Who do you think were willing and happy to go along with it? Don’t throw hypotheticals at me. Who are you talking about?
Interesting anecdote that bears no fucking relation to this story whatsoever. Are you being serious? Do you actually think that you’ve made a point here? You want us to believe this (quite frankly) unbelievable anecdote and to not believe all the women who have spoken out in the last couple of days?
Read the wiki article. Then we can move on. Because you still are demonstrating you don’t have a clue what sexual harassment actually means.
A lawsuit is not a prerequisite for sexual harassment. We aren’t in a court of law. We are having a discussion in cafe society.
We have the fucker on tape. Thats fucking sexual harassment. End of story. If you don’t think that’s sexual harassment: then you have a definition problem, not us.
That actually makes it worse. They didn’t fire him because of sexual harassment, they fired him due to unfavorable publicity due to allegations of sexual harassment. They were obviously fine with him doing whatever he did. But not the publicity.
Gotta give Dr Deth points on that one. Absolutely true. As James Corden said on late night, he violated the strict 27 strikes and your out policy they have.
Most of them did not file lawsuits, but instead settled with him for relatively small sums of money. He had a massive amount of money and experienced legal team; they were young women starting out in their careers. They made the rational and prudent decision that settling made more sense than filing a lawsuit.
This still does not change the fact that he sexually harassed them.
I concede, absolutely, that there currently does not exist a legal determination of his guilt. That still does not change the fact the he sexually harassed these women.
No, what’s terrifying is charging a machine gun nest. And just as wars can’t be won if soldiers aren’t willing to do terrifying things, social justice wars also can’t be won without overcoming that understandable fear.
Apparently in Hollywood, 99.9% of them don’t have as much courage as the least courageous Army private.
I assume that the army trains privates how to deal with their fears to charge a machine gun nest. Or is that an inborn trait of people who become army privates? The army also prides itself in being one huge support system for all its members.
Who trains aspiring actresses to risk their reputations, lives, and careers to take on a billionaire in court? Who acts as an inbuilt support system for that person? Who funds that lawsuit? Who helps that person rebuild her life after the almost inevitable loss and blacklisting from the industry?
You’re saying that the victim of an abuse that exists almost solely because that victim is powerless is singularly responsible for overturning the entire power structure.
You’re saying that the victim of abuse is responsible for risking everything for society, but society has no responsibility to that victim.
I’m wiling to give victims a pass, but as was pointed out about Weinstein, his behavior was common knowledge and nobody said a thing in public. But that just invites further rationalization. If victims won’t risk anything to stand up for themselves, why should others take risks standing up for them?
At some point, people need to start naming names, or nothing changes. If it’s just too scary, then nothing’s going to change so they might as well just return to business as usual right now, which seems to be the direction they are going in, although they’ll first make some dramatic statements as Paltrow did:" This ends now". No it doesn’t. Am I seriously supposed to believe that Paltrow knows only ONE sick man in Hollywood? Don’t make dramatic statements about fighting if you’re not going to fight. At this point taking on Weinstein is risk free.
The victims have already been harmed, and the overwhelming likelihood is that they will suffer more harm if they speak up. And remember, they were chosen as victims because of their lack of power. How does it make sense to make the weakest in society responsible for changing the entire society? And you have the gall to call them cowards?
Go risk your own reputation and career and future and ability to support yourself and your family for them and then come back and talk about courage.
Sure, blame people who knew and had the power to stand up to Weinstein, but chose not to. Like his brother, for example. That’s a different case.
The thing about charging machine guns is that soldiers fight for the officer in front of them and the soldiers to their right and left. Courage is something soldiers give one another.
People often have this impression of people in Hollywood all living the high life, but most people who had heard things only heard gossip and had very little influence or sway and a hell of a lot to lose. It’s too easy to dismiss the fear that people have of someone like Weinstein.
As mentioned upthread, in 2015 Italian model Ambra Gutierrez reported a sexual assault to the NYPD. Harvey Weinstein groped her breasts during a meeting he arranged with her agency after meeting her at a fashion show in NYC.
He called her while she was sitting with investigators from the Special Victims Division, annoyed that she had left the show. The investigators had her agree to go to the next night’s show and meet with him while wearing a wire.
Just a short excerpt to illustrate the difference between asking someone out and sexual harassment, for those unable to grasp the difference. This is how a horndog in a position of power ‘asks out’ a woman whose career he can make or break like a twig.
I would push to the point where my friend became actively disloyal to his king. Or was cruel to animals or children ( or tortured anyone ): then they are scum.
I wouldn’t inform on them if they were dealing drugs, or smuggling guns, or had, long ago, committed a murder; for the sake of the friendship — whereas I might for a non-friend. I might drop them from my circle of acquaintances if the offence was heinous ( like that file-system inventor now in prison for murdering his wife ) but could still visit them in prison with a parcel of soup and a Chick Tract. The Obamas and Clintons are in the same boat — they swore a sacred oath of friendship with the engaging Mr. Weinstein and they ain’t gonna give now.
Plus they can, in addition, form a more Olympian view to the rest of us poor mortals not in the political class; a lot of their friends are sleazes.
When Oscar Wilde went to Reading, they kept his plays running in the West End, but withdrew his name from the posters outside. This has always been considered bad form.
NB: I rather assumed, only vaguely having heard of him, that he was about 80 and as fat as a tub
Unbelievable that some in this thread are actually defending this dirtbag. They actually seem incapable of distinguishing between asking a woman out on a date and leering at her while waggling your dick and demanding that she suck it or she’ll never work in this town again. (That’s probably Dr Deth’s idea of a romantic evening.)
What’s repellent too is the parade of male stars and producers all scrambling over the last few days to put on record their shock at Weinstein’s behavior and how they had no idea at all that he did such things. As if. They all knew fucking well what their friend Harvey was up to and totally ignored it. Is Leonardo di Caprio really trying to tell us that he knows less about the goings on in Hollywood than John Q Public, because most of us have known for decades what a creep Weinstein was. It was an open secret, a running fucking joke, “Oh that Harvey, what a cunthound he is, can’t keep his hands off the ladies. Great guy!” and now suddenly they’re shocked. Tell it to the Marines.
You mean the Army that has had hundreds of women and men over multiple decades come out and say they were assaulted by serial abusers and felt completely stymied at every turn because they felt the entire system was set up to protect their abusers? That Army?