Harvey Weinstein scandal (Mod warning in op.)

Ulysses Gaze

Candie wrote: »

I think we have to be careful here not to transfer responsibility for stopping abuse from the abuser to the victims. Most victims will have many reasons for either coming forward or not, and when it's a 'not', often embarrassment and shame are involved, if not out and out trauma and fear.

In Paltrows case, it's a he-said-she-said involving a powerful older figure and a woman starting her career who escaped an unsavoury proposition, it's not really fair to hold her accountable for not taking it further since nothing more tangible than that happened. You could also hold Brad Pitt to task, since he knew too. I don't think a crime was committed against her, so it's not like she could take a case.

In fact you could blame all his victims for not stopping the abuse, but it's much fairer to blame the abuser. The focus should stay on him, not what his victims are up to since he encountered them.

Completely agree with this.

The only party to blame here is Harvey Weinstein.

Outlaw Pete

Candie wrote: »

I think we have to be careful here not to transfer responsibility for stopping abuse from the abuser to the victims.

When people take a settlement to remain quiet it inevitably brings into question how much of a "victim" they were to begin with. I'm sure my saying that will be seen as a slight on such women but I actually think it's the opposite, as I don't personally believe many women (or men for that matter) would take hush money after being raped.

Like I said though, if Rose was an actress down on her luck, that had came to Hollywood to make it big (but never landed so much as a walk on part in a B Movie) then I'd absolutely understand her taking the money and jumping on the next bus back to Ohio, but not at 24-year old that had already broken through (to a large degree) going on to keep quiet despite hearing that her 'rapist' was continuing to attack other vulnerable young girls that crossed his path (as she has claimed to be the case).

That to me is indicative of someone being either cold hearted and fecklessly culpable......... or someone who is misusing the word 'rape' (as so many third wave feminists do these days) and my money's on the latter as I don't think Rose would do what she has done if Harvey had raped her. Using the third wave feminist's definition of the word rape though, yeah, I think she'd take $100k for that kind of thing and it ties in with her not really saying too much over the years until she got into feminism too. Also fits perfectly with what Ben Affleck said to her after she confided in him.

Most victims will have many reasons for either coming forward or not, and when it's a 'not', often embarrassment and shame are involved, if not out and out trauma and fear.

Of course, Candie, but we're are not dealing with like for like here. There's a world of a difference between some of the women involved here, like Romola Garai, Kate Beckinsale, Miro Sorvino, Cara etc and some of the others more questionable accusers and their accusations of serious sexual assault.

For example: one had gone out with a 70-year-old from the age 18-19, was put up in an apartment for two years, had thousands upon thousands spent on her and then went to the Police and said she was attacked by him, only to withdraw the complaint later. Another claims Harvey forced her to perform Oral sex on him but yet then seemingly felt it appropriate to go out with him for the next few years (despite being grossed out by him) and yet another had no problem addressing the Board at the Weinstein corp, espousing how what was going on shouldn't be tolerated but yet then flung her moral compass in the trash and took a fat settlement.

In Paltrows case, it's a he-said-she-said involving a powerful older figure and a woman starting her career who escaped an unsavoury proposition, it's not really fair to hold her accountable for not taking it further since nothing more tangible than that happened.

Total agree but nothing wrong with being nauseated by her turning it into a female empowerment seminar either.

In fact you could blame all his victims for not stopping the abuse....

Nope, you couldn't. In fact, you yourself just gave very good reasoning as to why we couldn't

...but it's much fairer to blame the abuser.

Which implies someone is blaming the victims, but nobody is tbf (although they may be considered to be).

Look, if Harvey raped any of the accusers / sexually assaulted them / forced them to watch him masturbate etc, then of course Harvey is 100% to blame for doing that. I don't see anyone saying anything to the contrary. You (and some others) appear to be believe that merely talking about the legitimacy of some of the accusations, or whether victims could ever be considered culpable after they take a settlement, is tantamount to blaming these people for being attacked in the first place. But it's really not. I get that it's not very palatable to ponder the notion that a victim taking a settlement might have resulted in more women being attacked, but be that as it may, it still wouldn't be suggesting that Rose would in any way shape or form have been to blame for being attacked herself.

