UKH

Whilst this man has apparently been behaving appallingly and has left a large number of victims behind, and no doubt deserves a great deal of the recent consequences he's been experiencing and more. However I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with the way this has been played out in the media.

There seem to be a lot of people who clearly knew and turned a blind eye, but given the nature of the allegations I expect to see formal investigation and charges in due course, so how will they find an uninfluenced jury to try him?

In reply to balmybaldwin:

He may have experienced a dramatic fall from grace but I'm sure he can still afford phenomenal teams of lawyers to ensure that any criminal cases brought against him aren't a straightforward conviction. I don't think we need to feel at all sorry for him.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

He controlled the media to cover up his actions and quash negative stories about himself by fabricating stories about others. That he's attracting a backlash in the media now is a sort of karmic payback. (I'm not suggesting the allegations are false, mind).

In reply to Natalie Berry - UKC:

Yes I don't feel at all sorry for him if half the stories are true.

But it's a shame that it now appears so many people had knowledge of his behaviour but made no comments and took no action until now.

Not so surprised that young people trying to get a break chose to ignore the behaviour but more so if established Hollywood names did.

In reply to mountain.martin:

Appalling though it all is (and it absolutely is), I'm kind of suprised that there seems to be so much shock among the Hollywood glitterati (or is it not actually genuine shock - as suggested above, how many had heard accusations and turned a blind eye?). It strikes me that if the whole world wasn't quite so in awe of Tinseltown then perhaps the kind of power structures that make the space for this kind of exploitation to occur wouldn't develop quite so easily. And quite apart from anything else, as I understand it, many of the most glamourous people on the planet live little more than a stone's throw from one of the world centres of the porn industry and, (though I know almost nothing about it), I struggle to believe that that is not utterly rife with exploitation of a similar kind.

All pretty desperate stuff anyway.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Who really cares? More vacuous "celeb news" .

In reply to balmybaldwin:

A little ironic that you go on social media to voice concerns about the way this has been made public in the media!

In reply to Natalie Berry - UKC:

Karmic payback? Surely it's a case of the media deliberately switching sides and turning on him? Perhaps you equate the media to a godly and mysterious balancing force in the world but it's far more calculated and cut-throat than that.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/oct/11/harvey-weinstein-sexual-harass...

In reply to FreshSlate:

Exactly. What goes around comes around.

In reply to Big Ger:


That's an awful thing to say.

Victims are victims - whether they're famous or whether they're not.

Hollywood has given immense pleasure to billions of people, over the last century. But there has always been a dark underbelly. And people with little power to fight back have been destroyed.

Mick

In reply to Big Ger:


I care Big Ger.

I care because my daughter is not quite 5 but I have to work hard, even now, to offset the influences she is bombarded with against the realities of life. Even though she gets very light exposure to TV and we invest a lot of time encouraging her to see the world as being more than just tinsel-coated Disney, we cannot stop all of the pervasive cultural tentacles reaching out to tap her on the shoulder.

I am happy to indulge her play with a variety of fantasy but I also like her to see that women can be engineers (her mum got a PhD that way) and politicians and philosophers, and builders and sportspeople etc. However, kids are very easily wooed by the glitz and glamour of showbiz.

So yes, a lot of it is vacuous nonsense, but it draws people in, especially young people, and so I care about that world and the image it holds and I want to be armed to help inform my daughter. Plus I want to know that behaviour like that does not go unchallenged and unpunished. Should my little girl one day end up in that business I don't want her to believe that she has to go along with something seedy just to get on in life.

So yes, I care.

In reply to Big Ger:
If you have a daughter you should care, because it sends a message to powerful men in any industry that abusing their position for sex, engaging in coercion and out and out assault is completely unacceptable, and that victims will increasingly call them out.

In reply to FreshSlate:

No the media haven't changed sides as you put it, they've just been able to nail him.

Here's a good explanation of how the fat sleazy ugly bastard protected himself: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/11/business/harvey-weinstein-sexual-hara...

In reply to Big Ger:


Perhaps people who have seen the consequences of sexual abuse perpetrated on the vulnerable by the powerful and untouchable, and are pleased to see someone being held to account. While Weinstein may be high profile, he is far from the only offender, and those who have been on the sharp end of sexual abuse by those in positions of power may now find some courage in the knowledge that their voices will be heard.

In reply to planetmarshall:
Exactly, it doesn't matter if it's a famous Holly Wood mogul who has taken advantage of celebrities, it's still very wrong. If he's facing rape allegations, and actually has raped anybody, he'll have caused so much damage he truly deserves to be locked up, and to suffer. He probably won't be, but he deserves to be. It's a horrible crime.

In reply to Natalie Berry - UKC:

That's a laissez faire attitude towards the media knowingly suppressing negative publicity about a sexual deviant because he's a powerful man.

I find this disturbing and I don't see how it is like karma just because the news finally breaks at some stage. I don't see how you can disagree.

In reply to Mick Ward:



Victims are victims whether the perpetrator is famous or not. Why does his crime deserve more publicity, surely that is not in the victim's interest?

In reply to Rampikino:



What does this have to do with the case in point?


So Harvey's crimes should be plastered over the front cover of every newspaper, how does taht help your daughter become an engineer?


Fine, teach her that, you have my respect for it. But let's not pretend that Harvey's crimes are in any way impacting on your ability to raise your kid properly, and that by publicising them it somehow alleviates that.



But not about "celeb news".

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:


You really think this achieves that? Or does it just fill the scandal sheets for a week or so?

In reply to planetmarshall:


Or maybe the scandal sheets and celeb gossip rags will all have a Harvey hate month, then they'll forget about it, and move on to the size of Kim's arse, or the fact that Nickie Minger is now dating a horse or something...

In reply to balmybaldwin:
What I do not understand in all this, is the role of Paltrow, Jolie et al. They claim that Weinstein made advances on them when they were young aspiring actresses, and I can understand why they said nothing then. However they became multi millionaires uber actresses. Surely they have talked amongst themselves, infact Jolie says she did. Why did they not out Weinstein years ago https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/10/us/gwyneth-paltrow-angelina-jolie-harvey...

Similarly I heard Hilary Clinton referred to as "The Hilary" in a positive way, as an Icon of an empowered woman, yet she is still married to Bill Clinton, who in my view did similar things to Weinstein, using his position to gain sexual favours. Why has she not divorced him.

If powerful women like these do not act, what a terrible message it sends to women who are being abused and who if they act will have to leave with nothing.

It seems bad to me.

In reply to J1234:


I think what sends a terrible message to women is that Weinstein and people like him can apparently behave like this with impunity, and some people still don't seem to think it's much of a problem.

I think the overriding message should not be that more women should have spoken out, but that Weinstein's behaviour was totally unacceptable in the first place. None of these women have done anything wrong, whether they chose to speak out then, or now.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Having seen a couple of news clips of him, he really isn't a very endearing man is he.

It's a bit like the Jimmy Saville case, when it comes to light one wonders how on earth it went on for so long with no action. Except Jimmy Saville was picking on vulnerable children and adolescents whereas HW was picking on not so vulnerable adults (but who knows what may come to light).

Not sure what that shows, other than nobody likes to stick their heads over the parapet and speak out against a powerful bully, especially if it may effect their own careers, leave the problem to the next person?

In reply to J1234:


Well;
a) they weren't "powerful women" when it happened.
b) men "making advances to" women is not yet illegal, (we'd have to shut all nightclubs and Tinder down if it were.)
c) proving he did something 25 years ago, or more, which crossed into illegality, esp if there were no other witnesses, is a sod of a job.
d) maybe they were prepared to put up with a degree of harassment to further their careers, (or are we not allowed to say this?)

In reply to Big Ger:



Well; I addressed this in my post


No but anyone of any sex, using their position of power to gain sexual favours is totally disgusting if not illegal.


Difficult yes, but this is what abusers and people such as Stuart Hall and Saville relied on.


This is the sad conclusion I have come to. It cannot be money as they have more money than they can ever spend, its the position and power and fame, they want that.

In reply to Big Ger:


No indeed, but with the Police involved on both sides of the Atlantic, I think we can assume that the allegations go rather further than asking a pretty girl out for coffee.


Indeed, but this is a job for the Police and the CPS.


If so, then a better question is why exactly they should have to be prepared to put up with such things. I don't think this is acceptable in any profession, I don't see why Hollywood should be different.

In reply to planetmarshall:



Paltrow Jolie et al knew this was going on, but chose to do nothing or very little even when they had the money and prestige to take down Weinstein. In my view they have some responsibility, possibly I am wrong.

In reply to planetmarshall:




At no point did they have to, early on they chose to (I can understand why), as they felt powerless, latterly when they were famous and rich they still chose to, for reasons I am not sure of. Women do have agency of there own, its not just for society and men to protect them. This is why in what is a very unequal world gender wise, powerful women such as Clinton and Joilie and Paltrow have a duty to be proactive.

In reply to planetmarshall:


Agreed, but we do not know what degree of "harassement" Jolie et al were subjected to.


Agreed, not the celeb mags, and Daily Mail.


How much harassment would you put up with to climb E10?

Although this may sound trite, we are all prepared to bend over and spread them to a certain degree, depending on the inducement, are we not?

I'm prepared to put up with a certain level of abuse, verbal and physical, in my work, as not only does it come with the client group, but I believe I make a difference, and couldn't if I was not prepared to take it.

In reply to Big Ger:

The thing is the film industry has changed. As was pointed out yesterday by some actress , the days of the casting couch have long gone. When any actress even a young one has an audition or sees a producer they are accompanied by a host of agents etc etc.So the issue has been recognised for a long time and stopped by having other people there. A simple method of stopping it dead in its tracks.

In reply to neilh:

Emma Thomson said the exact opposite last night on Newsnight.

In reply to neilh:


Erm, yes, did I say anything contrary to this?

In reply to balmybaldwin:

I think all the big stars are hypocrites, of course they knew this was going on and he certainly isn't the only one. It's an industry that revolves around are 30-50yr old men playing the heros, getting the twenty something girl at the end.

All the big name famous and rich female stars could have spoken out over the years, but stayed silent, as to tarnish brand hollywood might harm their future pay cheques. So they are happy with exploitation as long as their bank balance is high and it's not them that suffers it.

