Two wrongs don’t make a right.
As far as I can tell, Weinsteins lawyer’s strategy is to show that “having sex with producers was just a part of the job”. And that therefore consent was given, or could reasonably be presumed.
Its a novel approach, I’ll give them that.
Sadly, he has a point, that has been the Hollywood way since before talkies. Thankfully I don’t think it is going to be a good enough point to get him cleared.
Think they are hoping to put out just as much sordid information about the accusers, enough so a jury might say “oh a pox on both their houses”, and acquit.
It’s more than that.
Based on statements by knowledgeable people (of both genders), it appears that it’s also common for females in Hollywood to proactively offer sexual favors in exchange for roles and career boosts. If that’s what happened in the cases Weinstein was indicted for, then that would change the legal picture considerably.
Of course, the question is whether it was. But that appears to be the legal strategy, anyway.
Then they’re going to have to bank on all his accusers being rapists themselves. Short of that, whatever messiness the women have in their lives isn’t going to detract from what he’s alleged to have done to them. Bill Cosby attempted to go that route and it didn’t work.
I know he’s only facing indictment for the assault of two women, but do you not think the scores and scores of accusations and potential civil lawsuits against him isn’t going to heavily influence the jury’s view of him regardless of what dirt his team digs up on his accusers? Dozens of women can’t all be liars.
This is false, and kind of a disgusting sentiment.
Am I the only one wondering is this had an impact on Anthony Bourdain’s suicide?
Really? And what’s your experience in dealing with sex crimes? Or criminal law, full stop?
You really have purchased into the idea of the ideal victim. The Disney princess, who is pure and pious and was violated by the vicious beasts. Sorry. Does not work that way. Rape victims are often prostitutes. Drug addicts. Petty thieves. And the occasional “good girl”. They all are entitled to have their day in court. The law protects the saints and the sinners equally.
Frankly it’s attitudes like yours which have made prosecuting sexual offences so difficult.
You are not. I haven’t yet brought it up with anyone, but that was my first thought.
My second thought is that it’s not likely.
I agree that this doesn’t invalidate #metoo in any way.
Not sure who you think suggested it did.
No, you are not.
It didn’t. He’s still dead.
:dubious:
Lots of sex workers* consider the occasional sexual assualt just part of the occupational hazards of the job. Unfortunately for the longest time the law courts took the same view and it often needed some aggravating factor for them to actually convict. Still causss problems. For decades the occasional “friendly pat on the bum”, was something secretaries’ should take it stride and many took it.
None of the above is ok, was not ok then and is not now. Just same way, we should not tolerate or forgive people and culture which encourage or condone such proclivities. And frankly how can you say it’s actually “proactively seeking”, if the order of the day is that unless you offer yourself up to a producer, you won’t even be considered?
*Leaving aside for a moment arguments whether sex work is or should be legal.
It doesn’t. It tests the moral character of its participants. If they can’t see that all victims are victims, but instead have to pick and choose which victims are “legitimate” victims, they prove themselves subhuman, which shouldn’t damage the credibility of their cause.
Shouldn’t.
This is similar to the case of Nimrod Reitman, another man victimized by a woman, who was also attacked on the basis of his gender:
“We know the accused and they wouldn’t do that!” is a common claim of the people who wish to perpetuate the cycle of victimization and silence.
And there it is: Protecting males from females is “twisted” somehow, unnatural, unjust, in the minds of the people who otherwise champion the idea of bringing sexual assault perpetrators and rapists to justice.
It’s “equity versus equality” in a way: The equality case is simple, based on individual rights to bodily autonomy and dignity, whereas the equity case rests on historical abuses and the notion that previously dispossessed groups must be allowed to “get their own back” in a very real way. That’s what all of these movements must struggle with, every single time members of the presumed “privileged” group (a gross misunderstanding, but a common one) seeks justice for wrongs done to them by a member of a presumed “unprivileged” group.
:rolleyes:
Yeah. Hearing out all allegations is necessary. Believing all of them? Not so much.
The allegations made in your linked article are such that I am not surprised that at first impression they were not seen as totally believable. Since the accuser is half the age of the elderly accused, much bigger and not of accuseds perferred gender? And complaint was made after 2 years. Can’t you see why people might be skeptical for reason besides being a man hating feminist?
If I accept that people do bludgeon each other to death, it does not follow that if it is claimed that a person was beaten to death with a feather, that I am being hypocritical if I find the claim doubtful?
Of course, first impression is just that, a first impression. Deeper investigation can reveal, that no in fact unlawful activity did take place. As seems to be the case here.
This seems to be conflating two things.
You’re discussing a situation where someone offered themselves for sex in some instances and then was assaulted in a completely separate instance. I was discussing a situation where someone was claiming to have been assaulted in the exact same instance where they in reality offered themselves.
I don’t think that is or ever was the “order of the day”, but even if it was that wouldn’t change anything.
To the contrary, the very factors you cite here are self-defeating.
In the vast majority of the me-too cases, the allegation is not that the perpetrator physically overpowered the victim, but rather that he held some position of influence over the victim, exactly as is the case here. And in the (vast?) majority, far more than 2 years elapsed between alleged abuse and allegations.
The fact that you could even cite these as reasons for doubt in comparison with other instances is remarkable.
I think the message that victims of rape are bad people does a service to rapists, helping them immensely. Victims will think that if they report the crime, everyone will find out they’re “messed up people, often criminals”, and they’re the kind of person decent non-raped people certainly wouldn’t “invite home for dinner”.
In other words AK84, I think you just played the ‘victims of sexual assault were just asking for it’ card.
All of these points, except the claim about preferred gender, are points #MeToo is working to make less relevant as regards sexual violence: Age differential is a part of power differential, as in political power, which negates or greatly reduces the need for physical force in getting away with sexual assault. In short, don’t you imagine any one of a dozen starlets could have kicked Weinstein the groin? Yet they didn’t, and even bringing that possibility up is rightly seen as somewhere between tone-deaf and utterly victim-blaming. That wasn’t how Weinstein operated because he had other avenues of power over his victims.
Well, the same obtained with the woman who assaulted Reitman. The fact she still has defenders proves she had the political power necessary to assault someone without having to physically overpower them.
Well, if I got anything at all from that incoherent mess, it’s that your mind is already made up. Another thing #MeToo is working to stop.
Certain people in this thread were outraged at the mere suggestion that Argento would not be judged as harshly due to her gender, and yet… https://mobile.twitter.com/rosemcgowan/status/1031535197433602048
Where was that call for gentleness when men who were accused were instantly thrown under the bus?
Suddenly, believing survivors no longer matters, Rose?
His lawyer (who is currently managing his estate) also represents Argento and helped facilitate the payment to her accuser. So he is kind of linked to this case and some are wondering if he had knowledge of the accusation against his girlfriend, and whether this knowledge played a role in his suicide.
Are we comparing sex workers, drug addicts and petty criminals to child abuse? Really?
When people attack the credibility of people claiming that they have been assaulted, such as in the Cosby and Weinstein cases, the point is often made that predators do make a point of choosing vulnerable people as targets, such as people with money problems, mental health problems, addictions, histories of sex work, and other characteristics that can be used to question their credibility.
Thus, vulnerable people become twice or thrice victimized.
Isn’t that what AK was referring to?