It's worth remembering here that nobody has been found guilty of anything just yet and so I'm not sure why the discussion should take place as if that were the case. Not suggesting we should speak about Harvey as if he is 100% innocent of all that he has been accused, of course not, think there's slim chance of that, but neither do I feel we should be speaking of him as if he is 100% guilty of all he has been accused of either.

RabbleRouser2k

Deleted User wrote: »

Could you specify the allegations about abuse in the above 3 cases?

Otherwise it kinda looks like a "these people died young...ergo I'm guessing they were abused".

Which seems to me to be a reductive way of looking at very complex issues, celebrity and the end of celebrity, wealth and dwindling wealth, power, depression, drugs, alcohol and yes, possibly, abuse...and all on the mind of a young and immature person.

I'm gonna retract the Brandis thing-from an old archived interview, it seems like he was very much protected. As in his parents monitored his work, and kept an eye on his output. If they didn't like something, be it the character or the script, or someone, he wasn't working on it. He was a guy who loved to work (did it since he was 2 or 3), if he couldn't work, then that may have affected him.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/29/nyregion/15-year-old-takes-his-li-realism-to-hollywood.html

http://www.laweekly.com/arts/jonathan-brandis-how-life-after-teen-stardom-can-take-a-wrong-turn-4183323

Seems like once he hit 20, he was brushed aside-that article into some major depth about how the male stars get scrutinised. Probably helps explain why some completely lose themselves-when they are not on magazines, who are they?
This line stands out as seriously depressing-quoting Leo Di Caprio "My two main competitors in the beginning, the blond-haired kids I went to audition with, one hung himself and the other died of a heroin overdose".

Pettiet is assumed, I will admit, but judging from what I have read, and how at 15 his habit was out of control-I think it lends itself to serious questions. Di Caprio noted how he avoided the 'hurricane of chaos' that others did not. And he has never taken any drugs-he had a pretty stable upbringing. Pettiet was out partying late at night, just way past regular hours-the kid could easily be taken advantage of. One article I read pretty much said 'he took drugs to escape his problems, some he created, others that were just cruel fate'.

Sadly, he worked with Brand is on a few occassions, notably Seaquest DSV. His death may have affected Brandis, as they weren't too far apart in age.

As for Leif Garrett-he was also involved, for a short spell, with Scientology. Now, as I mentioned, I suspect abuse at some point-and if he joined Scientology...there was probably every form of it, emotional, physical, sexual (that's emerged in other cases) so all of that adding up didn't help his situation.

califano wrote: »

Maureen O'Hara eluded to similar behaviour she endured with John Ford and others. But said she couldn't say and would take it to her grave.

What she eluded to was that Ford was an in the closet homosexual. She claimed she walked in on him doing something with a famous actor/ producer-but that it could have been the two of them joking around, as he knew he had a meeting with her. Either way, she took it to her grave.

Billy86 wrote: »

Good post, there is a litany alright. I just singled out this one because I had a brief fling with someone, really liked her, but she got really strange and then broke it off quickly. She let me know a little after it was because her family (12 siblings I think it was) in Brazil were in the Children of God; she was the third youngest any every one of them had ran away to Canada or the US the moment they turned 18 (her parents were Canadian and American but had moved to Brazil with the COG).

She only said a bit of what happened because the trauma was clearly huge even if she hid it well from others, but the stories of what goes on there were harrowing, children literally passed around between families for days or weeks at a go as if (to copy a line someone else used earlier in the thread) like sweets. I would without question believe that River Phoenix was raped when he was four.

Jeez, that sounds absolutely horrible-for her I mean.

I find it absolutely tragic if he was. He was a gifted individual, who often played the character who was in pain. This may have been why he shunned stardom. If you watch many of his interviews, he was out of it during them-in one he speaks of how 'cameras steal your soul' and how he was 'freaking out right now' just thinking about that. He may have not liked the idea of someone 'taking' something from him.

Someone has mentioned Drew Barrymore-and to be honest, her home life was horrible. Her dad used to hit her mom in the stomach to induce a miscarriage (while pregnant with Drew) and was none too kind to her even as a kid. I think Spielberg (as her godfather) was one of the few stable people in her life. But for those she could rely on, her life would have gone differently. It's borderline a miracle she survived at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CrCp6UKYVs.

Normally this lady can be pretty divisive. She's pretty on point here. (She is very conservative, I might add).