In reply to summo:

It is so like Saville it's unreal...everybody appears to know...and then suddenly there is this outpouring over it.The NYT's articles on it are fascinating.

In reply to summo:


You mean his victims? That's a bit strong, the moral failure here is Weinstein's, not theirs. As Amol Rajan wrote on the BBC -

There are those online, unsurprisingly vast in number, who say that the women Weinstein allegedly abused - he denies the bulk of the allegations against him - are themselves complicit. They should have spoken out years ago, apparently.

I must say I find this reasoning intellectually limited. It transfers the moral failure from Weinstein to his alleged victims, and penalises them for an absence of courage which few people could muster.

Weinstein: Is the media complicit? - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-41582187

In reply to Big Ger:


It might be in the interest of other victims, in helping them feel they'll be believed?

In reply to planetmarshall:

I was yelling the same thing at the telly last night, Jane Fonda being interviewed and somehow it ends up that Jane Fonda has done something wrong by not passing on industry gossip - and that folks is how the establishment starts deflecting blame from the perpetrator to the victims. The powerful and wealthy are still getting away with it, does one even need to look any further than Trump and Berlusconi (actually you do because there’s lots of them about).

In reply to J1234:

I agree with your point about responsibility.
Many years ago I worked with a colleague who, being new to the job, was bullied by our boss.
To my eternal shame I allowed this to happen.
Allowed as in did nothing to stop or try to stop the bullying.
The same applies to the powerful women and men who knew what was allegedly happening and chose not to speak out.

In reply to planetmarshall:

Victims. No, there are many celebs now jumping around saying I turned him down, who are box office millionaires. They have both the respect and Hollywood clout to say something. Most have done for years, but they did nothing.

Yes. If you were a victim its different. I bet everyone here can think of an office perv etc.. they might think they are discrete, but everyone knows. It will be the same with all the people who he didn't mess with, they all knew and did nothing.

In reply to summo:

Fair enough, but I think it's important to make the distinction between Weinstein's victims who did not speak up at the time, or who tried to but were shouted down, and his enablers and associates who knew and did nothing. There's a lot of victim blaming going on in this story.

In reply to planetmarshall:


What about the women who are willing to flirt outrageously, act in a highly sexually provocative manner or offer sex to men in powerful positions in order to gain advantage?

It doesn't lessen the opprobrium to acknowledge there are no shortages of people out there who indirectly encourage or reinforce this sorts of behavior. Are they victims too?

In reply to David Martin:


Which women in particular are you referring to?

In reply to planetmarshall:

You don't think this exists in show business? You have never experienced this yourself? Or you prefer to pretend such behavior doesn't exist? That the business of sexual demands and favours is always one way?

As much as people like Weinstein know they can use their position to obtain sexual favours, there are women who know they can use sex to obtain favours. Those that do are every bit as much to blame in this episode.

When it comes to bribery, where the mismatch in power can be every bit as great as here, we accept that offering, soliciting and accepting bribes is illegal. All reinforce the arrangement. Those not speaking out, especially those who have gone on to be multi-millionaires rather than struggling actors, are culpable. Given it would be nothing but hearsay otherwise, who else can speak out other than a victim?

In reply to David Martin:

You're saying the women who've used sex to get ahead with Weinstein, bear some responsibility for him sexually assaulting other women and orally/raping them?

I don't follow your reasoning, I can't work out what it is...

In reply to David Martin:


I have no idea, I'd be guessing based on no evidence either way.


No. I have however experienced the consequences of sexual assault perpetrated by persons in positions of power upon vulnerable women, and the considerable psychological damage it does.


Is that a question? I can't tell.


I cannot for the life of me work out how women, any women, can be considered to be "every bit as much to blame" as Weinstein. Did you get passed over for promotion by a woman or something?

In reply to planetmarshall:


The only person to blame is Weinstein.

In reply to Timmd:

Really?

"Mr. Weinstein, you know what? I'll suck your cock and really really make out I'm enjoying the experience if you give me that role."

You honestly don't think that women offering sex in exchange for advantage normalises that offering and disadvantages those who don't? That its not going to encourage the recipient to consider soliciting for such offers? That it won't lead to an assumption that making advances isn't only acceptable but may in fact be desired? That it isn't going to blur an otherwise clear line between work and sex, between what is acceptable and unacceptable, and potentially between what is rape and what isn't?

Part of the issue here is that everyone apparently pretended that nothing was happening, even though "everyone knew". But you really want to pretend that offering sex for favours doesn't exist, or that it also doesn't have consequences?

Let's just be clear about the allegations too. You can of course take the claims of Arquette, Gutierrez, Argento etc. at face value. But right now they are simply accusations. I'd be cautious about including an offer of a "massage" to Paltrow or "unwanted sexual advances" to Jolie as "sexual assault" though. Given someone has now been ruined without even so much as a court case, and there are allegations enough without a need to over-egg the pudding, we might want to be careful about what is being claimed.

For what its worth, prior to this hitting the media I had no idea who the guy was. I know enough about him now to figure he probably abused his position of power. I'm willing to go with suggestions that not only is he a lecherous creep (probably a safe assumption of much of Hollywood, male or female) but on account of the number of allegations, he probably is a serial rapist.

But all that is based purely on newspaper claims. As we seem to be in the business of making massive judgments based on this sort of evidence, at least be equally willing throw caution to the wind when discussing contributing factors.

If "Hollywood", "The Media", "masculinity", or "the powerful", can be collectively blamed, why pretend other aspects of "Show-biz culture" or sexual conduct more generally don't exist or play a role?

Or is there only one person to blame?

In reply to Timmd:


I'm not beyond accepting that a lot of our behaviour is out of our own control, and indeed psychological research supports this view. But the idea that Weinstein's responsibility for his own actions is somehow diminished by the existence of David's hypothetical temptresses is straight out of the book of Genesis or the rulebook of Mike Pence and I'm amazed to see it given serious consideration.

For one thing the idea is demeaning to men that we are somehow unable to control ourselves and refrain from sexual assault in the presence of an attractive woman. It really isn't that difficult. Here I am, sitting at my desk, not assaulting women.

In reply to David Martin:



So, is Weinstein just some passive automaton in this hypothetical scenario of yours? Or is he, God forbid, able to say, "No, that would not be appropriate."

In reply to planetmarshall:

I'm not sure I'm saying Weinstein isn't responsible.

But you can't simultaneously hold the view that individuals are entirely responsible for their own behavior while accepting that behavior can also be out of their control (or more accurately, influenced by the environment).

You conveniently accept that in some circumstances there are contributing factors to people's behaviour yet in extremes like this, where someone behaves in a way that is so at odds with acceptable society, outwardly risky to their position of privilege, where they perpetuate it for such a long period of time, that this is entirely internally driven and supported? That it is ok to implicate "power" and "vulnerability" but you cannot think wider than this?

What is demeaning to men is to assume from stories like this that only males behave in reprehensible ways and use sex to their advantage. Equally, that all women are passive victims.

None of that detracts from the victimhood of the women making the allegations in this case - although I suspect you would assume it does.

In reply to planetmarshall:


What do you think? And your point is?

In reply to David Martin:
You might want to keep in mind the claim from one lady about protesting that she didn't want to give him oral sex, and what she was saying being ignored so that she felt pressured into it.

If true, then any willingness from other women to suck his cock in exchange for advancement, has nothing to do with him having forced a woman into a sexual act she wasn't wanting to do.

However you frame things, he's responsible for this, and nobody else is. No other women are, or anybody who knows him, only he is.

Have you ever seen the trauma in a victim of sexual assault? It's awful. That you're implying that people other than Weinstein somehow hold some responsibility for any sexual assaults he's (potentially) committed, is probably one of the shittier things I've read here. It's entirely down to him.

It was him who decided to use is influential position as a way of sexually exploiting women, it wasn't the people who know him who kept quiet, and it wasn't any of the women involved (willingly or otherwise). It was him.

In reply to David Martin:


You assigned equal responsibility for Weinstein perpetrating sexual assault to the existence of women who offer sexual favours, as to Weinstein himself. Here's the quote again:

As much as people like Weinstein know they can use their position to obtain sexual favours, there are women who know they can use sex to obtain favours. Those that do are every bit as much to blame in this episode.

You have as yet provided no examples of such women, any evidence of their existence, or given their existence any reasonable explanation of how they have influenced Harvey Weinstein's decision to commit sexual assault.

In reply to David Martin:


Whattaboutery. The hypothetical existence of such behaviour does not lessen Weinstein's responsibility for his own actions.


I have literally no idea what you mean by this.

In reply to David Martin:
It's about power, lots of people behave in demeaning ways if the power differential is high, both male and female, and no matter how powerful these women may have been later in their careers you can be sure that HW could have broken their careers if they crossed him.
You maybe need to set aside your Eve complex

In reply to jethro kiernan:
It's about individual responsibility, too. If David's theory is extrapolated to wider society, it starts to suggest that some women being 'easy' or whatever, are somebody responsible for what happens to women who aren't as willing to engage in sexual acts, but who end up being forced too anyway, which is horrible. One hopes that David would agree that it is.

In reply to summo:


What about Weinstein's male staff and friends who knowingly helped to facilitate his actions? Could they have spoken out, or are we just getting upset at women?

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


They all share some level of guilt, if you knowingly allow a person to repeatedly offend, then that should mean jail time. Male or female is irrelevant.

In reply to jethro kiernan:


Many of these women are multi millionaires, I don't think they'd be homeless if they spoke out. Instead they protected their future earnings, by allowing more women to suffer. Caring sharing Hollywood.

In reply to summo:
Would you risk being disbelieved and sued by coming out as just one person against somebody as rich and well connected as him? I've not thought about it enough to know if I would do. I can see why somebody wouldn't do.

In reply to summo:


Oh right, it was just unclear because you and several others appear to only want to blame women for this predatory, ridiculously wealthy and powerful man's behaviour.

Is hearing a story, 2nd or 3rd hand, enough to go to the police with and accuse a man like this of sexual assault?

