ignoring the problem. I think it is useful to be aware of that mindset.

DeVlaeminck

rjsterry wrote:

[

I'd like to think I don't act like that, too, but I think dismissing it as "that doesn't apply to me" is an easy route to ignoring the problem. I think it is useful to be aware of that mindset.

Well I don't think it's dismissing it to point out that it's a huge generalisation. He says don't "not all men" him but if he accepts it's not all men don't write as if it is - it's simple enough.

If we are talking about a paternal instinct to protect then yes it's easy for that to spill over into unequal treatment of sons and daughters. To that extent I take his point even if I think he is over generalising.

When he goes on to ascribe this over protectiveness to our views on female sexuality and ownership though well I just don't buy it. If I suggest to my daughter she gets a taxi rather than walk home from a club alone at 3am I don't think the motivation is any different than when I told my son going to the local derby match on Sunday to keep his head down if it kicks off in his vicinity - I don't want either to get hurt. I would assume my feelings towards my family are typical of most men.

ballysmate

I confess that I have only skimmed the thread but interesting points. But surely no-one can be shocked or even mildly surprised at the breadth and scale of the sleaze in Hollywood. Weinstein is obviously a piece of slime but it would be foolish to think he is alone. HW would appear to have been an open secret amongst the great and the good of Hollywood, who were content to keep schtum to protect their careers. Tina Fey alluded to him in her shows and Courtney Love semi outed him in an interview 10 years ago.
Someone earlier mentioned Whoopi Goldberg's coment re Polanski as it not being 'rape-rape' and this gives a good yardstick of what Hollywood deems acceptable.
I don't like the guy, but here is Piers Morgan on the subject.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... stein.html

Yes I know, Morgan and the Mail, but a stopped clock is right twice a day.

A quirk of fate also reveals that HW gave the max allowed donation to Bill Clinton to aid his defence following the Lewinski revelations. Sexual predators made strange bedfellows indeed.

BTW, whoever came up with the concept of sex addiction as an excuse and a way to make money from predatory behaviour of the rich and famous is a genius. In any other walk of life, people would get labelled what they were - abusers and rapists.

ballysmate

mfin wrote:

The most important thing about jokes is that they are generally funny and a bit clever. Whether they are offensive to some people doesn't matter much. The thing Corden made a mistake with is that the jokes weren't funny, yet he get's hauled up for them being offensive. What's all that about, sort it out America.

That's pretty much it. Corden's only crime is not being funny. I haven't heard what he said, but if it was funny, it would be a first for him.

rjsterry

DeVlaeminck wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

[

I'd like to think I don't act like that, too, but I think dismissing it as "that doesn't apply to me" is an easy route to ignoring the problem. I think it is useful to be aware of that mindset.

Well I don't think it's dismissing it to point out that it's a huge generalisation. He says don't "not all men" him but if he accepts it's not all men don't write as if it is - it's simple enough.

If we are talking about a paternal instinct to protect then yes it's easy for that to spill over into unequal treatment of sons and daughters. To that extent I take his point even if I think he is over generalising.

When he goes on to ascribe this over protectiveness to our views on female sexuality and ownership though well I just don't buy it. If I suggest to my daughter she gets a taxi rather than walk home from a club alone at 3am I don't think the motivation is any different than when I told my son going to the local derby match on Sunday to keep his head down if it kicks off in his vicinity - I don't want either to get hurt. I would assume my feelings towards my family are typical of most men.

Possibly Twitter isn't the best place to set out something like this as it is bound to lead to calls of over-generalisation. Of course it's not all men that think like this, but it is quite a lot of men. Enough that we are all quite likely to know someone who does think like that.

rjsterry

Ballysmate wrote:

mfin wrote:

The most important thing about jokes is that they are generally funny and a bit clever. Whether they are offensive to some people doesn't matter much. The thing Corden made a mistake with is that the jokes weren't funny, yet he get's hauled up for them being offensive. What's all that about, sort it out America.

That's pretty much it. Corden's only crime is not being funny. I haven't heard what he said, but if it was funny, it would be a first for him.