Also, the person who started 'womenboycottwitter' campaign (which flopped, badly) tweeted this.
I'm no fan of Trump, but this is demented.

https://twitter.com/display_jobs/status/917462139459141632

Outlaw Pete

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Also, the person who started 'womenboycottwitter' campaign (which flopped, badly) tweeted this.
I'm no fan of Trump, but this is demented.

New proposed rules might stop people posting such stuff:


https://twitter.com/jack/status/919028956333879296


Sweet irony though.


https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/918950497884737537

Outlaw Pete

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

New proposed rules might stop people posting such stuff:

https://twitter.com/jack/status/919028956333879296

Sweet irony though.

https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/918950497884737537

And to add another layer of irony...it's from Assange.

A man who could give Weinstein tips on how to abscond if a warrant for sexual offences is issued.

Outlaw Pete

NIMAN wrote: »

If he said to women, "you need to have sex with me to get a job" and they agree and do it, I think it's rather hypocritical for them to do it, get a decent career, then years after the event, when they are rich and famous, start complaining.

They could always have said no and turned their back on him.

Well, most of those that have spoken out did tell him the naff off tbf: Cara, Garai, Mira, Rosanna Arquette, Judd, Seydoux, Jolie, Klass, Palthrow all declined his kind offers. I think only two have admitted to reluctantly obliging him and I highly doubt we will ever hear from any women that took him up on his offers without complaint. No doubt rumours will abound mind.

We can now add Eva Green to the list of women he propositioned in a hotel room and then threatened to ruin the career of when they declined.

“Under the pretext of a professional appointment, he’d given her a script with a beautiful key role it. And as his office was also in his hotel suite, they’d go up and then … He promised her, like the others that he’d favorize their careers in exchange for sexual favors.”

“Eva managed to escape him but he threatened to destroy her professionally,” her mother explained. “Because if the ‘BIG PIG’ had been outed by a victim, for revenge he would forbid [directors] to select them. That’s a brutal reaction to take on a young actress because it was putting themselves in danger of being scratched off casting lists.”

B.A._Baracus

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Not sure if posted already but Seth McFarlane a couple of years ago:

Seth MacFarlane knew of it as he heard it from a victim.

Yet he turned it into some joke that could have been construed as a reference to Weinstein's looks or the way an actress might flirt to get a role.

He most certainly did not "call him out" and should be cast within the group who knew but really did sfa about it.

RabbleRouser2k

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

New proposed rules might stop people posting such stuff:


https://twitter.com/jack/status/919028956333879296


Sweet irony though.


https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/918950497884737537

I hope so-and I hope twitter enforces these rules. There's been some people just posting all kinds of craziness-and they block if you call em out on it.

meeeeh

Are we in the 'hooker can't be raped' territory?

It's actually funny how naive and judgemental at the same tine some can be.

Ellie2008

meeeeh wrote: »

Are we in the 'hooker can't be raped' territory?

It's actually funny how naive and judgemental at the same tine some can be.

Of course she can be who said otherwise?!

pjohnson

Ellie2008 wrote: »

Of course she can be who said otherwise?!

Anyone who mentioned Rose hypocrisy 100% condones rape.

Wibbs

pjohnson wrote: »

Anyone who mentioned Rose hypocrisy 100% condones rape.

No they don't. That's a naive nonsense and one that shuts down debate. These are valid questions to ask. For a start it opens up the debate about an environment that is so twisted it pays off women for their silence and women(or men or kids) within that environment keep their silence.

meeeeh

pjohnson wrote: »

Anyone who mentioned Rose hypocrisy 100% condones rape.

No the problem is when for sone the victim is a victim only when her behaviour is completely blameless, her life afterwards is destroyed and she (or he) looks sad in dignified way on any photo from then on.

Instead of realising that in real life victims aren't perfect but despite that they still deserve to be listened to.

pjohnson

Wibbs wrote: »

No they don't. That's a naive nonsense and one that shuts down debate. These are valid questions to ask. For a start it opens up the debate about an environment that is so twisted it pays off women for their silence and women(or men or kids) within that environment keep their silence.

I think thats where people have the issue with Rose. She kept her silence happily. NOW she is "tweet-shaming" (?) other Weinstein victims for not speaking up. Despite her not speaking up herself.

https://twitter.com/rosemcgowan/status/917139398101106689

How many young girls did she shame with her silence? Using the logic of her own tweet.

