Harvey Weinstein scandal (Mod warning in op.)

retro:electro

Ellie2008 wrote: »

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.

Yea. And I'm kind of done here, mainly because I do not like what is being insinuated about those who want to expand on this enabled culture and further the debate. If you don't say "the right thing" then you are immediately jumped upon and instead of maybe asking to clarify, or engage in debate- it's the usual point scoring, extremely tiresome sound bites being thrashed out. I mean, I only mentioned Gweneth because she happened to be speaking at "The Power of Women" event- I mean, spare me.

Let me caveat this by saying I feel the utmost sympathy for those who were abused. Harvey is an absolute monster. He disgusts me. But it makes me sad that I even have to fcuking clarify that. Jesus. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to further examine this enabled culture and ask certain questions and wonder just why it has persisted for so long.
It's just ALL wrong on so many levels.

So ya. I'll leave ye to it. Where ye can repeat "Harvey is a monster" over and over and over. It'll make people feel good- but it deciphers jack sh!t.

strandroad

pjohnson wrote: »

How did Pitt know?

Apparently Paltrow told him, he talked to Weinstein but then kept his mouth shut like everyone else, and did movies with him later:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/10/us/gwyneth-paltrow-angelina-jolie-harvey-weinstein.html
Funny how his part is missed but Gwyneth is taken apart.

When Gwyneth Paltrow was 22 years old, she got a role that would take her from actress to star: The film producer Harvey Weinstein hired her for the lead in the Jane Austen adaptation “Emma.” Before shooting began, he summoned her to his suite at the Peninsula Beverly Hills hotel for a work meeting that began uneventfully.

It ended with Mr. Weinstein placing his hands on her and suggesting they head to the bedroom for massages, she said.

“I was a kid, I was signed up, I was petrified,” she said in an interview, publicly disclosing that she was sexually harassed by the man who ignited her career and later helped her win an Academy Award.

She refused his advances, she said, and confided in Brad Pitt, her boyfriend at the time. Mr. Pitt confronted Mr. Weinstein, and soon after, the producer warned her not to tell anyone else about his come-on. “I thought he was going to fire me,” she said.

JupiterKid

There is no denying that Weinstein is a despicable vile pig who willingly abused scores of vulnerable, ambitious young women for his own ends but we need to look at the wider culture that exists in Hollywood - the staffers and enablers. And the A list actors and actresses who seem to be coming out of this looking like real hypocrites.

Hollywood is rotten to the core. And Weinstein seems to be just the beginning of the opening of a very nasty Pandora's box of sleaze and abuse. The Corey Feldman allegations of widespread child abuse are particularly sickening. Most of these child "stars" were essentially pimped out to Hollywood power brokers by their greedy parents. Look at how many of these child stars ended up discarded on the scrap heap of fame and died of drug abuse at a young age.

The whole thing sickens me to be honest. I would dearly love to see a mass boycott of Hollywood films but I know that just won't happen. But something needs to be done because Tinseltown is a cesspit.

Outlaw Pete

So much sanctimonious nonsense..........

meeeeh wrote: »

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

Nope.........

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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.

But sure you got a lot of thanks and isn't that the main thing.

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.

Who are 'those'? Haven't seen anyone looking down on any 18-year-old that "took the bribe" on this thread.

tara73 wrote: »

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.

Everyone that is discussing it, including my good self, has said that Harvey is wrong if the accusations are true. I have called for him to be jailed in fact if the accusations are true. Quit talking as if I and others are not condemning him when we are.

B0jangles wrote: »

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?

People should be able to talk about all aspects of the case. The real question is why do you and some others want the conversation to only be about Harvey. An accusation of rape is a serious thing and people are bound to discuss it. Settlements were taken and that too is bound to be discussed. Quit the high horse gatekeeping. There are lots of echo chambers online for that nonsense. Why try and make this another.

Ellie2008 wrote: »

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.