That, and it rather pulled its punches against HW. The tone was more "ooh, what is he like?" than "what an absolute scumbag".

rick_chasey

Loong list. Didn't quite realise how long.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/ng-int ... llegations

wiznaeme

The British actress Alice Evans is quoted in today's Metro. She said; ‘I know of girls who told other girls to be careful. The girls went in, had whatever they had to do with Harvey, and told Harvey about the other girls. Harvey called the other girls and said, “Don’t you ever talk bad about me again”.

The movie industry appears to be a total cesspit; and has been for decades.

john80

Women are not all sweetness and light. In fact some girls are pretty competitive and will do what it takes to get what they want. They are often the worst critics of each other. You don't have to read many women's magazines to pick up on this vibe. There will be many a woman who has used her assets to assist her cause to the detriment of her fellow gender.

Imagine the scenario that goes a bit like this. Do this for me and I will cast you in the leading role, don't and I won't. The victims are the people who said no and faced rejection. The ones that said yes sir have to live with their consciences. The ones that did not see what was coming as the proposition was more subtle in language or involved the use of force then they should be getting some legal recourse assuming they wish to put themselves through the justice system.

rjsterry

john80 wrote:

Women are not all sweetness and light. In fact some girls are pretty competitive and will do what it takes to get what they want. They are often the worst critics of each other. You don't have to read many women's magazines to pick up on this vibe. There will be many a woman who has used her assets to assist her cause to the detriment of her fellow gender.

Imagine the scenario that goes a bit like this. Do this for me and I will cast you in the leading role, don't and I won't. The victims are the people who said no and faced rejection. The ones that said yes sir have to live with their consciences. The ones that did not see what was coming as the proposition was more subtle in language or involved the use of force then they should be getting some legal recourse assuming they wish to put themselves through the justice system.

You must be referring to some other incident as I don't recall a single account of anyone "saying yes sir" in relation to HW. Read through that list of accusations and pick out any you think fit your scenario. None of them said yes. They all said no, and still had to put up with this oaf w***ing in front of them in what was ostensibly a business meeting, or worse.

And what the blistering f*** does any of this have to do with whether women are competitive, or nice to each other? How is that remotely relevant?

rick_chasey

Like how when the man in charge uses his power to get sex with a woman, John seems to think if the sex then occurs the woman is “competitive” and will have the incident on her conscience.

Think ya got issues mate.

slowmart

The silence from the industry is deafening and I'm surprised no more accusations which implicate more senior execs have surfaced. Maybe lots more settlements have been made to buy off the victims which means nothing has changed.

But given POTUS himself has exhibited the same behaviours.....

DeVlaeminck

john80 wrote:

Imagine the scenario that goes a bit like this. Do this for me and I will cast you in the leading role, don't and I won't. The victims are the people who said no and faced rejection. The ones that said yes sir have to live with their consciences. m.

Not really, they've been pressured into having sex, maybe they have rent to pay, maybe tney've heard the rumours that if you say no your career is finished.

Yes of course women can use sex as a bargaining tool - my brother had a pair of students offer to sleep with him in exchange for free accommodation when he was showing them round his flat he was renting out - but in that situation there was no power imbalance. That strikes me as different to being offered a job with strings attached.

tangled_metal

It's not rape-rape!

Quote from Whoopi Goldberg (a member of the 84 strong academy board / committee running it)

Or how about Kate Winslet not really being bothered by working with Polanski despite him plying a minor with alcohol and drugs before raping her. Who's already been convicted and sentenced but who absconded before being imprisoned. Or making her parents proud by working with a big name new Yorker director / writer / director despite all the allegations against him. Which unlike HW has been considered in a court type setting to be worthy of preventing him gaining custody of a child.

No it's OK to jump on the career enhancing band wagon and demonize HW if you're a successful star / Hollywood name. But it's not OK to go further and mention anyone else. All the other predators in the Hollywood system are going to be free to carry on once the furore has died down, say week after next?!