When this was pointed out yesterday the "victim blaming" card was played against anyone who mentioned this problem. Even tho Rose is the one victim blaming other victims of HW.

B0jangles

And for those sternly looking down upon those who went along with Weinstein's abuse, the ones who took the bribe and were silenced - try to put yourself in the shoes of a maybe 18 year old kid who dreams of being in films.

You are alone in a room with a man who absolutely has the power get you the lead part in a Star Wars-level movie. All you have to do is play along, just grit your teeth for 20 minutes, do the massage thing like he wants. oh wait, it ends up being quite a bit worse, but it's over now. Even if you are totally horrified at what just happened, who do you tell, who will believe you? There's no H.R. department, no witnesses, no evidence.

The carrot is still there - you did what he wanted and the contract is coming. Do you really feel so morally superior, so secure in your own righteousness that you'd sneer at them for accepting the bribe given that the cost to them of telling the truth would be career suicide, trial by media and in the end, not being believed anyway?

super_furry

Deleted User wrote: »

Seth MacFarlane knew of it as he heard it from a victim.

Yet he turned it into some joke that could have been construed as a reference to Weinstein's looks or the way an actress might flirt to get a role.

He most certainly did not "call him out" and should be cast within the group who knew but really did sfa about it.

You’re wrong there, he respected the wishes of the victim who told him what happened to her.

pjohnson

B0jangles wrote: »

And for those sternly looking down upon those who went along with Weinstein's abuse, the ones who took the bribe and were silenced - try to put yourself in the shoes of a maybe 18 year old kid who dreams of being in films.

You are alone in a room with a man who absolutely has the power get you the lead part in a Star Warse-level movie. All you have to do is play along, just grit your teeth for 20 minutes, do the massage thing like he wants. oh wait, it ends up being quite a bit worse, but it's over now. Even if you are totally horrified at what just happened, who do you tell, who will believe you? There's no H.R. department, no witnesses, no evidence.

The carrot is still there - you did what he wanted and the contract is coming. Do you really feel so morally superior, so secure in your own righteousness that you'd sneer at them for accepting the bribe given that the cost to them of telling the truth would be career suicide, trial by media and in the end, not being believed anyway?

Why can Rose sneer at them?

HandsomeBob

I hope Rose is getting the support she needs from those who encouraged her to speak out. Her behaviour since this has come out strikes me as someone who has been left to her own thoughts and well being after revealing something incredibly painful.

B0jangles

pjohnson wrote: »

Why can Rose sneer at them?

She suffered a great deal for telling the truth, she's perfectly entitled to lash out and be angry because she did as so many here think they all should have done - she told the truth and she was not believed.

For some reason you are more interesting in attacking Rose McGowan than talking about the serial abuser Harvey Weinstein, what's that about?

meeeeh

pjohnson wrote: »

Why can Rose sneer at them?

I think she was sneering at those who knew what happened (but were not Harvey's victims), were often very vocal about women's issues and were very quiet when the story broke. I think she had a point because I think quite a few of those who have no problem voicing their opinions ran their tweets past their legal reps and pr advisers.

There is no denying her twits are erratic but that's completely insignificant in the whole story.

pitifulgod

B0jangles wrote: »

She suffered a great deal for telling the truth, she's perfectly entitled to lash out and be angry because she did as so many here think they all should have done - she told the truth and she was not believed.

For some reason you are more interesting in attacking Rose McGowan than talking about the serial abuser Harvey Weinstein, what's that about?

Also she's not taking a jab at victims in tweets. More directed at those who were aware of what he was doing but didn't have it happen to them.

Ronaldinho

I haven't been following this closely - where are the police in all of this? How many of his transgressions were reported? Were there any investigations over the years? If so, how far did they get and why did it not lead to a conviction?

meeeeh

Ronaldinho wrote: »

I haven't been following this closely - where are the police in all of this? How many of his transgressions were reported? Were there any investigations over the years? If so, how far did they get and why did it not lead to a conviction?

At least one was reported and they actually got a recording of Weinstein talking about one of his transgressions. D.a. didn't want to prosecute due to the victim's past (she was present at one of Berlusconi's bunga bunga parties) and mistakes in procedure. That is official version. It's complete coincidence that Weinstein made some generous donations to DA.

pjohnson

B0jangles wrote: »

She suffered a great deal for telling the truth, she's perfectly entitled to lash out and be angry because she did as so many here think they all should have done - she told the truth and she was not believed.

