Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Harvey Weinstein scandal (Mod warning in op.)
Options
Comments
-
Outlaw Pete wrote: »Just seeing this video which Sky News have been running all day (from around seven years back) of Harvey in a business meeting with a woman in an NY hotel that he is alleged to have raped a few hours later............... curious what others think of it:
https://news.sky.com/story/world-exclusive-video-shows-harvey-weinstein-behaving-inappropriately-with-businesswoman-11496038
I get that she was pitching a product and so she'd understandably be reluctant to be rude to Weinstein but there was numerous opportunities (which Harvey himself seemed in fact to give her) for her to decline his advances without losing face and/or create hostility. Instead though, she did the opposite and gave clear signs that she was not wholly opposed to his advances.
She says she felt his offer to meet her for a drink later on was purely business related but come on, he has just had his hand up her skirt, how naive is she that after that he just wants to meet to discuss business.
Harvey is clearly a sleaze bag who abused his position of power to try get laid, as often as he could, there's no question about that, but yet again we're not seeing much to support the accusations that he raped any of these women, beyond that is, the allegations themselves.
What they don't seem to go into here and what I'd like to know is what happened after this alleged rape. Did she have many more meetings with him. Did they continue to work together. And the biggest question of all wasn't even put to her (in this interview at least): why didn't she report the rape.
If the answer to that is in line with the others, that they felt it would jeopardize their working relationship with him, well then that attitude is as much part of the problem as anything else.
"Am I allowed to flirt with you ?"
Sorry but you reply to that with - girlish giggle, coquettish flick of the hair, "Ummm we'll see, a little bit." - and you're up for it.
When did women stop having balls to say "no thanks" ???
What pathetic Victorian level vapours hsving victims are we becoming ????0 -
PlaneSpeeking wrote: »"Am I allowed to flirt with you ?"
Sorry but you reply to that with - girlish giggle, coquettish flick of the hair, "Ummm we'll see, a little bit." - and you're up for it.
When did women stop having balls to say "no thanks" ???
What pathetic Victorian level vapours hsving victims are we becoming ????
It's a bit more complex than that. There's a dynamic going on in this business meeting and the conversation will have some leeway in that context.
After watching the video, I thought it was a textbook case of sexual harassment and it showed how sleazy this powerful man was/is.
It also showed how much of an expert manipulator he was ........... knowing when to pull back with his harassment at the right times.
The video was disturbing because it showed the grooming/manipulation process at work by a man with a lot of experience with it.
Don't forget that this is not the claim by just one woman.
Many women have claimed identical encounters in similar scenarios, which led to alleged rapes and sexual assaults by Weinstein.0 -
It's a bit more complex than that. There's a dynamic going on in this business meeting and the conversation will have some leeway in that context.
After watching the video, I thought it was a textbook case of sexual harassment and it showed how sleazy this powerful man was/is.
It also showed how much of an expert manipulator he was ........... knowing when to pull back with his harassment at the right times.
The video was disturbing because it showed the grooming/manipulation process at work by a man with a lot of experience with it.
Don't forget that this is not the claim by just one woman.
Many women have claimed identical encounters in similar scenarios, which led to alleged rapes and sexual assaults by Weinstein.
And many have claimed it for other more self serving reasons.
Yeah he's a perv with a far too high opinion of himself but she was either stupid or up for it and neither makes a man a rapist.0 -
She gives him permission to flirt with her, then she proceeds to flirt outrageously with him. She doesn't reject his advances when he strokes her arm, the agrees to go to drinks with him.
The only victim here is the viewer, somebody is trying to dupe us.0 -
Clearly you have a bee in your bonnet on this particular issue. She's stupid is she? She has done well enough in her career to find herself in a meeting with an extremely successful and influential person who then agrees to buy the product/service she is selling. If the company she was working for thought she was stupid they would have sent someone else and she probably wouldn't even be working there in the first place.PlaneSpeeking wrote: »Yeah he's a perv with a far too high opinion of himself but she was either stupid or up for it and neither makes a man a rapist.
I don't get how some men are so concerned about other men being wrongly accused and seem to care not a jot that they've just witnessed someone experience sexual harassment. It's not difficult to know that business meetings are not an appropriate place for physical contact between strangers. She is clearly uncomfortable, but he keeps doing it anyway, and I think she is just trying to see the meeting through to it's conclusion and close the deal. It wouldn't be easy for her to go back to her boss saying that she walked out of the meeting because Weinstein touched her arm or leg and "flirted" with her. Or that he kicked her out when she asked him to stop touching her.