It's a money maker guys! As long as the predators make lots of money for themselves and others they're hardly going to be confronted except by the very rare and very brave ppl willing to stand up and make the accusations in a report (more likely a campaigning press because all other avenues lead to suppression).

mamba80

john80 wrote:

Women are not all sweetness and light. In fact some girls are pretty competitive and will do what it takes to get what they want. They are often the worst critics of each other. You don't have to read many women's magazines to pick up on this vibe. There will be many a woman who has used her assets to assist her cause to the detriment of her fellow gender.

Imagine the scenario that goes a bit like this. Do this for me and I will cast you in the leading role, don't and I won't. The victims are the people who said no and faced rejection. The ones that said yes sir have to live with their consciences. The ones that did not see what was coming as the proposition was more subtle in language or involved the use of force then they should be getting some legal recourse assuming they wish to put themselves through the justice system.

Fits in with the rest of your political views.

TheBigBean

Didn't Polanski plead guilty to sex with a minor rather than rape? He was accused of rape though.

tangled_metal

Do you know what? I don't see the difference. Wasn't it a 13 year old? He was in control of the situation not the minor. IMHO he should be in jail not carrying on with his career and life in Europe like nothing has happened. It's an embarrassment on European countries that he's not been returned to serve his sentence. It's also bad big name actors wanted to work with him despite his conviction.

pblakeney

TheBigBean wrote:

Didn't Polanski plead guilty to sex with a minor rather than rape? He was accused of rape though.

Underage sex in the U.S. is statutory rape.

ballysmate

Tangled Metal wrote:

It's not rape-rape!

Quote from Whoopi Goldberg (a member of the 84 strong academy board / committee running it)

Or how about Kate Winslet not really being bothered by working with Polanski despite him plying a minor with alcohol and drugs before raping her. Who's already been convicted and sentenced but who absconded before being imprisoned. Or making her parents proud by working with a big name new Yorker director / writer / director despite all the allegations against him. Which unlike HW has been considered in a court type setting to be worthy of preventing him gaining custody of a child.

No it's OK to jump on the career enhancing band wagon and demonize HW if you're a successful star / Hollywood name. But it's not OK to go further and mention anyone else. All the other predators in the Hollywood system are going to be free to carry on once the furore has died down, say week after next?!

It's a money maker guys! As long as the predators make lots of money for themselves and others they're hardly going to be confronted except by the very rare and very brave ppl willing to stand up and make the accusations in a report (more likely a campaigning press because all other avenues lead to suppression).

Brings back memories of this little exchange in the Trump thread.

search.php?keywords=streep&t=13040040&sf=msgonly

I was accused of being anti women for criticising the great and good of Hollywood for supporting Polanski the child rapist. The sleaze in Hollywood was an open secret and even someone whose position was unassailable after 46 years at the top of the tree couldn't bring themselves to speak out. Moreover, Streep saw fit to work with Weinstein as recently as 2014.

As you say, mustn't stop the money making machine.

rick_chasey

Ballysmate wrote:

I was accused of being anti women for criticising the great and good of Hollywood for supporting Polanski the child rapist.

e.

Eerr, no.

Streep attacked Trump about him mocking a disabled reporter, and you seemed to think that was in some way related to her work with Polanski.

Are you gonna say Chinatown is a bad film too?

ballysmate

Here's your post Rick

Re: Donald Trump
Ben6899 wrote:
Ballysmate wrote:
Meryl Streep recently used her acceptance speech at an awards ceromony to attack Trump's mocking of a disabled reporter.

Here she is giving Roman Polanski a standing ovation.

Funny things, moral compasses. :?

Or perhaps she's just another luvvie full of her own importance.


You're learning quickly from Master Trump, Bally...

I am disappoint.


Bally's found a kindred spirit in attitudes towards women so he's a little defensive.[/quote]

I didn't defend Trump or attack her for attacking Trump. I attacked her for having a slewed moral compass.
As I said above, she saw no problem working with Weinstein 3 years ago when his abusive behavior was an open secret.
But to be fair to her, she is not alone amongst the great and good of Hollywood is she?
As Tangled metal said, anything to keep the cash rolling in.

rick_chasey

I read it as you wanting a chance to have a go and crowbaring in something that was irrelevant to her speech.