For some reason you are more interesting in attacking Rose McGowan than talking about the serial abuser Harvey Weinstein, what's that about?

Whats to talk about that prick? He should be locked up with all the other rapists and paedos and other manner of sex offenders. Also its America if they wanted death penalty for him then fair enough. Fucker deserves it. Why are you so bloody terrified of talking about McGowan without the woe is me agenda. What is that about? If Rose had spoke the fuck up sooner it may have put Weinstein where he belongs years ago. Then he wouldnt have had the same power to use over the likes of Cara?


But Rose calls out people who were silent DESPITE herself being silent? She is calling herself out essentially. That is what pissed me off. Thats not her right to shame others after she did the same.

Ellie2008

B0jangles wrote: »

And for those sternly looking down upon those who went along with Weinstein's abuse, the ones who took the bribe and were silenced - try to put yourself in the shoes of a maybe 18 year old kid who dreams of being in films.

You are alone in a room with a man who absolutely has the power get you the lead part in a Star Warse-level movie. All you have to do is play along, just grit your teeth for 20 minutes, do the massage thing like he wants. oh wait, it ends up being quite a bit worse, but it's over now. Even if you are totally horrified at what just happened, who do you tell, who will believe you? There's no H.R. department, no witnesses, no evidence.

The carrot is still there - you did what he wanted and the contract is coming. Do you really feel so morally superior, so secure in your own righteousness that you'd sneer at them for accepting the bribe given that the cost to them of telling the truth would be career suicide, trial by media and in the end, not being believed anyway?

It's not about sneering at anybody. I get that a lot of these actresses were very young but they had a choice - career suicide is still a choice. I do agree with you if they had spoken out I don't think anyone would have listened that doesn't mean they couldn't have walked away, many did.

If you slept with someone to get a film role how outraged can you be?!
I'm sure lots of people regret
decisions they made years ago,
they still made them & in some cases you'd have to assume achieved fame & fortune . Do they now feel so morally superior they feel they can act as if they didn't make that choice.

About feeling morally superior I may well not have turned him down if I knew I'd get that role in Star Wars or whatever, but would I come out years later & act like I had no choice - probably not I think I'd be too embarrassed by my own behaviour.
But as I said I don't blame anyone who walked away for not speaking out I don't expect anyone would have cared to listen.

B0jangles

pjohnson wrote: »

Whats to talk about that prick? He should be locked up with all the other rapists and paedos and other manner of sex offenders. Also its America if they wanted death penalty for him then fair enough. ****er deserves it. Why are you so bloody terrified of talking about McGowan without the woe is me agenda. What is that about? If Rose had spoke the **** up sooner it may have put Weinstein where he belongs years ago. Then he wouldnt have had the same power to use over the likes of Cara?


But Rose calls out people who were silent DESPITE herself being silent? She is calling herself out essentially. That is what pissed me off. Thats not her right to shame others after she did the same.

I'm not terrified of talking about Rose McGowan, I just think it's quite revolting to try to dig around in the past of a person who was a victim of sexual assault to try to find reasons to blame them for what happened, or to find reasons not to believe them along the lines of who she went out with or the clothes she wore sometimes.

pitifulgod

pjohnson wrote: »

Whats to talk about that prick? He should be locked up with all the other rapists and paedos and other manner of sex offenders. Also its America if they wanted death penalty for him then fair enough. Fucker deserves it. Why are you so bloody terrified of talking about McGowan without the woe is me agenda. What is that about? If Rose had spoke the fuck up sooner it may have put Weinstein where he belongs years ago. Then he wouldnt have had the same power to use over the likes of Cara?


But Rose calls out people who were silent DESPITE herself being silent? She is calling herself out essentially. That is what pissed me off. Thats not her right to shame others after she did the same.

She's calling out people who wouldn't say anything as the story was breaking... She also wasn't directing at victims of Weinstein... So maybe cop on with the the victim blaming cause it's horrifying and illustrates why victims of rape are constantly fearful of going public. Somehow, somebody will find a new way to attack their character...

strandroad

pjohnson wrote: »

Whats to talk about that prick? He should be locked up with all the other rapists and paedos and other manner of sex offenders. Also its America if they wanted death penalty for him then fair enough. Fucker deserves it. Why are you so bloody terrified of talking about McGowan without the woe is me agenda. What is that about? If Rose had spoke the fuck up sooner it may have put Weinstein where he belongs years ago. Then he wouldnt have had the same power to use over the likes of Cara?