Nothing I saw in that video led me to believe she was flirting with him, or responding positively to him touching her. Everyone has experienced looking back at an event and thinking of all the things they could/should have said or done differently. Why is the onus on her to respond in the perfect manner to this completely unexpected and uncomfortable situation she suddenly finds herself in?0 -
Advertisement
-
It's a well known fact that if you flirt with a woman before 12pm, you can have sex with her that evening without her permission, and it's not rape.Outlaw Pete wrote: »Just seeing this video which Sky News have been running all day (from around seven years back) of Harvey in a business meeting with a woman in an NY hotel that he is alleged to have raped a few hours later............... curious what others think of it:
https://news.sky.com/story/world-exclusive-video-shows-harvey-weinstein-behaving-inappropriately-with-businesswoman-11496038
I get that she was pitching a product and so she'd understandably be reluctant to be rude to Weinstein but there was numerous opportunities (which Harvey himself seemed in fact to give her) for her to decline his advances without losing face and/or create hostility. Instead though, she did the opposite and gave clear signs that she was not wholly opposed to his advances.
She says she felt his offer to meet her for a drink later on was purely business related but come on, he has just had his hand up her skirt, how naive is she that after that he just wants to meet to discuss business.
Harvey is clearly a sleaze bag who abused his position of power to try get laid, as often as he could, there's no question about that, but yet again we're not seeing much to support the accusations that he raped any of these women, beyond that is, the allegations themselves.
What they don't seem to go into here and what I'd like to know is what happened after this alleged rape. Did she have many more meetings with him. Did they continue to work together. And the biggest question of all wasn't even put to her (in this interview at least): why didn't she report the rape.
If the answer to that is in line with the others, that they felt it would jeopardize their working relationship with him, well then that attitude is as much part of the problem as anything else.
What the actual fuck is your point here? Let's say she was agreed to go for a drink with him as part of a date, is she obliged to have sex with him?
Honest to ****in' christ.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »She gives him permission to flirt with her, then she proceeds to flirt outrageously with him. She doesn't reject his advances when he strokes her arm, the agrees to go to drinks with him.
The only victim here is the viewer, somebody is trying to dupe us.
She's getting her 15 minutes here plus a big payout from Sky.
"this footage was shot only HOURS before she was ALLEGEDLY raped by HARVEY WEINSTEIN".
Weinstein is a creep and deserves the exposure he's getting but this story is just such nonsense. Yet again we have a narcissistic woman looking for her pay out from a scandal diluting the suffering of women who have really suffered at the hands of abusive people.Glazers Out!
0 -
Where is this bit in the video? I definitely missed it.Deleted User wrote: »then she proceeds to flirt outrageously with him.0 -
-
I don't need to watch it again, you are claiming she flirts outrageously with him, what did she do that would accurately be described as such?PlaneSpeeking wrote: »0 -
Advertisement
-
She's getting her 15 minutes here plus a big payout from Sky.
"this footage was shot only HOURS before she was ALLEGEDLY raped by HARVEY WEINSTEIN".
Weinstein is a creep and deserves the exposure he's getting but this story is just such nonsense. Yet again we have a narcissistic woman looking for her pay out from a scandal diluting the suffering of women who have really suffered at the hands of abusive people.
Did you watch the video?0 -
-
This is an incredibly naive point of view, are you capable of empathy at all?PlaneSpeeking wrote: »"Am I allowed to flirt with you ?"
Sorry but you reply to that with - girlish giggle, coquettish flick of the hair, "Ummm we'll see, a little bit." - and you're up for it.
When did women stop having balls to say "no thanks" ???
What pathetic Victorian level vapours hsving victims are we becoming ????
If you seriously thought that any women who wasn't "up for it" would have just said, "No, this meeting is over, goodbye Mr. Weinstein", then you are incredibly sheltered.
It's clear she's really uncomfortable, but is trying to keep it going, trying to keep it on track. If you want to torpedo a business meeting, you get annoyed, you get personal, you storm out.
If it to be successful, you have to bounce off the customer, adapt to their demeanour. This means that if they're stuffy and formal, you are stuffy and formal. If they are friendly and informal, so are you. "Can I flirt with you?", OK, it's a bit out there, but what harm a little flirting if he'll sign the contract, right?
To interpret this as sexual interest or compliance is a mistake. It's a game. Business, not personal. Weinstein is/was perfectly aware that he is in the position of power, and he's pushing it the whole time. He's testing the waters, seeing how far he can push it. She is clearly uncomfortable and trying to just get through this meeting with the creepy man, secure a good deal for her company and GTFO.
