Harvey Weinstein

ballysmate

Rick Chasey wrote:

Oh don't be such a snowflake.

Who knew people avoid saying stuff that hurts their career?

I mean, christ.

It has been argued that people who were in a position to speak out or make a difference should have done.
But Rick adds a caveat. People should only say something if it doesn't hurt their careers.
Christ, indeed!

bompington

Rick Chasey wrote:

Oh don't be such a snowflake.

Who knew people avoid saying stuff that hurts their career?

I mean, christ.

No, he definitely said stuff that hurt his career

rjsterry

Ballysmate wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Oh don't be such a snowflake.

Who knew people avoid saying stuff that hurts their career?

I mean, christ.

It has been argued that people who were in a position to speak out or make a difference should have done.
But Rick adds a caveat. People should only say something if it doesn't hurt their careers.
Christ, indeed!

Now who's deliberately misreading things. He observed that people do keep quiet to avoid hurting their careers. There was no should.

FatTed

Everyone knew what was happening.

http://mashable.com/2017/10/16/scott-ro ... zot8_sEOqW

pblakeney

rjsterry wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Oh don't be such a snowflake.

Who knew people avoid saying stuff that hurts their career?

I mean, christ.

It has been argued that people who were in a position to speak out or make a difference should have done.
But Rick adds a caveat. People should only say something if it doesn't hurt their careers.
Christ, indeed!

Now who's deliberately misreading things. He observed that people do keep quiet to avoid hurting their careers. There was no should.

As I pointed out earlier, that shows their priorities.

john80

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

I proposed three scenario types. Are we really so sure all the woman did not know the game and go along with it. In two of the options they were victims in the one you have picked on they were complicit. There must be a lot of rape in the escort industry under this logic. It's not like someone famous is going to open up publically to sexual favours for career advancement. This is bad pr in the extreme.

Weinstein is a right royal bell end and the industry needs to change but listening to Weinstein brothers ex wife regaining tales on the news that were frankly ludicrous and yet doing nothing about it pretty much sums it up the attitude in the industry.

rjsterry

john80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

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.

I proposed three scenario types. Are we really so sure all the woman did not know the game and go along with it. In two of the options they were victims in the one you have picked on they were complicit. There must be a lot of rape in the escort industry under this logic. It's not like someone famous is going to open up publically to sexual favours for career advancement. This is bad pr in the extreme.

Weinstein is a right royal bell end and the industry needs to change but listening to Weinstein brothers ex wife regaining tales on the news that were frankly ludicrous and yet doing nothing about it pretty much sums it up the attitude in the industry.

Yes, John, there is a lot of rape in the escort industry.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24625169
There's a lot of rape, full stop. IIRC it's about 100,000 incidences a year in England and Wales alone.

rick_chasey

bompington wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Oh don't be such a snowflake.

Who knew people avoid saying stuff that hurts their career?

I mean, christ.

No, he definitely said stuff that hurt his career

Fair.

Pross

Interesting to hear Robert Lindsay on the radio earlier talking about how Weinstein ruined his film career after Lindsay disagreed with him about changes to a film he was due to make with him. Years later Lindsay was given a role in Shakespeare In Love only to be told the next day he'd been dropped after Weinstein intervened. He said at first he regretted it but then decided he didn't as he'd done the right thing. So it seems the sexual abuse and harassment is just one manifestation of a wider bullying personality. It also seems many in the industry knew all this but saw him as too powerful to confront.

I also saw an interview with Polanski's victim yesterday which was very odd. She was arguing that the warrant on him should be removed and he should be left alone.

tangled_metal

Rolf F wrote:

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.

Actually the legal age of marriage across USA is 18 except for two states which have it at 19 and 21. There is a legal provision for marriage at 16 with parental or judicial consent. And a very few states at 15 or younger.

Basically it's similar to the UK situation. However I believe it doesn't recognize child brides married overseas where it is legal unlike the UK. The UK recognizes child brides of their marriage happened overseas where it was carried out legally.

I think it was in the 80s or early 90s when the last state officially went 18 for marriage with 16 for official or parental consent (except the rare ones that allow for judicial consent for below 17).

Just like to point out that the USA is often portrayed as having outdated marriage laws by those from European nations. It's no longer like that AIUI. Usual caveats of Wikipedia and Google searches being wrong.