It's a bit like my boss going "great work Rick, an excellent project well done" and then my colleague going "yeah but do you remember when he shat all up the walls of the office 10 years ago".

I mean, sure, sh!tting up walls is pretty bad, but what's it got to do with the project?

ballysmate

I pointed out that she seemed ok with giving a child rapist an enthusiastic standing ovation whilst tweeting outrage at Trump's sexual behaviour.

From this you somehow inferred that I had found a kindred spirit in Trump. :?

rjsterry

Ballysmate wrote:

Here's your post Rick

Re: Donald Trump
Ben6899 wrote:
Ballysmate wrote:
Meryl Streep recently used her acceptance speech at an awards ceromony to attack Trump's mocking of a disabled reporter.

Here she is giving Roman Polanski a standing ovation.

Funny things, moral compasses. :?

Or perhaps she's just another luvvie full of her own importance.


You're learning quickly from Master Trump, Bally...

I am disappoint.


Bally's found a kindred spirit in attitudes towards women so he's a little defensive.[/quote]

I didn't defend Trump or attack her for attacking Trump. I attacked her for having a slewed moral compass.
As I said above, she saw no problem working with Weinstein 3 years ago when his abusive behavior was an open secret.
But to be fair to her, she is not alone amongst the great and good of Hollywood is she?
As Tangled metal said, anything to keep the cash rolling in.

If only the truly blameless are judged fit to pass comment on someone else's transgression we're not going to get very far with getting these things out in the open. Which is more important: calling someone out for harassment or worrying about whether it would be perceived as hypocritical to do so?

rick_chasey

Ballysmate wrote:

I pointed out that she seemed ok with giving a child rapist an enthusiastic standing ovation whilst tweeting outrage at Trump's sexual behaviour.

From this you somehow inferred that I had found a kindred spirit in Trump. :?

So if you're a murderer, I guess you're in no position to publically call out a rapist, by your logic?

rolf_f

Tangled Metal wrote:

Do you know what? I don't see the difference. Wasn't it a 13 year old? He was in control of the situation not the minor. IMHO he should be in jail not carrying on with his career and life in Europe like nothing has happened. It's an embarrassment on European countries that he's not been returned to serve his sentence. It's also bad big name actors wanted to work with him despite his conviction.

Of course, in America girls as young as 12 do get married but then America is country with more issues than most supposedly 1st world countries!..... It probably should prioritise sorting that out rather than worrying about Polanski.

There is a difference between what Weinstein did and what your friendly, local rapist does. One threatens to kill you and one threatens to screw up your career. I do think that one is worse than the other but of course that in no way excuses Weinsteins (or Trumps for that matter) behaviour.

ballysmate

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

I pointed out that she seemed ok with giving a child rapist an enthusiastic standing ovation whilst tweeting outrage at Trump's sexual behaviour.

From this you somehow inferred that I had found a kindred spirit in Trump. :?

So if you're a murderer, I guess you're in no position to publically call out a rapist, by your logic?

That isn't what I said is it? She (and others) seemed to pick the targets of their outrage to best benefit their careers.

Still can't see how you can read what I posted and then infer that I view Trump as a kindred spirit.

rick_chasey

Oh don't be such a snowflake.

Who knew people avoid saying stuff that hurts their career?

I mean, christ.

rjsterry

Ballysmate wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

I pointed out that she seemed ok with giving a child rapist an enthusiastic standing ovation whilst tweeting outrage at Trump's sexual behaviour.

From this you somehow inferred that I had found a kindred spirit in Trump. :?

So if you're a murderer, I guess you're in no position to publically call out a rapist, by your logic?

That isn't what I said is it? She (and others) seemed to pick the targets of their outrage to best benefit their careers.

Still can't see how you can read what I posted and then infer that I view Trump as a kindred spirit.

I don't see how slagging off Trump or Weinstein could conceivably benefit her career. Some people might approve; it might polish her reputation; but to suggest that she would win extra work because she attacked the POTUS and this is all part of a plan seems a bit like a conspiracy theory. Why would she need to? She's just inconsistent - like everyone else on the planet.