Should she have told him to fnck off? Of course. Is it understandable that she wouldn't? Of course; that would be her career over, prospect lost, company blacklisted, fired.
Just because someone is willing to tolerate a little creepiness to secure a business deal, doesn't make them a willing participant. That in fact reflects even worse on the creep, because they know full well they're only getting away with it as they're in a position of power.0 -
"I just fell on top of him and suddenly he was inside me but that wasn't what I indicated by falling on him."0
-
-
This is an incredibly naive point of view, are you capable of empathy at all?
If you seriously thought that any women who wasn't "up for it" would have just said, "No, this meeting is over, goodbye Mr. Weinstein", then you are incredibly sheltered.
It's clear she's really uncomfortable, but is trying to keep it going, trying to keep it on track. If you want to torpedo a business meeting, you get annoyed, you get personal, you storm out.
If it to be successful, you have to bounce off the customer, adapt to their demeanour. This means that if they're stuffy and formal, you are stuffy and formal. If they are friendly and informal, so are you. "Can I flirt with you?", OK, it's a bit out there, but what harm a little flirting if he'll sign the contract, right?
To interpret this as sexual interest or compliance is a mistake. It's a game. Business, not personal. Weinstein is/was perfectly aware that he is in the position of power, and he's pushing it the whole time. He's testing the waters, seeing how far he can push it. She is clearly uncomfortable and trying to just get through this meeting with the creepy man, secure a good deal for her company and GTFO.
Should she have told him to fnck off? Of course. Is it understandable that she wouldn't? Of course; that would be her career over, prospect lost, company blacklisted, fired.
Just because someone is willing to tolerate a little creepiness to secure a business deal, doesn't make them a willing participant. That in fact reflects even worse on the creep, because they know full well they're only getting away with it as they're in a position of power.
Hi Rose.0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Is your point that abuse by a person in a position of power leads victims to behave differently than how you’d think?
What an odd question.
My point was, clearly, that she, Melissa, was given opportunities by Harvey to reject his advances but she didn't take them. He tells her he will not flirt with her if she doesn't want him too and also asks her if what he is doing (putting his hand up her skirt) is okay. Like I said, I get that he is in a powerful position here and that she would understandably feel intimidated by him and that were she to reject his advances that it would be bound to negatively impact on her chances of achieving her goal of getting Harvey to do business with her (and her company).
However, while I fully accept that Harvey is a slezebag who should not be using business meetings (and the leverage that the power to say Yes affords him) to try and get women into bed, I do also feel that the other party has a certain amount of responsibility for his behaviour if they actively encourage it, which I feel Melissa did.It's a well known fact that if you flirt with a woman before 12pm, you can have sex with her that evening without her permission, and it's not rape.
What the actual fuck is your point here? Let's say she was agreed to go for a drink with him as part of a date, is she obliged to have sex with him?
Honest to ****in' christ.
Eh, relax there, chief, nobody suggested anything close to what you're implying.
Read what I said:Outlaw Pete wrote: ».... yet again we're not seeing much to support the accusations that he raped any of these women, beyond that is, the allegations themselves.
You see, you're sure a rape took place but I see no evidence of that, which begs the question, why are you so sure? Cause she said he did?
You see this is why I asked questions in my post, like if she had any other dealings with him, did she report it etc. As I'm trying to ascertain what went on and if there is evidence for it. But you're headlong into it as if there is no question he raped this woman. Which would be fine if you had some basis for that contention but I don't see how you could.0 -
Outlaw Pete wrote: »You see, you're sure a rape took place but I see no evidence of that, which begs the question, why are you so sure? Cause she said he did?
I have no idea what did or didn't take place. I just know that the video you posted is irrelevant either way. What evidence are you looking for exactly?0 -
I have no idea what did or didn't take place.
You say now that you have "no idea" what went on in that room, but in your initial post you were sure a rape was committed given that you suggested I had implied that a green light to flirt excused a later rape, and again, I did nothing of the sort.I just know that the video you posted is irrelevant either way.
It's not irrelevant and you can be sure that if it went to trial no judge would feel it was irrelevant either. And before you come back with another strawman: No, agreeing to go for a drink, even a social one, does not excuse rape or any non-consensual sex act but that doesn't make her response in the video to the offer of the drink irrelevant, as it gives their meeting context, particularly as she had just consented to allowing that man to put his hand up her skirt.What evidence are you looking for exactly?
Anything that would swing the probabilities of either his guilt or innocence. Seems weird to me that many people are not interested in such things.0 -
This is an incredibly naive point of view, are you capable of empathy at all?