But Rose calls out people who were silent DESPITE herself being silent? She is calling herself out essentially. That is what pissed me off. Thats not her right to shame others after she did the same.

She was speaking up, it wasn't getting any traction. It's like with Cosby, I remember reading magazine exposes of the allegations many years ago, ten at least. But it only started rolling in the last two years or so. And still many believe him innocent, and the victims to be mercenary opportunists.

B0jangles

Ellie2008 wrote: »

It's not about sneering at anybody. I get that a lot of these actresses were very young but they had a choice - career suicide is still a choice. I do agree with you if they had spoken out I don't think anyone would have listened that doesn't mean they couldn't have walked away, many did.

If you slept with someone to get a film role how outraged can you be?!
I'm sure lots of people regret
decisions they made years ago,
they still made them & in some cases you'd have to assume achieved fame & fortune . Do they now feel so morally superior they feel they can act as if they didn't make that choice.

About feeling morally superior I may well not have turned him down if I knew I'd get that role in Star Wars or whatever, but would I come out years later & act like I had no choice - probably not I think I'd be too embarrassed by my own behaviour.
But as I said I don't blame anyone who walked away for not speaking out I don't expect anyone would have cared to listen.

Career suicide is indeed a choice as you say - an absolutely enormous, terrifying one that you seem to think a very young, probably very naive person should have made on the spur of the moment in an extraordinarily shocking situation to qualify for your sympathy now.

Focussing on what choice they ought to have made in such a situation, instead of the fact that the situation even existed, is a weird way to prioritize.

meeeeh

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.vogue.com/article/cyrus-vance-jr-didnt-prosecute-weinstein-ivanka-donald-trump-jr/amp

Something about prosecutions (or lack of them) of powerful people in New York.

I know Twitter meltdown is a sexy subject to discuss but there are way more important questions that need to be asked and answered.

pjohnson

B0jangles wrote: »

I'm not terrified of talking about Rose McGowan, I just think it's quite revolting to try to dig around in the past of a person who was a victim of sexual assault to try to find reasons to blame them for what happened, or to find reasons not to believe them along the lines of who she went out with or the clothes she wore sometimes.

When did I dig around her past or go on about what she wears who she went out with? I'm not fucking blaming her for him being a creep. Guess ya cant read my posts right.

B0jangles

Oh, don't worry, I've read your posts.

So why are you so determined to keep talking about how Rose McGowan's behaviour, rather than the circumstances which have caused her recent public anger?

Ronaldinho

meeeeh wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.vogue.com/article/cyrus-vance-jr-didnt-prosecute-weinstein-ivanka-donald-trump-jr/amp

Something about prosecutions (or lack of them) of powerful people in New York.

I know Twitter meltdown is a sexy subject to discuss but there are way more important questions that need to be asked and answered.

Thanks for sharing.

Sounds like the Weinstein allegations could be one 'tentacle' of a much, much bigger problem.

Bad sh1t is always going to happen, but at least if you have well-functioning law enforcement & judiciary then there's a good chance that the truth will out and justice will be served.

Ellie2008

B0jangles wrote: »

Career suicide is indeed a choice as you say - an absolutely enormous, terrifying one that you seem to think a very young, probably very naive person should have made on the spur of the moment in an extraordinarily shocking situation to qualify for your sympathy now.

Focussing on what choice they ought to have made in such a situation, instead of the fact that the situation even existed, is a weird way to prioritize.

I feel these debates often turn into posters wanting to be morally superior I have more sympathy for these women than you - I'm "better" than you.

I never said nor implied that the situation should have existed.

pitifulgod

B0jangles wrote: »

Oh, don't worry, I've read your posts.

So why are you so determined to keep talking about how Rose McGowan's behaviour, rather than the circumstances which have caused her recent public anger?

Yep, seems that people are outraged that she's being so outright against Weinstein... When Weinstein is the bloody issue..

neonsofa

B0jangles wrote: »

Career suicide is indeed a choice as you say - an absolutely enormous, terrifying one that you seem to think a very young, probably very naive person should have made on the spur of the moment in an extraordinarily shocking situation to qualify for your sympathy now.