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


That's for their judgement, if you worked relatively near him I doubt anything was 2nd or 3rd hand. This is decades of repeat offending, not a one off where he had a dirty weekend away with his secretary. Over that timescale, hundreds of folk must have suspect what was going on.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


To be fair, David was only blaming women for 50% of his behaviour.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


I wondered about this. A lot of the testimony refers to his "assistant" being complicit in (or orchestrating) setting up these situations where he was alone with women. Sounds very unpleasant. Not clear what sex the assistant was.

In reply to MG:


It's not relevant. Such behaviour would certainly be complicit and reprehensible, male or female.

In reply to planetmarshall:


Which bit? The sex of the assistant I agree isn't relevant but if they were helping set things up, it's not longer just one person in the wrong.

In reply to summo:


And as we saw with Savile, a member of the establishment, with influence and access to teams of the best lawyers money can buy, can get away with this for a long time. They're intelligent, aggressive, ruthless and scare the shit out of everyone. They're good at it and good at getting away with it. I seriously doubt that the only people who knew were those with no backbone or weak morals.

In reply to MG:


Yes, the former. To be clear, I am not disputing that others have been complicit in this affair, directly or indirectly. That much seems clear. What I dispute is that the alleged guilt of these other parties in any way lessens the, again alleged, guilt of Weinstein himself.

In reply to summo:

You might want to read about how this woman kept to herself being asked to give him a massage when he was wearing just a towel for a long time before doubting anything was 2nd or 3rd hand?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41602224?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=...

The easiest thing in the world is to judge from afar...

In reply to Timmd:
My point is there will have bern plenty folk who now had more than enough money in the bank to never work again, they could have spoken out. Instead they wanted to protect their career and earn yet more money, despite having a very good idea that others new to the industry would be exploited by him. They made a choice.

In reply to summo:
Aren't you're assuming they'd have been believed as single people, though? If one person speaks out without any evidence, all that's probably likely to happen to them is being sued, or being threatened with being sued unless they withdraw what they say.

For rape and sexual assault, a personal account isn't a lot of good without any evidence too, I gather.

In reply to Timmd:

Angelina Joilie is a UNESCO Ambassador or something, I suspect she would be listened to, and what had she to lose by speaking out. Even more money.

In reply to planetmarshall:


Ok, poor choice of words. Not "every bit as much to blame", but "certainly contribute to" - and I would add they go a long way to contributing towards the overall culture. Any process that involves individuals without oversight being appealed to on a personal basis is one open to the offering of inducements: financial or sexual.


My examples are as anecdotal as the "everybody knew" claims against Weinstein. Do you really want the graphic details of stories colleagues and one a former boss have recounted over the years? Or perhaps the numerous examples of girls I've managed flirting to get what they want? I know one particular girl who works in the tamer end of the "adult industry" - the clinical way she uses sex to manipulate her customers to empty their bank accounts is impressive. This is the stuff of lore in the entertainment industry!

If you don't believe this kind of thing exists you are as much in denial as those who refused to believe Weinstein had a reputation for being "hands-on".

Likewise, if you don't think it can influence how someone behaves I'm very surprised. We're not all the same. Some people are open to suggestion, some are just waiting for green lights. For some, after a lifetime being told they are unattractive, suddenly being on the receiving end of attention might be utterly seducing and fundamentally challenge their prior held beliefs and norms.

You are happy to accept "power", when it comes to male economic status, may lead females to go along with all manner of indecencies. Yet seem unwilling to accept that sexual power can, and is, used in the other direction.

Taking the rose-tinted glasses off for a moment and accepting there are numerous drivers to this sort of situation doesn't mean you are any less sympathetic to the victims or damning of Weinstein.

In reply to J1234:


She wasn't at the time. Her experience with him would appear to be sleazy rather than illegal, she chose never to work with him again, which seems reasonable. She may have spoken to people privately, we just don't know.

In reply to David Martin:
You're still trying to argue that Weinstein doesn't bare sole responsibility for his actions?

Tell that to the woman/women, who didn't really want to give him a blow job, and did do anyway under duress.

Imagine if it was your niece, or your sister, or cousin, etc.

My nieces are going to have to grow up in this world as it is, and there's fuckwhits trying to absolve Weinstein of some of the responsibility for his actions. People with shit attitudes which make the world slightly worse.

What happens if your theory is applied to wider society, do the 'easy' women hold some responsibility there, too, for when other women are pressured into doing things they don't want to?

Are all women just collectively responsible for what happens to one another through how they conduct themselves? That seems to be what you're suggesting - in blaming some of the women who readily did what Weinstein wanted.

Do you REALLY hold some women responsible for what happened to other women? Really?

Please just think about what you're suggesting...

In reply to David Martin:

Sounds like whataboutary to me.

In reply to David Martin:

You've spent a huge majority of your time on this thread discussing these, yet to be identified, women who have cruelly used sex to get what they want whereas the actual real victims have gotten a "P.S. also this is bad of course". Why do you dislike women so much?

In reply to Timmd:


If you want to take a narrow view of this case and say this is about nothing more than Weinstein himself - be my guest.
If you feel like taking the blinkers off and considering that people around him who knew what went on might be in some way responsible - that's would be a good angle to take too.
But why stop there. There's clearly a spectrum of sexual mischief going on, from those openly offering and soliciting to those simply accepting or providing under duress. You can pretend that spectrum is much narrower than it is of course. And you can pretend that each extreme has no role in setting the tone and expectations of the industry. But you'd be sticking your fingers in your ears and covering your eyes to do so.

As I said before, we rightly look at ALL contributing factors when it comes to financial/gift inducements - why should it be any different when discussing sexual inducements?

Get wound up in knots all you want over the semantics of whether that means someone is "all"/"partially"/"somewhat"/"not-at-all"/"all of the above" to blame or responsible. It doesn't change the fact that people offering blow-jobs and people asking for blow-jobs exist and all play a role in creating that environment.


I'd imagine they would be pissed off with everything that contributes to this. They'd be pissed off that others before them didn't report it to police. They'd be pissed off that blokes like him expect a blow job. They'd be pissed off that some women use it to get ahead. What has them being my sister cousin etc. got to do with that?

Is saying this really so offensive? Are you seriously implying I'm trying to "absolve" him of responsibility because I say what you can't bring yourself to say:

Yes, a women who walks in to a man's office and offers him a blow-job in return for a job does "hold some responsibility" (however loosly you want to take "responsbility" to mean).

Are you actually disagreeing? You would apply the principle in other areas of life - be it lack of collective bargaining leading to lower overall wages, knowing police are soft on drivers using mobile phones encouraging other's to use them, or contractors offering bribes meaning you are less likely to get a contract if you don't do so yourself. Set a standard or a perception and people will drop to that level.


Christ, you seem to be going slightly beyond anything I've said there. But I'll bite: all people are individually responsible for their behaviour leads others to behave is a more sensible summary of my point. Weinstein himself.


Again, yes. You don't need to get hysterical about it, or assume that in any way diminishes the degree to which Weinstein is a creep or potentially guilty of rape. I'm just not giving people get-out-of-jail-free cards on account of them being female rather than male. Pretty straightforward really.


What you seem to be suggesting is an entire contributing factor not only doesn't exist but that to dare to mention it is in some way an attempt to get Weinstein off the hook.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

Apologies. I wasn't aware of a required sympathy-to-questioning ratio needed to give an opinion on a climbing forum. Go ahead and start up a condolences thread if you think that's more appropriate than a "Weinstein - trial by media?" thread.

Besides, seems a bit silly to be wringing one's hands over their treatment, as if your indignation over a film producer will have any impact. Or even assuming that Harvey Weinstein's crime are of any global importance, either in scale or horror. How many people were sexually assaulted today in L.A I wonder? It's only because they are celebrities that you are hearing about this in the first place - so they, fortunately, get your outspoken sympathy.


What gives you that idea?

I'll give you some substance on my woman hating though. I get upset when I see kids begging in the streets, or pushing their legless grandparents through rush-hour traffic asking for small change. Or the destitute in slums prostituting themselves for the kind of money you'll spend on a pint tonight. I struggle to feel so personally impacted or even feel the need to express pointless sympathy for an actress worth $16 million, who maybe had oral sex forced on her, and who later went on to have consensual sexual relations with a very same man. Its enough for me to assume, and state that, Weinstein is probably a serial rapist. Other than that I'm more interested in "why" he's a serial rapist. Sorry for being such a woman-hater.

In reply to David Martin:


You also apparently get upset about women exploiting men with their irresistible feminine wiles, so much so that you seem desperately intent on turning a thread about the inexcusable behaviour of a despicable individual into a veritable festival of whattaboutery. Would you be quite so even handed were the genders reversed, I wonder.


Come now David, no you aren't. Not really. At least not unless it fits your narrative of a poor man tricked into perpetrating sexual abuse by an ambitious 17 year old girl, wide eyes with dreams of fame and fortune. Your sympathy for the billionaire Hollywood producer is nicely juxtaposed with your lack of any kind of empathy for the millionnaire actress, curious given who is the victim and who the criminal. Or perhaps you really do believe that Weinstein is the victim in this, after all?

In reply to David Martin:













Good post, well thought out and props for sticking your head above the parapet.

In reply to planetmarshall:

Saying that some women use sex as capital is hardly contentious - unless you are sufficiently White Knightish to not want to deny women any agency.

If a woman wants to make money from sex, so be it. I make no judgment on it - I'm all for legalising the sex industry. But if you are going to walk in to what is essentially a job interview, and make a sexual proposal to someone who you know is likely to accept it, and that this is going to give you an opportunity otherwise denied to others, then you have to accept there are consequences to that action - most likely impacting your fellow females.

Reverse the genders and it is no different. Accept a bribe and it is no different. Thanks for noting I am being "even handed" - that is rather the point.

As far as whataboutery goes, I was simply responding to your statement that:

"it's important to make the distinction between Weinstein's victims who did not speak up at the time, or who tried to but were shouted down, and his enablers and associates who knew and did nothing. There's a lot of victim blaming going on in this story."

It simply seemed to be an incomplete accounting of factors that encourage Weinsteins to exist...unless you were including the women I'm referring to in the "enablers and associates" group?