If you seriously thought that any women who wasn't "up for it" would have just said, "No, this meeting is over, goodbye Mr. Weinstein", then you are incredibly sheltered.
It's clear she's really uncomfortable, but is trying to keep it going, trying to keep it on track. If you want to torpedo a business meeting, you get annoyed, you get personal, you storm out.
If it to be successful, you have to bounce off the customer, adapt to their demeanour. This means that if they're stuffy and formal, you are stuffy and formal. If they are friendly and informal, so are you. "Can I flirt with you?", OK, it's a bit out there, but what harm a little flirting if he'll sign the contract, right?
To interpret this as sexual interest or compliance is a mistake. It's a game. Business, not personal. Weinstein is/was perfectly aware that he is in the position of power, and he's pushing it the whole time. He's testing the waters, seeing how far he can push it. She is clearly uncomfortable and trying to just get through this meeting with the creepy man, secure a good deal for her company and GTFO.
Should she have told him to fnck off? Of course. Is it understandable that she wouldn't? Of course; that would be her career over, prospect lost, company blacklisted, fired.
Just because someone is willing to tolerate a little creepiness to secure a business deal, doesn't make them a willing participant. That in fact reflects even worse on the creep, because they know full well they're only getting away with it as they're in a position of power.
Empathy is in cases like this being exploited.
She claims to have been instantly made to feel uncomfortable by him and still agrees to meet with him at his hotel AND agrees to go to his room. Without excusing his actions, she had plenty of opportunities to make her excuses and leave and avoid the situation. Does selling her product to a man who clearly is only feigning interest in it to lure her to take advantage of her really over rule her need to take responsibility for her own safety?
From her own testimony she felt ill at ease in his company and still chose to spend time with him repeatedly ignoring numerous red flags.
He is responsible for his actions which are vile, but she is equally responsible for her actions in not heeding her better judgement.
We seem to have reached a stage where a woman can cry rape and victim Hood in any situation and her rational can never be questioned. For the record I don't believe she was "asking for it", but she made a conscious decision to put herself in harms way against her own judgement which is the crux of the argument.Glazers Out!
0 -
Advertisement
-
Deleted User wrote: »She gives him permission to flirt with her, then she proceeds to flirt outrageously with him. She doesn't reject his advances when he strokes her arm, the agrees to go to drinks with him.
The only victim here is the viewer, somebody is trying to dupe us.
I wonder if we both saw the same video. She did not flirt outrageously with him and for you to say that shows us your biased mindset (and those who agree with you) in discussing the topic.
It was their first time meeting and the setting is a professional business environment. The first thing that Weinstein says (twice) to his staff outside is not to disturb them, and then you can clearly hear him locking the door.
This is not a standard procedure for a business meeting; especially with just 2 people.
The way he rubbed her arms and moved his hands up her legs to the point where she said it was too high is also a non-standard procedure in a business meeting. Besides a handshake, there should be no other physical contact.
I'm far from a feminist, but I find that if you replace the woman in the video with your sister, daughter, girlfriend etc., then one would have a different perspective.PlaneSpeeking wrote: »Try watching it without the feminist blinkers - it's there.
If this was a once-off claim by a woman against Weinstein, then the viewer may have a different slant on the video. But the sexual harassment that we witnessed in this video is the modus operandi of a predator who has multiple similar claims by many other women.0 -
The video was disturbing because it showed the grooming/manipulation process at work by a man with a lot of experience with it.
The video shows a woman using her sexuality to clinch a business deal. At no point does she spurn his advances and she flirts back at him.
Her releasing this video will have the opposite effect to what she intended. It won't help her case and will probably badly harm it.0 -
Watched that video and feel terrible for her.
But for the life of me I cannot understand why she met him again.
She's a grown woman.
This isn't a child being groomed by an adult. This is a grown woman.
I get that she may have feared for her safety on the first encounter (but even that's a stretch. It's not inconceivable that she could have screamed/managed to leave the room when he touched her. I mean then he'd be a Hollywood producer trying to get a way with murder which she must have factored in. But she doesn't look that panicked anyway tbh.)
But meeting him again. That's just bonkers. Proper LaLa land morality that one.0 -
Empathy is in cases like this being exploited.
She claims to have been instantly made to feel uncomfortable by him and still agrees to meet with him at his hotel AND agrees to go to his room. Without excusing his actions, she had plenty of opportunities to make her excuses and leave and avoid the situation. Does selling her product to a man who clearly is only feigning interest in it to lure her to take advantage of her really over rule her need to take responsibility for her own safety?