Focussing on what choice they ought to have made in such a situation, instead of the fact that the situation even existed, is a weird way to prioritize.

It's sickening that people are basically saying some of these girls made a calculated and rational decision to sleep with/flirt with/engage in sexual activities with this man in order to make money/further their career.

Years ago I knew an older man who used to be a bit handsy. Any excuse to touch me or try to kiss me, he'd try it. He was just a neighbour, no power over me, no influence, just a sad old man. But yet when he would lunge for a kiss I'd clam up and try to avoid his advance and brush it off rather than tell him to stop. I felt guilty that hes a lonely old man. I felt bad that nobody else bothered to talk to him and if I stood up for myself he would be offended (crazy right?!). On some level i also had this "respect your elders" idea in my head and I felt I couldn't give out to him like I would if a guy in his 20s did the same thing. I felt like "ah he's an old man he doesnt realise" and it was only when a friend pointed everything out to me that I realised he is older, wiser and knows exactly what he is doing. He did not have dementia, or anything that may justify his behaiour, he was just a creepy old man and I absolutely had a right to tell him to stop.

Going way off point here.... What i am saying is, we'd all like to think we'd stand up for ourselves and make the rational decision, but when you're in a situation and it is unexpected you aren't thinking rationally. I certainly wasn't in the above example I mentioned, and that was a non event, just a touchy feely old man, add in the power dynamic and politics of the industry and everything else in the situation with rose and other women, and I can see exactly why they may not have felt able to reject his advances. And I highly doubt it was a rational and calculated decision like people are making it out to be.

B0jangles

^^ That's it - you're in a really weird, unfamiliar situation, you're not sure if you're maybe misreading what's going on and if you make the wrong call you'll look like an over-sensitive fool who just hugely insulted a person who could make or break your whole career.

Something to remember is that Weinstein apparently did this all the time - when he walked into the room, he knew what was going to happen, the victims didn't. So the whole time they are just reacting with disbelief and shock, he's calmly moving along with a well-established, well-honed plan.

tara73

it's so symptomatic that this thread isn't overall anymore about the men-scumbags (are there any women who physically abused a man??) in power in Hollywood and elsewhere, but all about the women who didn't speak up, presumably got involved with HW because of their careers etc bla bla....great distraction from the real culprits. like who are the bad people most here need to point out over again and again: the women who did presumably see above.

it's ridiculous, lame, mysoginistic and kind of desperately trying to distract from the real and first problem, which are the criminal men who think they have a right to abuse people and destroy lives.

pjohnson

tara73 wrote: »

it's so symptomatic that this thread isn't overall anymore about the men-scumbags (are there any women who physically abused a man??) in power in Hollywood and elsewhere, but all about the women who didn't speak up, presumably got involved with HW because of their careers etc bla bla....great distraction from the real culprits. like who are the bad people most here need to point out over again and again: the women who did presumably see above.

it's ridiculous, lame, mysoginistic and kind of desperately trying to distract from the real and first problem, which are the criminal men who think they have a right to abuse people and destroy lives.

I dont think everything is misoginistic. Has anyone actually said Harvey isn't the scumbag? I've seen plenty of people claiming that people have said Harvey isn't the problem but I haven't actually seen anyone say that!

A Little Pony

People should look into how Jennifer Lawrence got the Hunger games role and look at the person who she replaced who was originally set to take the role of Katnis, you will be amazed. That's all I'm saying. ;)

retro:electro

tara73 wrote: »

it's so symptomatic that this thread isn't overall anymore about the men-scumbags (are there any women who physically abused a man??) in power in Hollywood and elsewhere, but all about the women who didn't speak up, presumably got involved with HW because of their careers etc bla bla....great distraction from the real culprits. like who are the bad people most here need to point out over again and again: the women who did presumably see above.

it's ridiculous, lame, mysoginistic and kind of desperately trying to distract from the real and first problem, which are the criminal men who think they have a right to abuse people and destroy lives.

Harvey is a dirty disgusting piece of sh!t. The sight of him makes me want to heave. He's beyond repugnant. But it's not just him. And to claim that this is all just him is being incredibly naive. There is a whole culture at play here, a culture which is rotten from the top down.
It might not be very "PC" or back slapping to say, but it's the truth.

tara73

pjohnson wrote: »

I dont think everything is misoginistic. Has anyone actually said Harvey isn't the scumbag? I've seen plenty of people claiming that people have said Harvey isn't the problem but I haven't actually seen anyone say that!

that's not my point.. please read my post again.

Wibbs

anna080 wrote: »

Harvey is a dirty disgusting piece of sh!t. The sight of him makes me want to heave. He's beyond repugnant. But it's not just him. And to claim that this is all just him is being incredibly naive. There is a whole culture at play here, a culture which is rotten from the top down.
It might not be very "PC" or back slapping to say, but it's the truth.

This. And if people actually want to effect change in the culture going beyond rage being fired at one boogyman that will be yesterdays news soon enough and/or blaming misogyny/men, cause women are always victims narrative then some uncomfortable questions will need to be asked of how such a culture exists and has existed in film and other entertainment industries for so long.

Weinstein does not exist in a vacuum. He had enablers, conscious or unconsciously, actively or passively for nearly 30 years. People. Men and women. There are a lot of women who work in that industry behind the cameras. And just like some men, yes some of them were enablers, conscious or unconsciously, actively or passively in all this. On a day to day working the business basis I'd even be willing to bet Weinstein had more women around him than men. His PA's, accounts people, office staff(which are majority women in that business). Never mind the creative script and production types of which a large chunk are women. Everybody who knew this was going on needs to ask questions of themselves and the industry culture they're a part of. Blame is easy to fire at others, particularly groups of others, but harder to look to oneself and closer to home, but IMHO that's where the real change is going to come from.

Goat the dote

A Little Pony wrote: »

People should look into how Jennifer Lawrence got the Hunger games role and look at the person who she replaced who was originally set to take the role of Katnis, you will be amazed. That's all I'm saying. ;)

Can you elaborate? I’m after finding a few names linked to the Katniss role

I'm sure there's more than one abuser in Hollywood, I'm particularly sickened by the sort of stuff that Corey Feldman has talked about.

But what's really important here is that we thoroughly examine the clothing choices, demeanor, and the functions that the victims attend, in an attempt to establish any hypocrisy. It's crucial we assess what complicity or blame they hold not only for their own abuse, but the abuse of others after them. Only then can we know how truly rotten the culture of Hollywood is.

Yet another thread that focuses on the wrong thing. We know Weinstein and others are abusive animals who have treated kids and adults alike like pieces of meat existing for their enjoyment, but here we are pointing and asking questions of the victims.

strandroad

Candie wrote: »

Yet another thread that focuses on the wrong thing. We know Weinstein and others are abusive animals who have treated kids and adults alike like pieces of meat existing for their enjoyment, but here we are pointing and asking questions of the victims.

Agreed, interesting how his brother or Brad Pitt (who definitely knew) are not skewered here but Rose or Gwyneth (actual victims) are.

Ellie2008

anna080 wrote: »

Harvey is a dirty disgusting piece of sh!t. The sight of him makes me want to heave. He's beyond repugnant. But it's not just him. And to claim that this is all just him is being incredibly naive. There is a whole culture at play here, a culture which is rotten from the top down.
It might not be very "PC" or back slapping to say, but it's the truth.

I think part of the problem around discussing these issues is that certain things are labelled "you can't say that."HW is a horrible man who abused his power but questioning why people went along with it or if their careers benefitted from it's seemingly off limits. As other posters have correctly pointed out a lot of the women were v v young didn't try instigate it and we're probably overwhelmed. But to go along with it get the jobs and not say anything for years and then when someone finally does jump on the outrage bandwagon seems hypocritical. If you are as famous & wealthy as some of these women are you have a platform to speak out.

And Hilary Clinton is now condemning it, how is her husband who she stood by any better than HW? Was Monica L at 22 any less vulnerable than these women. And is she going to refund HW's donations? Monica L was shamed by the media, why?

I'm just hate hypocrites & bandwagon jumping.

There's a difference between bandwagon jumping and "maybe people will finally actually listen and I'm not alone"

pjohnson

strandroad wrote: »

Agreed, interesting how his brother or Brad Pitt (who definitely knew) are not skewered here but Rose or Gwyneth (actual victims) are.

How did Pitt know?

Ellie2008

bluewolf wrote: »

There's a difference between bandwagon jumping and "maybe people will finally actually listen and I'm not alone"

Of course. And to the people who have been trying to speak out for years I'm glad they are finally being heard.