I have no idea what you are getting at here. Are you saying I don't think Weinstein is a serial rapist? Or that I don't want to understand why he is?
Where have I said any man was "tricked" in to sex? Those accepting offers are no more tricked than someone accepting a financial bribe. And where have I said or even implied I have sympathy for Weinstein? Or view him as a "victim"?

You seem to be doing your damnedest to create statements I haven't said, or draw convoluted connections between what I have said and what you want me to be thinking.

In reply to David Martin:


But that is not what we are talking about here, is it? You are fond of the bribe analogy, but no bribes were being offered. Did the 17 year old Kate Beckinsale "offer" Weinstein sex?


Again, a "sexual proposal". Where is the evidence that Weinstein was offered sex, without solicitation? Where is the emphasis on Weinstein having the ability to turn such offers down, if they existed? You are keen to give these women "agency", as you put it, but Weinstein is not permitted such agency - that's what I mean when you place Weinstein in the role of victim. Are you playing Weinstein's "White Knight"?

It is one thing to accept that any outcome has multiple causal factors, that's fine. However not all of those factors have equal weighting. Responsibility is not a birthday cake where each additional guest reduces the size of a slice. The existence of accomplices does not lessen the guilt of the ringleader.

When I called you out on assigning half the responsibility of Weinstein's actions on to the women of your colleagues' anecdotes you conceded it was a "Poor choice of words", when all you had to do was admit that you were wrong.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

His face looks like a hairy bollock.

In reply to planetmarshall:

Quite right, that isn't what we are talking about here ...as yet again you have completely misrepresented what I have written.

Have I ever said any of the victims in question offered sex? No I have not.

My argument, over and over, has been there appear to be plenty of people who offer sex to in exchange for advantage. This then increases the likelihood of others finding themselves also expected to offer similar sexual favours, and thus we have more victims.

Does it need spelling out any clearer or do you think you've got it this time?


Unless you live in a convent, its safe to assume someone in Weinstein's position either has been offered sex or is aware of contemporaries who have. I mean, the phrase "common knowledge" is thrown around everywhere in regard to his actions, and if I'm aware of it happening to people in far less prestigious positions where far less was potentially on offer than a multi-million dollar acting career....well....

Where have I denied Weinstein's agency? Everyone has internal and external drivers. That, again, is rather my point.
Of course Weinstein should turn down offers. Just as women should turn down requests. Just as anyone should not offer in the first place. Just as anyone shouldn't request in the first place. I would have thought that would be obvious....and....again...is my point: They all contribute to the sexual assaults happening and we shouldn't be pretending that one quadrant in that square doesn't exist or contribute to the culture.


Because its not wrong. I was happy to rephrase it for clarity, but the intent behind the original meaning was correct. As much as people request sexual favours, people also offer sexual favours too. In what proportion, I have no idea. I know personally nobody who would ask for a blow-job. I know a few people who would offer one. Hell, for a $14 million career I might just attempt sucking c0ck myself. But I'm willing to assume for each request there's probably also been an offer. Hence, "those offering sexual favour are in equal measure guilty".

Now that is slightly different from assigning some quantifiable value to Weinstein blame. 100%? 80%? I think we've already established he was "enabled" or had supporters. Do we subtract some of their blame from his own? What about the other victims who were probably in the best position to stop this much earlier by speaking out? Can more than one person be 100% responsible for the same rape? What is "part" or "somewhat"? Is the black kid on the housing estate from the broken home and abusive parents responsble when he knives someone to death? Or do you accept the environment?

You get the idea. Focusing on the quantitive measures of responsibility was hardly my point, and I don't really care how much value you want to assign to it. I'm more concerned with the fact you appear to deny that sexual offers are made and that this is a key contributing factor in the resulting culture - potentially a good half of it.

In reply to David Martin:


Look, if you're going to be childish about it I have no further interest in this debate.

In reply to David Martin:

A woman having willingly f*cked me before has not made it more likely that I am going to sexually assault or rape a different woman. The motives behind the original woman wanting to f*ck me are neither here nor there. Your minimum expectations of men are pitiful.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Sadly in all this long thread, we cannot say much which is objective and will have to wait for the next stage and any outcomes in the courts.

In reply to Timmd:


Reasonable and fair point. However, the sensationalisation of it is a bit OTT in my books.

In reply to Luke90:


Any average prosecution lawyer can easily prove that he is lying that any sex with these actresses was consentual , by simply screening a large photo of his face and asking the jury, would they agree to have consentual sex with this man?

Case closed, and he gets jailed.

In reply to Jim C:

Bernie Ecclestone, Donald Trump, Rupert Murdoch - the list goes on. Women are not averse to having sex with physically repulsive men with power and money.

In reply to Jim C:

Any average prosecution lawyer can easily prove that he is lying that any sex with these actresses was consentual , by simply screening a large photo of his face and asking the jury, would they agree to have consentual sex with this man?
Case closed, and he gets jailed.

and the defence would respond with a photo of Trump* and his wife...

*Insert any rich/successful/powerful man who's obviously punching above their weight.

In reply to David Martin:



So, you 'are' saying that some females who willingly did what he wanted, are partly responsible for him doing things which/to women which they weren't entirely comfortable with? That's a definite yes?

In reply to Timmd:

You and your other cohorts on this thread are so prissy.
Women will and have done since time immemorial, used their sex to manipulate men to gain their own ends.

Just in case you didn't know, women like sex as well.

In reply to Lusk:

Hmmn, prissy you say? There's one story going around from a lady who gave him a blow job despite saying she didn't want to. I can't speak for anybody else, but from knowing one victim of sexual assaults (ranging from fingering to rape), any hint that a man in a position to decide the careers of young females might have used this for sexual favours being given under duress, just makes me angry. It causes damage to people which they don't deserve. All this bullshit about contributing factors and people who added to the environment, doesn't change the fact that the creator of the environment was Weinstein himself, in carrying out acts like oral rape (with his position in the film industry to protect him) if the lady who gave the blow job under duress is to be believed. So call me prissy for being angry at the idea of people becoming damaged through being sexually exploited, if it makes you feel good.


Of course they have, and do, I can wonder at how easily done it is.


You don't say?

In reply to Timmd:

So, you 'are' saying that some females who willingly did what he wanted, are partly responsible for him doing things which/to women which they weren't entirely comfortable with? That's a definite yes?

Stop being so naïve, of course it does.
To someone with an already big ego, having a woman willingly having sex with him for their gain only adds to that ego. It 'validates' his behaviour and therefore a vicious cycle starts - powerful man knows he can take advantage of some women and some women correspondingly take advantage of that same situation to gain a leg up in Hollywood.
Decidedly unpleasant, but seems to be almost accepted practice judging by the amount of A Listers now saying that it was known that HW was a sexual predator.
Just a shame that those A Listers didn't speak out sooner...

In reply to Timmd:


So her actions vs her words further clouded the picture, (or whatever deranged fantasies pass for thinking in Weinstein's head,) and may have led him to believe he had the right to behave the way he chose.

In reply to Big Ger:


It may have done, he may have got of on the power trip of making her do what she didn't want to.

In reply to FactorXXX:



I can obviously see how the females who willingly did what he wanted would have added to his idea that other females would too. What bothers me, is the word 'responsibility ' being applied to the willing females, for the unpleasant things which less/unwilling females went through. The willing female don't have 'responsibility' for other women doing things under duress, it's Weinstein who has 'responsibility' for that, and only him.

In reply to Timmd:

I can see how the females who willingly did what he wanted would have added to his idea that other females would too. What bothers me, is the word 'responsibility ' being applied to the willing females, for the unpleasant things which less/unwilling females went through. The willing female don't have 'responsibility' for other women doing things under duress, it's Weinstein who has 'responsibility' for that, sole responsibility in the end.

Totally agree with you that there is no excuse for Weinstein to use his position of power to try and procure sexual services from potential employees. Unfortunately, sexual predators don't abide by the same rules as the rest of us.
However, it seems that he was allowed to get away with it by a lot of people in the industry for a lengthy period of time - that is the really disturbing thing in all of this.

In reply to Timmd:


Aren't both possible concurrently?

In reply to Big Ger:
I didn't think I'd suggested they weren't. I did post at half 2 in the morning after some alcohol here, so possibly I did.

In reply to Timmd:


It's a qualified yes.

At the sharp-end I'm referring to the premeditated willingness of some people to walk in to an interview and make clear, unsolicited and subtly or unsubtly, that they will offer inducements to obtain unfair advantage.

I would also include anyone who might not have considered it in advance, but when put on the spot balances up the advantages and disadvantages and goes for it. A miserable experience but hey, I got to the front of the job queue ahead of those who didn't.

Refer to the bribery example - anything short of taking an absolutist stance on it makes you complicit.

They set the tone. The set the expectations. They distort an otherwise clear concept of what is acceptable.

This isn't a zero-sum game. The criminality or immorality of Weinstein is not lessened in the slightest but viewing the causes and drivers beyond an "it's all Weinstein's fault" angle. Nor in any way does that overlook the cases where Weinstein propositioned women and they did their utmost to escape from the situation.

In reply to David Martin:

Would you apply the same argument to other areas of life?

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Have any of his victims made direct complaints to the police ?

In reply to Albert Tatlock:

There are certainly open investigations in New York and in London so presumably.

In reply to Timmd:

Absolutely. To every area of life I can think of.

The lack of consistency here is in how a line of inquiry and a desire to look for wider factors, which would be demanded in any other areas of life, appears to have become blasphemy. I'm a "woman hater" and "victim blaming" for having even suggested it.

That said, I'm not surprised by the response. It is heresy these days to even suggest nuance and complexity beyond acceptable high-minded victimhood narratives.

In reply to David Martin:

So to play devils advocate:
If a man used fear of his physical power to obtain money, would it be appropriate for so much discussion to be focused on saying that those who give in to his approach contribute to the situation?

I do agree with anyone saying that in an abusers mind the more they get away with unacceptable behaviour the more they are likely to think it is ok to repeat it.

But I would say that initially when a situation of abuse arises it is more appropriate to thoroughly condemn the behaviour, before having a discussion on the psychology of the abuser. That applies wether the abuse uses fear of physical power or fear of being ostricisised from a career that they have longed for.