Put simply there isn't an underage marriage problem in America to be sorted out before sexual abuse problem. Even if there was both should and could be confronted simultaneously.

robert88

Pross wrote:

Interesting to hear Robert Lindsay on the radio earlier talking about how Weinstein ruined his film career after Lindsay disagreed with him about changes to a film he was due to make with him. Years later Lindsay was given a role in Shakespeare In Love only to be told the next day he'd been dropped after Weinstein intervened. He said at first he regretted it but then decided he didn't as he'd done the right thing. So it seems the sexual abuse and harassment is just one manifestation of a wider bullying personality. It also seems many in the industry knew all this but saw him as too powerful to confront.
...

rolf_f

Tangled Metal wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

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.

Actually the legal age of marriage across USA is 18 except for two states which have it at 19 and 21. There is a legal provision for marriage at 16 with parental or judicial consent. And a very few states at 15 or younger.

Basically it's similar to the UK situation. However I believe it doesn't recognize child brides married overseas where it is legal unlike the UK. The UK recognizes child brides of their marriage happened overseas where it was carried out legally.

I think it was in the 80s or early 90s when the last state officially went 18 for marriage with 16 for official or parental consent (except the rare ones that allow for judicial consent for below 17).

Just like to point out that the USA is often portrayed as having outdated marriage laws by those from European nations. It's no longer like that AIUI. Usual caveats of Wikipedia and Google searches being wrong.

Put simply there isn't an underage marriage problem in America to be sorted out before sexual abuse problem. Even if there was both should and could be confronted simultaneously.

This looks a bit copy and paste from something I found with my Googlery. The point is " There is a legal provision for marriage at 16 with parental or judicial consent. And a very few states at 15 or younger" and at least three states appear to have allowed such in recent years with girls younger than 15.

So, I tend to be less optimistic than you that there is an underage marriage programme based on your own post. And I'm not quite sure why you'd rate as of equal importance what is likely to be an ongoing problem with child brides to a single issue case where the victim wants it all dropped anyway. I would say that the priority should be where a meaningful benefit, prevention of inappropriate behaviour can be addressed to numbers of people in the future rather than focussing on something that happened a long time ago and which makes things worse for the victim.

tangled_metal

Personally Polanski case is now no longer about the crime but his escape from justice. If you allow that to stand for wealth, status or privilege reasons then you have a problem IMHO. You get law enforcement officials hunting down escaped felons for all sorts of crime but Polanski is not hiding like they are. He's in countries with equivalent laws and extradition treaties too. Why isn't he rotting in an American gaol?

I think if Wikipedia is remotely right with its references to us and UK government reports on marriage / cohabitation of minors the percentages of 15-17 year old girls in this category is 4.1%in the UK but 2.1% in the US. Looking at the 17-19 category it's 7.6% in USA or 8.9% in the UK. The fact is in Scotland it is legal to marry from the badge if 16.

Now I haven't verified those figures but the reports were referenced in Wikipedia.

So if you accept those figures which nation has the worst rate of underage marriage. Assuming you accept less than 18 years old at underage if course.

However on a wider female empowerment child welfare level save the children had UK ranked at 15 but USA at 32 in their indices in the "Every Last Girl: Free to live, free to learn, free from harm" report. But that's down it a whole host of other issues affecting girls.

So if USA has an issue is less than we have on child marriage but more of a wider underage female issue.

Sorry about the digression off the main point but I thought I'd look into the underage marriage issue. It v doesn't mean Polanski should be ignored nor any more high profile abusers.

TheBigBean

Google pointed me to this on the subject of child marriages in the US. Since 2000, it appears that some 13 year olds have legally married which is pretty shocking. I don't think that is comparable to a 17 year old legally marrying.

http://www.unchainedatlast.org/child-ma ... tatistics/

orraloon

FatTed wrote:

Everyone knew what was happening.

http://mashable.com/2017/10/16/scott-ro ... zot8_sEOqW

Sez it all.

tangled_metal

TheBigBean wrote:

Google pointed me to this on the subject of child marriages in the US. Since 2000, it appears that some 13 year olds have legally married which is pretty shocking. I don't think that is comparable to a 17 year old legally marrying.

http://www.unchainedatlast.org/child-ma ... tatistics/

There is cause federal report that said just over 300,000 underage children were married between 2000 & 2015. That is anyone under the age of 18 (or 19 or 21 in two states). They are legal under certain criteria such as parental authority (16 and above only I think I read somewhere). There are few states that allow 16 & 17 year olds to marry under judicial authority. I think that there are one or two states where the judicial authority extends to younger than 16 years. I think the criteria for judges to do this are strict and is related to specific safety concerns in those states. I'm not sure what those reasons but I think I read somewhere that it is related to the child's safety and possibly religious related.

I do question the types of comments in the sub-headings of similar articles of phrases like "as young as..." then they put in the lowest age that they could find. They do it to sensationalize the story. Truth is the very youngest child brides are likely to be relatively few. Most underage will be 16 to 17 year olds. That is, for example, legal in Scotland and very many countries with parental permission. Take those out and the issue looks a lot less worrying, however it doesn't make as good copy does it?!

ballysmate

Polanski's crime wasn't marrying a 13 year old girl it was drugging and sodomising her.
Must admit that I didn't know that it took place at Jack Nicholson's house. Don't know if Nicholson was at home at the time.
Before throwing mud at the US, bear in mind that here in enlightened Europe the age of consent in many countries is 14 and I think Spain only raised it from 12 about 5 years ago.

rick_chasey

https://www.ft.com/content/eac2476e-b58 ... 002965bce8
Sexual harassment: what happens to women who speak out?

pinno

Rick Chasey wrote:

https://www.ft.com/content/eac2476e-b58f-11e7-aa26-bb002965bce8
Sexual harassment: what happens to women who speak out?

I'm not a subscriber, can you copy/paste please?

rjsterry

Pinno wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

https://www.ft.com/content/eac2476e-b58f-11e7-aa26-bb002965bce8
Sexual harassment: what happens to women who speak out?

I'm not a subscriber, can you copy/paste please?

I was going to say the same but then we all know what happens.

robert88

Pinno wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

https://www.ft.com/content/eac2476e-b58f-11e7-aa26-bb002965bce8
Sexual harassment: what happens to women who speak out?

I'm not a subscriber, can you copy/paste please?

e.g.

women “have everything to lose in taking the risk to come forward”.


NINIANE WANG, WHISTLEBLOWER
Such fears have been entirely rational. One former City of London professional says that when she refused to have sex with her boss, she found herself cut out of work and blocked from moving. When she sought advice from a senior female partner, she was told to keep quiet. In the end, she left.

Worked for an alpha-male type once who hired women he fancied and initially they did consent. Not a good situation at work but it got worse when he tired of his latest 'conquest' because he then bullied them to get them to leave and seemed to enjoy the power he had. Personnel must/should have known what was going on but only intervened when he picked on an employee who had no emotional tie-up with the boss and took the complaint all the way.

His replacement was just having a straightforward extra-marital outside work. His naive assumption that no-one in the office knew what was going on when we took his calls for him was the stuff of comedy.

ballysmate

I don't subscribe either but I suspect it says that speaking out can have a detrimental effect on their careers, which will come as a shock to no-one I would assume. Likewise for any whistle blower in an organisation, there is a personal risk to speaking out. In any sphere, speaking out against unwanted sexual behaviour, corruption or malfeasance should not be held against the individual.
The individual has to do the benefit/risk calculation for themselves. The great and the good of Hollywood obviously did the calculation and decided, self first, self second and anything left over, self again.

Moving this away from Weinstein, sex has been used from time immemorial as a device by both sexes to different ends. Powerful men have undoubtedly exercised that power to extort sex from women and I assume men, in exchange for some sort of advancement. Women have willingly exchanged sex in order to obtain positions or reward they may otherwise not have earned. I would not be surprised if a tiny minority of powerful women had not similarly exercised their power.

A couple of lighthearted comments highlight this to some degree.

Mrs Merton to Debbie McGee "And what first attracted you to the ­millionaire Paul Daniels?"

Q. What would you have been if not a professional footballer?

A. A virgin. (Peter Crouch.)

lostboysaint

Just in case there's any doubt as to why whistleblowers struggle to get traction and predators get away with it.......

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/harvey-weinsteins-army-of-spies