Ain't that the damn truth.

twill

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Don't see the point of comparison there, really. Assange was open to being interviewed (the Swedish didn't take him up on that), just not to being extradited for possible rendering to the tender mercies of Guantanamo. Sweden have dropped the case now, it's only the British that still want to prosecute him, presumably so they can hand him over to the sexual predator in US public office.

Which also brings up the point, again, of how much the previous incumbent knew about Weinstein, especially given the amount of cash he (and Clinton) were prepared to accept from him. The truth is, those in the higher echelons know what goes on and accept it as something that goes with power.

Which is why it is utterly ridiculous to focus on victims and ask why they didn't speak out (conveniently ignoring those who tried, and what happened to them). Those who speak out now know they are still taking an enormous risk. This is not about Weinstein, it is about Hollywood, its inside networks, its links with law enforcement and politics, etc. Streep et al know to make a vague statement so they can waltz away unscathed. Those who name names will probably be blacklisted, or worse, once the furore has died down.

While it's important to analyse exactly how people like Weinstein get away with these things, attacking those who speak out now is deeply irrelevant. The only power victims have right now is that of solidarity, because the culture of abuse is rife and will continue. Making it a feminist issue also distracts from it, I feel. While the power dynamics made women far more vulnerable than men, men were abused also. And if we stick to the myth that only women are victims, the worst crimes of all, those against children, have no chance of coming to light.

pitifulgod

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

People should be able to talk about all aspects of the case. The real question is why do you and some others want the conversation to only be about Harvey. An accusation of rape is a serious thing and people are bound to discuss it. Settlements were taken and that too is bound to be discussed. Quit the high horse gatekeeping. There are lots of echo chambers online for that nonsense. Why try and make this another.

Nobody reacts or behaves in the same way after a rape. How a person dresses has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they were raped, what one dresses does not grant consent. Survivors of rape have taken payouts if a person is highly powerful, none of this is new.... Seems more that you want to portray McGowan in a particular way so she becomes a bad person as well.

Weinstein is the issue, McGowan is not.

Wibbs

strandroad wrote: »

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

I've "skewered" him. He knew about one ex who got the Harvey treatment, another ex Jolie also did on his watch and no way can you tell me she didn't tell him. Clooney another I'd be looking at and I'd be looking at men like Tarantino suspiciously too(at least one of his exes got the Harvey treatment). They were IMHO almost certainly enablers passively or no and Quintin took his sweet time to get his PA to draft a response. The usual so hurt, pain blah blah. Another whitewash like Streep. There's a lot of it about.

Streep, who now claims, rather her flunkeys do, that she was "off grid" filming in Croatia. Now maybe that works for Mr and Mrs Slackjaw of Arseholeville, Kentucky who may think anywhere outside America uses bongo drums for communication, but Croatia has perfectly fine phone lines, CNN in hotels and arguably better interwebs access than some parts of the States. And she was surrounded by film people, cast and crew and handlers and is trying to say not one of them mentioned the biggest story to fart out of Hollywood in years? Get off the stage you chancer. Or maybe stay on the stage where you have talent speaking other's lines, but maybe avoid trying out your own. Or keep applauding convicted child rapists like Polanski, while parroting empty words about feminism. She's either dumb as a rock or a bloody hypocrite. There's a lot of that about too.

Hollywood and the too many hypocrites and perverts, nonces and scumbags that inhabit it, while regularly telling their audiences what is "correct think" with a straight effing face are long overdue the beady eye and hopefully this has some momentum, so more of this unravels and is brought to light.

_Dara_

JupiterKid wrote: »

There is no denying that Weinstein is a despicable vile pig who willingly abused scores of vulnerable, ambitious young women for his own ends but we need to look at the wider culture that exists in Hollywood - the staffers and enablers. And the A list actors and actresses who seem to be coming out of this looking like real hypocrites.

Hollywood is rotten to the core. And Weinstein seems to be just the beginning of the opening of a very nasty Pandora's box of sleaze and abuse. The Corey Feldman allegations of widespread child abuse are particularly sickening. Most of these child "stars" were essentially pimped out to Hollywood power brokers by their greedy parents. Look at how many of these child stars ended up discarded on the scrap heap of fame and died of drug abuse at a young age.