You might say that fear of not making it in Hollywood is a shallow reason to give in to abuse, and if so I would agree with you from my point of view. But to a young man or woman who has been focused on this as a career for 10 years and dedicated themselves to, this man had an incredible amount of power. A lot of people he allegedly abused were not airheaded bimbos/himbos looking for a quick route to celebrity, but even if they were this shouldn't change where we focus the blame for his behaviour.

In reply to David Martin:



I'm struggling to work out whether it's how you're expressing yourself, or something else, which has me wondering about the sentiment behind this, which may be a limitation of using internet forums. I found this quite thought provoking, though.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/14/after-weinstein-stop-...

In reply to Timmd:
I guess DMs point is that being unwilling to look beyond Weinsteins alleged guilt (which seems universally considered despite that article’s claims) does nothing to understand how this happened or to prevent a recurrence.

Consider for example the “safeguarding “ procedures now universal when children are with adults. If all that had happened after abuse surfaced in the past was to say the abusers are guilty, these measures wouldn’t be in place and it would be as easy as in the past for child abuse to occur.

In reply to MG:


I believe he has said that it was consentual , ( presumably indication he is not guilty of rape . ) but at the same time he has asked for a second chance ( admitting guilt ?)

It was telling that a 'good friend of his' , Hilary Clinton on Andrew Marr this morning , ( and also a receiver of huge amounts of political donations from him) did not speak up for him, and in fact seemed to accept that he was guilty, and spoke only in favour of the women who have made the accusations.

In reply to Jim C:
It is a strange how on this post it’s all men who discuss it. Where are the women posters, and what do they think?

In reply to neilh:


Well I asked my wife and her comment ( which I used in my post ) was to the effect, he was far too ugly for any sex with beautiful young actresses to be 'consentual'

In reply to Timmd:
I find Bates to be hard work at the best of times.

"In cases of workplace sexual harassment, we are ready to blame almost anybody except the perpetrator. "
"No such corresponding interrogation exists for perpetrators."

Really? Sounds like she's still living in the 1960s. Everywhere I look there has been upfront condemnation and shock at Weinstein. He's been tried and found guilty without coming near a courtroom. It's no surprise that the discussion might appear to no longer singularly focus on his name - he has already been metaphorically locked up and the key thrown away. What more is there to debate than the question of "why" and "how"?

The question that comes from that, about why didn't someone blow the whistle and why didn't women do something, is surely an entirely fair question to ask? In Bates' view this is "unhelpful". Really? Should we all shut up and not ask questions?

She then goes on to amalgamate each women's experience as if they were one. They weren't. The experience of Arquette was not the same as that of Paltrow's and to insinuate that what occurred to one stops the others from speaking out is absurd.

Go ahead and let me know what sentiment you assume it is that I am expressing. I've already been accused of women hating or that my questions are the result of being "passed over for promotion". I rather get the impression you are looking for the slightest hint, or miss-statement, so you can declare once and for all that I'm a misogynist and secret supporter of Weinstein. I'm all for open discussion so you might as well speak your mind on this.

In reply to mountain.martin:

I agree with pretty much all that, but...

From what I've seen the entire narrative in the media has been one of sympathy for the abused. There has been zero mention of contributory factors (like the one I have raised) other than a presumption of "enablers" (male) and surprise at victims not speaking out (which I suspect is being expressed as much by females as males). I don't think "giving in" has ever been in question.

So it seems to me entirely proper to question why victims didn't speak out. Why only now? Why not before? There are already strong answers in some of those cases, but not all. Lumping all these women in to a homogenous group, where the silence of all is justified by the worst experiences of a few too easily sidesteps the question.

If the likes of a Jimmy Saville or Weinstein are happening right now, wouldn't you want to encourage people to come forth - right now rather than later? Doing everything possible to excuse silence does everything to encourage it. Challenging that silence, while harsh, could be one of the best drivers to preventing future cases.

Also, to be clear, from the outset here, my point hasn't been these women at all. It has centered around a specific group of people: those who offer unsolicited sexual favours in return for advantage. I don't think any of the currently named victims fall in to that group. So in no way am I saying these women were in any way the cause of their own abuse - some of the responses here seem to imply I am.

What I am most definitely saying, however, is that women who do _offer_ sexual favours (and that is quite a broad spectrum, with a correspondingly broad spectrum of culpability) share blame for a culture that normalises an expectation of sexual favours. I find it surprising that even mentioning this appears to rile some. It is, without a doubt, every bit as much a contributing factor in the idea of sexual commodification of job opportunity as someone assuming they can solicit favours.

That said, if not speaking out has saved Weinstein from a day in court years earlier then you cannot overlook how much abuse could have potentially been avoided. While no victim here is the cause of their own victimhood, I find it hard to pretend their silence hasn't contributed to there being subsequent victims. Sophie Dix and Ambra Gutierrez, fair enough. Rose McGowan to a degree, but why only report your rape to the head of Amazon's video content service and not the police? The rest? Wouldn't the cases made by these three have been hugely strengthened if the other victims had spoken up?

Its never going to be easy. And having your career threatened is no doubt terrifying. But I find it amazing that anyone from Chelsea Manning to Edward Snowdon put their entire lives and personal freedom on the line for matters of principle, while we are busy make excuses for Angelina Jolie and others remaining silent on ongoing rape. That does women no favours.

Once upon a time the initial reaction to cases like these would have been an immediate "they bought it on themselves claim". We are long beyond that - too far in my view. Now, to even mention that Weinstein's behaviour is reinforced and encouraged by anyone other than males is blasphemy. All women can only be victims and can never have agency.

If Weinstein was an isolated incident. If there was no claimed "culture of X" or "widespread Y", then I would agree - look no further than Weinstein himself. But because that is palpably not the case, I think that is entirely right to explore why that culture exists. Why should we overlook any causes?

In reply to David Martin:


Well surely this is also victimhood, to complain of persecution, that your view is somehow heresy when clearly you don't have to look far to find support for your point of view - and those who would also go much further. It's possible you are correct, that you are a lone voice of sanity among a maelstrom of political correctness. Another possibility is that the reaction you refer to is because you are mistaken, have perhaps not expressed yourself clearly or are just plain wrong.

Take this:


"Beyond that"? Could you blame someone for thinking that you might be implying that you might wish the pendulum to swing back the other way? I am all for looking for the root causes of criminal behaviour, but going back to a situation where we look at victims of sexual abuse and wonder exactly what it was they did to bring it upon themselves, takes us back to a pretty dark place indeed.

In reply to neilh:


Whenever gender related discussions come up on UKC, I always think of this image -

https://twitter.com/mapaquet/status/478526392947048448

- with apologies to Natalie and any women who maybe commenting under a pseudonym. (Also, in the spirit of fairness, there is a story behind this image - as is often the case with viral media, all is not as it may appear).

In reply to planetmarshall:

You might be getting the wrong end of the stick old chum. While I do find it personally vexing that people such as yourself get so worked up at the mere mention of apportioning blame more widely, that evidently stresses you more than it does me.

While annoying, it's not any sense of personal persecution that I have an issue with. It's the willful preference for deriding unfashionable speech, over allowing potential causes of the problem to be discussed in a sensible manner. That is profoundly regressive behaviour.

As a male, I'm very unlikely to be the victim of the repercussions of that failure...so not likely to have cause to claim victimhood any time soon.


I've gone to substantial lengths, over thousands of words, with ample repetition, to explain myself as clearly as possible.

If I'm mistaken or wrong I'd like to know. I'm here for the dialectic, not the debate.

But so far your substantive arguments have amounted to little more than ad-hominem:
- I must have been "passed over for promotion by women",
- my views are "demeaning to men",
- I'm "blaming 50% of women for his behaviour",
- that I have "sympathy for the billionaire Hollywood producer",
- that I "perhaps really do believe that Weinstein is the victim"

.....and then throwing your toys out the pram, claiming "no further interest in the debate" because I am being childish.

So I'll throw it back at you why the discussion isn't working. It's because your overblown keenness to be a defender of womanhood (not a bad thing in itself) is mixing poorly with your weapons of choice: empty accusations and virtue signaling, implying misogyny or support for the perpetrators, arguing over minutiae definitions to invalidate overall arguments where the underlying intent should be abundantly clear, and trying to read in to statements meanings which are simply not there but that you wish were there in order to strengthen your own argument.


If someone WANTED that to be the meaning, they could most certainly infer it. I can find all kinds of monsters under my bed if I imagine them hard enough.

But if that is the mindset you are bringing to the table in this discussion then you are creating exactly the speech-silencing minefield that SJWs are notorious for.


Ok, I promise this is the final time I will repeat this:

1) My original (and probably 90% of my subsequent) points were nothing to do with the victims. Zero.
2) When it comes to the victims (the other 10% of my point), I do think there are questions to be asked of why they didn't speak up.
3) However, when it comes to the victims, not me nor anyone else is in anyway saying anything about them "bringing it upon themselves" - absolutely nothing, zilch.

In reply to David Martin:

I was about to explain that one of the reasons that your argument might lack clarity was your propensity for using the cliches prevalent in social media discussions about gender politics, eg "White Knight", "Agency", "Victimhood", and was going to mention that at least no one had yet been accused of being an "SJW".

It was mere curiosity that brought me back to the debate. I do regret being rude, for which I apologise. As someone who has seen someone close to them deal with the psychological consequences of serious sexual abuse, I am perhaps over sensitive to where blame is being directed. Have a good evening.

In reply to David Martin:




That doesn't reflect my reading of the media coverage. The New Yorker article in particular digs into why some of the women didn't speak out and the answer seems to be a combination of fear for what he could do to their careers, an implicit threat of stories about their sexual histries coming out in the gossip pages, women thinking "well what happened to me wasn't all that serious", and non-disclosure clauses in legal settlements.

You can question whether all of those reasons are especially brave but it's not accurate to say that they are all lumped in together with the most serious accusations.


The alternative view is that apportioning blame on people for not speaking out earlier or for "giving in" is less likely to encourage people to speak out.