From her own testimony she felt ill at ease in his company and still chose to spend time with him repeatedly ignoring numerous red flags.
He is responsible for his actions which are vile, but she is equally responsible for her actions in not heeding her better judgement.
We seem to have reached a stage where a woman can cry rape and victim Hood in any situation and her rational can never be questioned. For the record I don't believe she was "asking for it", but she made a conscious decision to put herself in harms way against her own judgement which is the crux of the argument.
I don't know if anyone told you but you are not allowed to say that.0 -
take everything wrote: »Watched that video and feel terrible for her.
But for the life of me I cannot understand why she met him again.
She's a grown woman.
This isn't a child being groomed by an adult. This is a grown woman.
I get that she may have feared for her safety on the first encounter (but even that's a stretch. It's not inconceivable that she could have screamed/managed to leave the room when he touched her. I mean then he'd be a Hollywood producer trying to get a way with murder which she must have factored in. But she doesn't look that panicked anyway tbh.)
But meeting him again. That's just bonkers. Proper LaLa land morality that one.
That's where the claims she's making fall foul of logic.
The people here clambering behind her are repeatedly failing to grasp this issue.Glazers Out!
0 -
irishproduce wrote: »I don't know if anyone told you but you are not allowed to say that.
That's the modern world in a nutshell, close down discussion, the "right on" dogmatic principle in action.Glazers Out!
0 -
That's where the claims she's making fall foul of logic.
The people here clambering behind her are repeatedly failing to grasp this issue.
The thing is I am not against this woman. And I'm sure most of the posters here aren't either.
Just this putting her in the same box as say a child being abused or a woman in an abusive controlling relationship is desperately misguided.
She is nowhere near like them. She has agency. She's a woman with some power. Agency not to meet this piece of **** again.
And report him.
It should be plain to anyone reasonable that ****ed up Hollywood dynamics say nothing to the ordinary abused person on the street0 -
The video shows a woman using her sexuality to clinch a business deal. At no point does she spurn his advances and she flirts back at him.
Her releasing this video will have the opposite effect to what she intended. It won't help her case and will probably badly harm it.
This is warped. He is hitting on her, not the other way around.0 -
take everything wrote: »Watched that video and feel terrible for her.
But for the life of me I cannot understand why she met him again.
She's a grown woman.
This isn't a child being groomed by an adult. This is a grown woman.
I get that she may have feared for her safety on the first encounter (but even that's a stretch. It's not inconceivable that she could have screamed/managed to leave the room when he touched her. I mean then he'd be a Hollywood producer trying to get a way with murder which she must have factored in. But she doesn't look that panicked anyway tbh.)
But meeting him again. That's just bonkers. Proper LaLa land morality that one.
Totally agree with you.
After the initial encounter, she should have avoided him like the plague; irrespective of the hopes of closing a business deal.
Other women had similar first meetings with him and never showed up for any subsequent meetings because they got a feel for the man. Unfortunately, some others did show up.
You can flirt with another human being in various encounters in life using words but when it progresses to the type of physical contact that we saw in the video; that's not flirting. I did not see her reciprocate by rubbing his bare arms or trying to move her hand up his thigh to his crotch area. In any business or social environment in the western world, what Weinstein did in the video was sexual harassment.0 -
Advertisement
-
This thread has gone from being interesting and informative to total scumminess in just a couple of pages. To all those who are blaming this woman for being groped at a business meeting, I hope to f*ck I never work with any of you. Just in case I flick my hair out of my face and maybe smile at you and you then decide that means I want you to feel me up repeatedly despite me never touching you. The very start of the meeting, before they greet each other, he locks the door and then instead of shaking her hand he hugs her and runs his hands up and down her back. She did nothing to initiate any of this or encourage it, and is now on the back foot for the whole rest of the meeting as she feels weird and uncomfortable. At the time she also presumeably had no idea that he had a history of inappropriate sexual advances towards women, something which every commentator here is now aware of as they cast their judgments on her.
For even putting forward a question about a previous poster's comment I have been labelled a feminist and am apparently wearing blinkers. So unless I agree with the notion that she led him on my opinion is obviously misguided, misinformed, man hating or whatever else has been decided. The video does not at all prove he raped her, but I think it does prove sexual harrassment at that meeting. Feeling concerned because occasionally people make false allegations which can have a horrific effect on those accused is valid and worth discussing and finding better solutions for how cases are dealt with generally. Treating and discussing everyone who makes an allegation with such hatred and resentment is horrible and totally needless.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement