…so we do need to explain to you what sexual harassment is, and why this isn’t the simple case of a guy asking a girl out on a date. Thanks for clearing that up. We will start with the basics.
"Sexual harassment is bullying or coercion of a sexual nature, or the unwelcome or inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favors. In most modern legal contexts, sexual harassment is illegal. As defined by the United States’ Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), “It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person’s sex.” Harassment can include “sexual harassment” or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature. "
“But these weren’t employees!” I’m expecting you to say next. If that is what you are going to say next, I’ll address that then.
Strawman. We are talking sexual harassment. This isn’t in dispute. You acknowledge you “see unwanted advances.” Unwanted advances, in the context of the power differential that we are seeing here, is clearly and undisputedly sexual harassment.
What were the potential consequences for women who didn’t “put out?” What were the actual real-world consequences for the many women (including many that we don’t know about) who didn’t “put out”?
He was called a subordinate( actor in one of his productions )to a meeting in his hotel room where he requested in escalating order a back rub, then a massage, then to have said actor watch him shower and pick out his clothes. Each new refusal created a new, stronger request. That doesn’t strike you as sexual harassment?
I’m pretty sure anybody in my own management structure who pulled that little stunt would be on a express train to unemploymentville. With a side stop at lawsuit village.
Coercion is not a necessary component of sexual harassment. Sexual harassment includes unwelcome advances, as well as unwelcome offers of rewards in exchange for sexual favors. The fact that you have the ability to refuse the unwelcome advances or offers is not relevant to whether it is harassment.
We are not talking here about sexual assault, which is a different crime.
“coercion of a sexual nature, or the unwelcome or inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favor” Can you show coercion? Can you show “inappropriate promise of rewards”. Apparently* you* are the one that needs a education here.
And no they werent employees.
Yes, what were the consequences? No one has implied they didnt get a job due to this. Gwynyth Paltrow, Ashley Judd, Angelina Jolie, Rose McGowan, and Rosanna Arquette are all still working.
…an education on sexual harassment? No I don’t need that. You need to read the entire article, not just the fair-use-snippet I quoted. Thats just a primer. You have so much to learn. When you’ve finished reading that, we can chat.
In the context of sexual harassment and Harvey Weinstein, why do you think that matters in this case?
And how many are not? This was going on for fucking decades. Waiting staff talked about how he had a different woman with him practically every night. You’ve listed five women. How about the rest of them?
I’ll grant that there’s a small chance he’s innocent. There’s also a small chance that Bill Cosby and OJ are innocent. But the evidence says they are probably guilty.
…and of course we aren’t in a court of law. We are in cafe society, where people have said harsher things about Taylor Swift than they have or will about Harvey.
Dawn Dunning says that Harvey Weinstein told her that he had contracts for her to appear in his next three films, but that she could only sign them if she had a three-way with him. She refused and he told her that she would never make it in the business. He did not sign her and she eventually became a costume designer.
Louisette Geiss says that he told her he would greenlight her script, but she had to watch him masturbate. She refused, and eventually left the entertainment industry.
Different women had different experiences. Some told him no, and went on to make films for other producers. Some told him no, were unable to get other work, and left the industry. Some went along with him, and had varying degrees of success in their careers. All of them were sexually harassed, which is wrong whether or not there was coercion, and whether or not they later had successful careers.
Well, we’re far enough in to this now that I think we can say with confidence that nothing is going to change. Weinstein is getting thrown under the bus but all the other scumbags in Hollywood are still being protected. Everyone’s coming forward with stories that aren’t about Weinstein but won’t name names. They just aren’t serious. Even if the victims are afraid to tell, which is understandable, no one else who knows about these guys is going to step up?
Hollywood is permissive towards sexual predation. That’s just the way it is and it’s not changing anytime soon.
I think you do. Or an education on not being condescending at least.
Maybe they were willing and happy to go along? or is that wrong also?
You know we were working on a film for use in Sexual harassment training.
Some scenes were reshot, with identical dialogue. One had a fat, balding guy ask the receptionist out for lunch. The other version was a hunky young guy in a deliverymans shorts. 80% of woman said the scene with fat guy was sexual harassment. only 20% thought the cute guy was harassment. Exact same words.