While as a general point this may be true, in the specific case of Harvey Weinstein there is no suggestion that this has been the case. Perhaps this is what has riled people. It is certainly what i feel uncomfortable about in your posts. There are lots of accounts from women who were groped and made to feel very uncomfortable. There are some more seriousl allegations. There are also lots of accounts of women admitting to feeling bad about not mentioning anything earlier. But there is no suggestion, not even from Weinstein himself, that any women suggested they get it on. Now you may say "well there wouldn't would there"and theres a large degree of truth to that. But it makes me uncomfortable to point to a whole other category of misbehaviour which hasn't otherwise been reported on and start apportioning blame.

The other reason i think people may feel uncomfortable reading your posts is the question of consent. If it were the case that a young women offered sex in return for a part, that would be corrupt but anything which ensued would be between consenting adults. All accounts of Harvey Weinstein's behaviour have not been consenting. I think the line of responsibility has to be drawn there. If a girl gets drunk in a bar and offers to have sex with me, she holds no responsibility for the creep at the other end of the bar grabbing girls by the tits.

Which is to say, much of your argument has been abouut the corrupt aspect of this: film parts should be offered to people on their merits, not because a girl has given the producer a blow job. Or a gold watch for that matter. I think a lot of the outrage about this is not related to corruption, but to the fact it was non-consensual and threatening.


I don't people are saying you can't criticise women. On this thread there are a few who have raising similar concerns about people not coming forward (i'm not so sure myself). Summo, Bedspring etc. I think it is more to do with people not wanting to place blame on those who they see as victims. I dare say the reaction would be the same if we were talking about male victims of sexual assault (who are, incidentally, very rarely accused of "asking for it").

In reply to David Martin:

I'm carefully not saying, because I'm wondering if it's just down to the nature of internet forums and not everybody being equally adept at using words to express themselves, which is at the root of me not being sure.


What I'm uncomfortable with is any suggestion that 'easy women' bare any responsibility for what Weinstein did to other women who had things against their will happening to them (including rape it might seem now). From knowing somebody who has had fingering and rape happen to her against her will (more than one instance of both, sadly), any hint that it's not the sole responsibility of whoever does things to women against their will, is a view point I simply don't have any time for and can't engage with. This is because I've seen how my friend has been affected. Suicidal idealation(sp) can be one of the mental health side effects of being raped, and having my friend (once) ask me to take her dog for a walk and leave her to her devices, and then change her frame of mind when I didn't and ask me not to let her kill herself, is something which will always stick with me, it's taught me how easily damaged men and women can be. With you posting about 'high minded victimhood', I can't help but feel a little bit unsure about how you actually see things. It might just be the nature of internet forums, or your turn of phrase, but there's nothing 'high minded' in recognising the impact on any victims, and who is responsible for that.

I'm not assuming what you think, I just don't quite know what it is...

In reply to Bob Hughes:

Exactly right. Excellently put.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Harvey Weinstein dirty old man grabbing women (and worse) every chance he gets. Stop it Harvey and face the consequences of what you have done

In reply to David Martin:


Have you found any surprise being expressed by females? Anything I've come across 'from the female angle' has been along the lines of them not being surprised that women didn't say anything at the time.


Not really, because women wouldn't be aiming to use their sexuality to get ahead if they didn't think it'd make any difference? Ie if they weren't dealing with a sleaze bag.


Are you seeking to blame, or seeking to understand why they might have kept quiet - couldn't the intimate nature of what happened be a factor in why they speak out sooner? The combination of the intimate nature, and not thinking that one would be believed, is going to make any wom/an feel vulnerable, I would suggest. Putting keeping quiet down to career fears is potentially not seeing the whole picture. Though it happened 17 years ago, myself and her new boyfriend are the only 2 people my friend has mentioned being fingered (and the circumstances in which it happened) to, the shame and vulnerability relating to sexual assault run deep.


I'd agree that the women who happily did what he wanted them to have agency, but that doesn't stop him from creating the culture within which they did so, due to him being a sleaze bag. If he wasn't/isn't one, they wouldn't have bothered using their sexuality to get ahead. To me, he is at the root of all that has happened, because somebody like him who has integrity, wouldn't have had this kind of culture or atmosphere form around them, they'd have said 'nice try' to women using their sexuality to get ahead or simply ignored it, and focused on the acting talent instead. He has been the source of the pollution if you like, even if there was complicity among his staff.

In reply to David Martin:

Thinking more about this, even if there is a culture of some women (more) freely using their sexuality to get ahead, it hardly puts the women looking for career advancement and the men who can decide their futures on an equal footing, because in the end it's still the men who have the power, and who can have their way with some of these women, and with these things not being contractual in nature, still not cast them in the end, and the power imbalance favouring men like him. Which brings things back round to this kind of culture only existing due to some men being sleaze bags, and women who won't use their sexuality (or sex) to get ahead being at something of a disadvantage.

In reply to Big Ger:


Well done, you yet again stun me with your nasty views. People have been raped and sexually assaulted and all you ca say is 'who cares?'

You nasty nasty person.

In reply to Big Ger:


F*ck me. Really?
You are absolutely part of the problem.

In reply to JayPee630:




And your "caring" achieves .... what exactly?

In reply to Deadeye:



See above.

In reply to David Martin:

https://thinkprogress.org/harvey-weinstein-casting-couch-a96d552a6d97/

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Is it any wonder Weinstein got away with this, when we eulogise bad behaviour by celebs. Just read this in the Mail on Sunday
I had worked with Lauren Bacall so Jude [Law, her former husband, pictured right with Sadie] and I invited her to dinner at The Ivy. Smoking had by this time been banned but it didn’t bother Ms Bacall who lit up a Marlboro Light without missing a beat. Soon a nervous waiter was politely asking Ms Bacall to put out her cigarette. ‘F*** off,’ she replied. He did.
And who would argue with her? So she sat smoking and telling us stories about Humphrey Bogart while Jude and I sat hooked on her every word.

https://tinyurl.com/ycn7tan7

To me Bacall sounds like a spoilt bully taking what she wants, and its our toleration, even admiration of this behaviour that perpetuates it.

In reply to Big Ger:


Caring about something is the minimum prerequisite for someone who might wish to help change it. Sneering at people expressing their displeasure at something horrible is pretty pathetic.

In reply to Big Ger:


Obviously there is a lot of virtue signalling going on here but I would nevertheless take issue with you. Presumably your case is that if this story didn't involve Hollywood, attractive starlets and stars, a maker of famous movies and a huge dose of schadenfreude then it wouldn't be a story. That much is true and in that sense it can be dismissed as celebrity bollocks.

But, and it's a big but, it is genuinely important because it involves a high profile person in a high profile industry being called out for unacceptable personal behaviour. It is thus being regarded, indeed turned into, a turning point in what such people can get away with. In that sense it may be a very significant moment in that it will empower victims of such people to call them to account. That is why serious publications (the few that are left) are giving it it so much attention.

Sadly I suspect that once the furore dies down things in Hollywood and elsewhere will return to business as normal.

In reply to Big Ger:


I suppose its where change can start.
It does surprise me that a right wing bastard like me, needs to tell someone apparently in the medical profession this.

In reply to J1234:

Honestly, I think he was just trying it on for size. He probably pictured himself flourishing his big black cape as he "said" it.

In reply to David Martin:
This is from www.thinkprogress.org You may or may not agree, but it seems rather different to your viewpoint, and worth posting, I thought.

The rumor is, she slept with him to get the part. The reality is uglier.

This is one of the narratives emerging from the heaps of allegations piling up against Hollywood mega-producer Harvey Weinstein, who is the subject of two bombshell investigations, one by the New York Times and one by the New Yorker, which collectively reveal a pattern of Weinstein’s sexual harassment, abuse, and assault dating back decades. Tuesday afternoon, harrowing allegations came down from two of the entertainment industry’s most successful, established female stars: Gwyneth Paltrow and Angelina Jolie.

Paltrow was 22 years old when Weinstein “summoned her to his suite at the Peninsula Beverly Hills hotel for a work meeting” that culminated in Weinstein touching her, “suggesting they head to the bedroom for massages,” the Times reports. Paltrow was “petrified,” she says, and alerted her then-boyfriend, Brad Pitt, who in turn confronted Weinstein, who then came back to Paltrow to threaten her to tell no one else. Weinstein allegedly “made unwanted advances” on Jolie, also in a hotel room, in the late 1990s. As she told the Times in an email, “I had a bad experience with Harvey Weinstein in my youth, and as a result, chose never to work with him again and warn others when they did.”

Weinstein’s behavior was reportedly an open secret in the industry. While some have come forward to say they did, in fact, know about this all along — or that they, too, had an “audition” with Weinstein that left them feeling “violated”

In an interview with The Daily Beast, George Clooney commented, at length, about the allegations against Weinstein. (Weinstein, as the story notes, gave Clooney his “first major big-screen role.”) Calling the alleged sexual misconduct “indefensible,” Clooney went on to contextualize his reaction to the news.

“I’ve heard rumors, and the rumors in general started back in the ’90s, and they were that certain actresses had slept with Harvey to get a role,” Clooney said. “It seemed like a way to smear the actresses and demean them by saying that they didn’t get the jobs based on their talent, so I took those rumors with a grain of salt.”

He went on, “But the other part of this, the part we’re hearing now about eight women being paid off, I didn’t hear anything about that and I don’t know anyone that did. That’s a whole other level and there’s no way you can reconcile that. There’s nothing to say except that it’s indefensible.”

Though the history of rampant sexual misconduct in Hollywood is a well-documented one, and though women who’ve had self-described “casting couch” experiences frame those incidents as vile, even terrifying, there lingers in our culture the persistent belief that what’s really occurring is an even exchange: Sex for a role. (This, even though Weinstein’s behavior was reportedly an open secret in the industry.)

When it’s an open secret that the boss is a sexual harasser, people assume wrong things about the accomplishments of women who work for them

If anything, the equation seems weighted in the favor of the aspiring actress who lands there: One tryst to have a red carpet rolled out before you, a path to the A-list littered with riches, acclaim, and Oscars. What’s it to her? Or, as Weinstein put it in a chilling conversation with Ambra Battilana Gutierre — who he admitted to groping, then immediately propositioned again — that Gutierre secretly recorded and was just released by the New Yorker: “Don’t ruin your friendship with me for five minutes.”

The power imbalance ought to be impossible to miss, and yet the phrasing alone — “casting couch” — carries with it the sense that it’s a throwback to old Hollywood, to a simpler, more salacious time. It seems scandalous, sure, but it’s the sort of scandal that plays on socially acceptable, if tired, stereotypes. The sleaze and the starlet. Gross, yes. But criminal? How can it be if, when all’s said and done, she’s holding the golden statuette she always wanted? What woman chasing a film career wouldn’t want to have sex with a powerful producer, and reap all the benefits of the romp?

This narrative conveniently assumes all young, beautiful women are also indiscriminate (or, alternatively, ruthless and calculating) in their selection of sexual partners; that the woman, for all her supposed naïveté, is more powerful than the man with whom she’s negotiating.

As a term of art, “casting couch” turns something coercive and non-consensual into a fling-as-Hollywood-origin-story. People do not generally invoke the cutesy term as a euphemism for the idea that women are raped before they get to be in the movies. It means, rather, that women leverage sex for roles: that really, the powerful person in the scenario is a nubile, young actress with all her sexual wiles, not the older man who actually gets to determine whether or not her career gets off the ground.

It should be obvious, but apparently it bears repeating: It is the rare woman, or girl, who wants to trade sex for professional success. It is the exceedingly common man who abuses women simply because he can.

In reply to Timmd:

This is from www.thinkprogress.org

Doesn't a lot of that article essentially confirm that Hollywood knew that Weinstein was sexually abusing women but chose to ignore it? If so, those very same A Listers that are rushing to publish their story should be asking themselves why the f*ck didn't they do something about it earlier.
That obviously doesn't defend Weinstein's actions, for which, if found guilty, should be charged with.

It should be obvious, but apparently it bears repeating: It is the rare woman, or girl, who wants to trade sex for professional success. It is the exceedingly common man who abuses women simply because he can.

You might want to quantify 'the exceedingly common man who abuses women simply because he can' statement as it comes across as all men are basically rapists...

In reply to Timmd:
>> It is the exceedingly common man who abuses women simply because he can.

Same question as above. How common do you think this is? I really don't buy the idea that a third (or whatever proportion you think) of men go around abusing women because they can.

In reply to Timmd:

Sorry Tim, whilst I agree with the overall direction of the argument, that last line is provocative and needs substantiating.

In reply to MG:


I just took it to mean comparatively speaking, when compared with the frequency of women using sex/sexual favours to get an advantage. That is, within the context of what is being talked about. I didn't take it as a generalised statement about society as a whole since that isn't what the piece is talking about.

That's how I interpreted it, at least. I try not to go in for applying implications to things, which aren't within a general context.

In reply to Timmd:



"Exceedingly common" is an absolute phrase. I think you need to be careful using that sort of language. It implies you think, for example, that a lot of my male friends and colleagues (or indeed me) are likely to abuse women because they can, which is a very strong accusation and something you need to solid evidence for.

In reply to MG:

It's not what I think, I just copy and pasted from the website. I rather think discussing a choice of words in one sentence may be straying off topic a little. You can do if you want, of course, but I feel there's more important things within this thread.

In reply to FactorXXX:



Sexual assault can be traumatic, and without evidence, there's no chance of proving anything, it becomes 'You did' 'I didn't'.




It's not what I think, I just copy and pasted from the website.

In reply to Timmd:


OK, I see you copied it now. Although why you would do that if you don't agree is puzzling. It's not the choice of words I take issue with but the implied guilt of many people.

In reply to MG:
I don't agree with how you interpreted it, but I gave you my interpretation, which you can read in my reply to you. Which should cover anything which puzzles you (if you see what I mean).

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Excerpts from former Miramax screenwriter Scott Rosenberg's Facebook post, whose mentor was Weinstein throughout the 1990's and early 2000's:

So, yeah, I was there.
And let me tell you one thing.
Let’s be perfectly clear about one thing:
Everybody-f*cking-knew.
Not that he was raping.
No, that we never heard.
But we were aware of a certain pattern of overly-aggressive behavior that was rather dreadful.

We knew about the man’s hunger; his fervor; his appetite.
There was nothing secret about this voracious rapacity; like a gluttonous ogre out of the Brothers Grimm.
All couched in vague promises of potential movie roles.
(and, it should be noted: there were many who actually succumbed to his bulky charms. Willingly. Which surely must have only impelled him to cast his fetid net even wider).
But like I said: everybody-fu*king-knew.

And to me, if Harvey’s behavior is the most reprehensible thing one can imagine, a not-so-distant second is the current flood of sanctimonious denial and condemnation that now crashes upon these shores of rectitude in gloppy tides of bullshit righteousness.
Because everybody-fu*king-knew.
And do you know how I am sure this is true?
Because I was there.
And I saw you.
And I talked about it with you.
You, the big producers; you, the big directors; you, the big agents; you, the big financiers.
And you, the big rival studio chiefs; you, the big actors; you, the big actresses; you, the big models.
You, the big journalists; you, the big screenwriters; you, the big rock stars; you, the big restaurateurs; you, the big politicians.
I saw you.
All of you.
And more:

So, yeah, I am sorry.
Sorry and ashamed.
Because, in the end, I was complicit.
I didn’t say shit.
I didn’t do shit.

Harvey was nothing but wonderful to me.
So I reaped the rewards and I kept my mouth shut.
And for that, once again, I am sorry.
But you should be sorry, too.
With all these victims speaking up…
To tell their tales.
Shouldn’t those who witnessed it from the sidelines do the same?
Instead of retreating to the cowardly, canopied confines of faux-outrage?
Doesn’t being a bystander bring with it the responsibility of telling the truth, however personally disgraceful it may be?

You know who are.
You know that you knew.
And do you know how I know that you knew?
Because I was there with you.
And because everybody-fu*king-knew.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Ouch.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Well, that just about covers it.

As somebody wrote on another thread, Hollywood "filled entirely with shallow, vapid, self-centred narcissists" shock.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Is there music to go with that?
It almost scans like a lyric!

In reply to Timmd:

It's not what I think, I just copy and pasted from the website.

Fair enough, but you should really take more care in blindly 'Copy & Pasting' anything that you believe supports your argument. Especially on UKC, or UK Cynic's as it's otherwise known...

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


Let me know when you are going to do something to change Harvey Wienstein's behaviour, I'll be all ears.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Oh no!! please don't think any deeper than; "This is a crime against women by a white man, so I must wave my virtue flag here, or people may think I don't care!!"


Not quite but you're getting there.


Until Kim Kardashian's takes another image of her butt which "breaks the internet." I have no problem with Weinstein being called to account, nor the fact that this will make it easier for other "victims" to step forward, I hope they do, and I hope that he receives the full force of the law, (if he is guilty of whatever crimes he is accused of.)

But let's not underestimate the bandwagon jumping and virtue signalling going on? One person has even claimed that Harvey getting done in some way will be better for his FIVE YEAR OLD's daughter's chances of becoming an engineer.


My point exactly.

Where's the current outrage over this man?

http://www.itv.com/news/2017-10-16/cambridge-graduate-matthew-falder-admits...

Not famous enough to warrant mention on UKC?

In reply to Big Ger:


And be sure to let me know when your inspiring call to not give a shit changes anything at all.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


That's the difference though isn't it? While I recognise that I can have no particular influence over the situation, you seem to feel that by judging the man guilty prior to any legal action, and having this pretence of "caring" for the victims, you achieve something, (if only having your virtue displayed.)

In reply to FactorXXX:


It wasn't blindly copied and pasted, I just interpreted one or two sentences right at the end differently to 3 other people who thought to bring it up.

In reply to Timmd:

It wasn't blindly copied and pasted, I just interpreted one or two sentences right at the end differently to 3 other people who thought to bring it up.

Right, that's cleared up (sort of).
Now, out of interest, what do you make of Scott Rosenberg's Facebook post as per the UKC post by Bjartur i Sumarhus at 1624 Tuesday?

In reply to FactorXXX:
I'm not sure if I've seen it, and I'm going to bed. I'll try and remember to look. I'm not really sure if I have a 'case' as such btw, or a point of view I'm consciously trying to argue for. This thread and Weinstein have just coincided with me having to help out a friend who still struggles with what happened, so I posted what seemed relevant. I never really know what I'm going to post until I have.

In reply to Timmd:

I'm not sure if I've seen it, and I'm going to bed. I'll try and remember to look.

You should really make an effort to read it. You've obviously spent a lot of time looking into the whole Weinstein affair, so a few minutes won't make much difference...

In reply to Natalie Berry - UKC:

Exactly. At first glance I agree with the OP, but like with Saville et al if it wasn't for the trial by media or mass media expose we'd never actually know the truth. I think it will be hard to get any conviction tbh. But obviously we don't know it all yet.

Sadly we have a man in power who brags about grabbing women by the .. so I dont think this is any surprise nor confined to Hollywood.

In reply to Big Ger:


Doesn’t stop you banging on about Brexit....

In reply to Bob Hughes:

Ah, well on Brexit I may change someone here's opinion, convert another to the cause of righteousness, to become another Boris fan even.

But I do not think there is anyone here who finds Harvey's misdeeds, (if true,) to be a worth attempting to convert others to finding acceptable.

In reply to Big Ger:

To certain degree, yes, but surely you’d agree sexual harassment is certainly off limits (or is it “virtue-signalling” to say this ?)

Would you be ok with it if your daughter had to cope silently with sexual harassment in order to get anywhere in her career ?

In reply to balmybaldwin:
I think the fact this is Hollywood is, to an extent, a distraction.

Hollywood is an industry, it stands to make money, just as any other industry. This happens everywhere, it just happens that so many lenses, media and commentators point towards Hollywood that it is making the news.

but

It is not about sex really. It's about power, and the abuse of power happens everywhere. So what this signals is that you may be high up the food chain in your present employ, whatever it is, but you're not so far up you can't fall.

It's a message about empowerment and about being listened to.

We're not talking about an off hand comment in 1994 or a drunken pass at the office party in 2008, but sustained abuse of position. The bullies need to see that they too can be brought down if they are called out.

Personally i don't give a rat's arse about celebrity. I once met the Chuckle Brothers and that's about as close to glitterati as I want to get. However, don't lose the message in all the tinsel. Will it change things, not outwardly, not immediately, but it's more a case of an evolution...

NB: The chuckle brothers were perfectly charming and no bums were touched.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

"I once met the Chuckle Brothers and that's about as close to glitterati as I want to get. "

That's about as close to glitterati as one CAN get! Once you have reached the pinnacle of any endeavor, the only way is down so I totally understand why that encounter with greatness slaked your thirst for anymore celeb hunting.

In reply to Timmd:

"This thread and Weinstein have just coincided with me having to help out a friend who still struggles with what happened"

Is she a rich and famous actress ?

In reply to Big Ger:


Ooh, I get to tick off "virtue signalling" on my Bullshit Bingo card. Just "white knight" and "triggered" to go.

I'll repeat, from up-thread: Sneering at people expressing their displeasure at something horrible is pretty pathetic.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


Do a thread search. Pretty sure they're in there.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:



Jesus. Not funny.

In reply to planetmarshall:

Wasn't meant to be. I read his post at face value. He, unsurprisingly, has a friend who is struggling to cope with what Weinstein has done and is helping out, as usual. Looking at Weinsteins victims, it's not unreasonable to conclude they are likely to be a famous actress. Or maybe what he has written hasn't come out quite like he intended it to, but that's how it reads to me.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Yeah... I'm pretty sure that's not what he meant. But he's a grown up and can fight his own battles. I'm sure he'll be along to reply if he's bothered.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Exactly. At first glance I agree with the OP, but like with Saville et al if it wasn't for the trial by media or mass media expose we'd never actually know the truth.

Have you read Scott Rosenberg's Facebook post as per the UKC post by Bjartur i Sumarhus at 1624 Tuesday?

In reply to FactorXXX:

I'm not a member of UKC facebook? or liked the page. Can you just copy it down?

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Scroll up to 1624 Tuesday on this thread.
I'd Copy & Paste, but feel it would add clutter to the thread.

In reply to FactorXXX:

It’s actually worth reading the whole thing

http://deadline.com/2017/10/scott-rosenberg-harvey-weinstein-miramax-beauti...

In reply to Bob Hughes:

It’s actually worth reading the whole thing

Thanks and it certainly adds some sort of explanation of why nothing was done earlier.
However, he still makes it clear that 'everyone f*cking knew', but for whatever reasons, decided to ignore it once it no longer directly affected them.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:



Isn't that what you've just done to me?

In reply to FactorXXX:

I very much think the advent of the internet and the private voice in it's millions through social media has been a big part of allowing things to come out which previously were hidden. Previously complaints that were made had detrimental effects on careers and were covered up and swept away as bitter wannabes.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

It says a lot about his company and other people's knowledge that as part of him trying to cling on in the first days of this story (before he was sacked) he tried to negotiate that he would pay any settlements as a result of his "misdeeds". Which means the company paid for the previous 8 settlements

In reply to balmybaldwin:

The moral maze on Radio 4 this evening was discussing this very subject and it proved well worth listening to, including discussion on all sides. So go and find it on iPlayer Radio.

In reply to veteye:

will do, thanks

In reply to balmybaldwi

You want job in brothel then don't be surprised when you are told to do sex.
Hollywood is a cesspit.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Neither, she wants to kill her rapists and can struggle with the urge to take her own life. I get that humour is subjective, though.

If the central 'issue' to this thread is to do with attitudes, I find what David Martin said (who seems to have vanished from it) quite interesting, about things going too far in favour of women being the victim, and the women involved being perceived to have more agency than they actually did.

'You want job in brothel then don't be surprised when you are told to do sex. Hollywood is a cesspit.'

Comments like this (above) too. There's no justification for what Weinstein and similar did and do, and the responsibility is always their's. It's easy enough to be callous if something sexual and negative hasn't happened to oneself, or to anybody one knows, but the damage from it can last a lifetime. I think some on here would do well to remember that.

Whatever one thinks of gender equality in the west, and how far it might have slipped the wrong way, it doesn't change how men and women can be effected on a personal level by sexual assault etc...

In reply to Timmd:


All kinds of life-changing experiences happen to people on a daily basis, the repercussions of which last a lifetime. We are damaged by it, potentially broken, and get on with life to the best of our abilities with whatever tools remain. I don't think the burdens many of these victims carry are unique.

Yet this issue is treated as so extreme that that questions of culpability, which are otherwise being thrown about so widely ("Hollywood", "masculinity", "men"), come to an abrupt halt the moment they come in to contact with someone claiming a shred of victimhood.

Reading this today seemed a perfect example.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41730109

I imagine you wouldn't bat an eyelid at such an article. I found it startling for what it omitted.

Zelda Perkins is a victim. Anything that follows is an extension of her victimhood. Not even a hint of a question as to her choices contributing to Weinstein's ongoing abuses. Not a peep as to how her unique position probably made her better placed than anyone to bring Weinstein to a halt. Apparently that would make it victim-blaming.

Yet here's a women who signed a non-disclosure agreement and who, together with another, took home £250k two decades ago as a pay-off for silence.

She pipes up only now to break the NDA because:
"unless somebody does this there won't be a debate about how egregious these agreements are and the amount of duress that victims are put under."
Seriously? What a selfless act of altruism. Not only does taking £125k make you a victim too, but you choose to speak out only when your payout is likely safe even if you break the NDA.

FFS. She took a sh1tload of cash and kept her trap shut when she knew all along what was going on. And now she is making out that not only is she a victim because Weinstein "asked her to give him massages and tried to pull her into bed" but she "was made to feel ashamed for disclosing his behaviour".

What does someone have to do to spare a moment of introspection, to give a hint of public consideration to "Perhaps I shouldn't have taken the payoff" or "What if I had spoken out instead"?
At what point will any news article raise that sort of question rather than tip-toeing around as if the question doesn't exist? Instead you can't go near it. The victim narrative prohibits it: "A" happened, therefore "B" through to "Z" are excused.

Want to be taken as a strong, self-reliant woman? Show some effing balls and finish the guy in court. That potentially puts your career at risk? Even having "a career" puts you in amongst the top 10% of privileged human beings on the planet. If you did happen to piss it all away in the process of bringing a rapist to trial at least you would be able to sleep at night knowing you saved dozen's of potential rape victims.

But nah. I'll keep the job, pocket the cash, and stay silent thank you very much...and by the way, having done so makes me a victim too.

In reply to David Martin:

I'd argue that sexual crimes do have a unique impact on the victims, which (at the more extreme end) have a unique collection of consequences which can be very debilitating, shame - guilt - intense anger - depression - suicidal urges - substance abuse -disassociation from oneself - ruined self esteem. If there's anything I've been trying to put across, it'll be that.

In reply to Timmd:

I know individuals who, while outwardly normal, consider themselves utterly destroyed by various, non-sexual, life events.

Seems presumptuous to privilege one obliterated personhood above another's. Especially as what qualifies as sexual abuse is very broad.

In reply to David Martin:

To be honest, it seems to be you who is trying to negate the seriousness of the life experience of some people, in saying other people have problems too. So what if they do? That's whataboutery which isn't relevant to people like Weinstein - what is being talked about in this thread.

The spectrum being very broad is why I posted (at the more extreme end) when opining that I think the collection of consequences is unique when it comes to sex crimes.

The point you make about the woman who accepted the money is a very good one, when it comes to her having been in the position to stop a (seemingly likely) potential rapist, but with you starting off by saying that other people have burdens too, I can't help wondering why you'd say that? This isn't about other people's problems, it's about these crimes needing a light shining upon them.

It comes from different angles if you like, but whichever one it's from, your tone seems to be one which is negative (towards any victims), whether it's negating the seriousness of what has happen, or the vulnerability of any of the women involved - that seems to be the one constant to your posts. I'm not applying a label to you, I'm just saying what comes across.

In reply to Timmd:

I say it as we seem to be putting Weinstein's victims in to a special category. Make a claim, any claim, even if its not much more than "Weinstein turned up at the door in a dressing gown holding a bottle of champagne" and you are up there with rape victims in terms of personal suffering. And whatever you did from that point on is excused.

I'm saying, stop putting them all on a pedestal. People everywhere suffer in extremis yet don't get the benefit of excuses for their every day sacrifices or failings. The BBC and others seem intent on justifying, through silence, the silence of every single woman involved in this case. In some cases that sensitivity may be justified. In this women's, and in the cases of a large number of extremely famous and wealthy individiduals I am skeptical.

Suffering and victimhood is becoming an excuse.

In reply to David Martin:

It does beg the question what is the difference between black mail and taking a payoff to keep schtum?

I sort of understand your position, but I think the point She is trying to make is that whilst there is allowance in law for NDAs then things are going to get covered up. (I know that for example it's a standard contract in any constructive dismissal settlements made by my company (and most other large corporates) this means for example when you look up a company to see whether you want to work there you won't see mention that Carol from accounts job wasn't available when she came back from maternity as it should have been, complained so the company paid her some compensation and the problem went away.)

Whilst we can all sit here and say if we saw something/suffered something we'd stand up and make loads of noise until it was exposed and brought to justice, whilst nothing is happening is lovely, and it's a lovely thought that we all owe it to society to sacrifice our hopes and dreams for the good of others, but in reality when we humans are subjected to something that intimidates us, we get and adrenal response, and dependent on our training, experience, and genetic make up we will either run or fight(not necessarily physically) as a result.

Do you for instance know how you would react if you weren't who you are and were instead a tiny waif of a thing desperate to make her chance of stardom, feeling insignificant in a city full of giants, and are then physically intimidated and sexually abused by a Man like Weinstien?(knowing that if you say a word you'll never get a job in the industry of your dreams)

I do think a lot of the criticism of victims (not yours particularly) stems from an inner resentment of these "Rich and Famous" film stars. When these things happened they weren't rich and famous yet. and once they are famous, the perceived damage of scandals (particularly involving female stars e.g. "slut" rather than "stud") is much higher to the potential victim (they have so much more to lose now they are rich even without the potential closed doors).

It's interesting to note how actresses (in many but not all cases) tend do more nudity in their early career than at the height of it