The whole thing sickens me to be honest. I would dearly love to see a mass boycott of Hollywood films but I know that just won't happen. But something needs to be done because Tinseltown is a cesspit.

Remember The Simpson skewering it more than twenty years ago with the Radioactive Man episode? The bit where Milhouse complains of lying on a broken bottle and the director is unconcerned, saying “Brilliant! Use it”. Brilliant, prescient piece of television.

Ellie2008

Which is why it is utterly ridiculous to focus on victims and ask why they didn't speak out (conveniently ignoring those who tried, and what happened to them). Those who speak out now know they are still taking an enormous risk. This is not about Weinstein, it is about Hollywood, its inside networks, its links with law enforcement and politics, etc. Streep et al know to make a vague statement so they can waltz away unscathed. Those who name names will probably be blacklisted, or worse, once the furore has died down.

While it's important to analyse exactly how people like Weinstein get away with these things, attacking those who speak out now is deeply irrelevant. The only power victims have right now is that of solidarity, because the culture of abuse is rife and will continue. Making it a feminist issue also distracts from it, I feel. While the power dynamics made women far more vulnerable than men, men were abused also. And if we stick to the myth that only women are victims, the worst crimes of all, those against children, have no chance of coming to light.[/quote]


I don't know public opinion is an important thing in Hollywood people who don't speak out now are taking a risk. The tabloids are screaming for blood. That's why the faux outrage annoys me it seems protectionist. Hilary Clinton?! I mean really! She was happy to stand by her husband to further her own career, and given the scale of it is it feasible she hasn't at least heard rumours about HW?

I don't think anybody has said only women are victims. The child thing is there I'm sure. I think it's important to keep asking questions of people now, who knew, what did they know, why didn't they speak out and curiously why was HW protected for so long and suddenly something changed. Having those types of discussions could turn it into a watershed moment which would protect all potential victims.

I'm curious are your last sentence just because children are abused doesn't make the crimes against women any better. Both are victims to say any different implies women are somehow at fault.

Wibbs

pitifulgod wrote: »

Weinstein is the issue, McGowan is not.

I;d agree 100% there. I would add though that she is a great example of how that business treats the "talent" and how said talent are all too often damaged by that business. She went in one end of the machine, got sexually abused, the machine dealt with that, paid her off, sent her on her way, but didn't put her up for more roles, better to have her fade. Now she's no longer bankable their eyes were off her and she was able to go public.

The question I'd ask is how many are still in the system, still bankable, who also went through that machine, some who were also sexually abused, in some cases maybe even just accepted that was the "cost of doing business"(in many ways for me that's even more worrying and damning of the culture in place) and because they're in, they're going to stay quiet, in case they're out?

Look at the majority of the women who came forward. McGowan and Judd are pretty much out of the business. It's a well known fact that women in Hollywood have shorter careers than men, even very famous high earners(unless they go the character actor route) and there's always the churn of fresh off the bus young pert newbies coming through. Few of the current still bankable young crop are saying much of anything beyond #soterrible #wesupportyou. We can be sure that Harvey and that system didn't magically stop in the year 2000.

I think the really interesting analyses will centre around the Weinstein Company and culture (and others like it) and the level of their knowledge, enablement and complicity, the involvement of law enforcement agencies, the 'donations' to the campaigns of various DA's, and the level of organisation, if any, with other individuals in positions of power and influence in the entire industry, in targeting adults and children for passing around and conveyor-belt abuse. As one commentator said on the news, where there's abuse involving powerful people, there's blackmail, and there's blind eyes.

Streep, Paltrow et al are bit players in the wider drama, the priority should be the until-now untouchables and the powerful establishment that protected them both within the industry and from the rule of law.

strandroad

Wibbs wrote: »

The question I'd ask is how many are still in the system, still bankable, who also went through that machine, some who were also sexually abused, in some cases maybe even just accepted that was the "cost of doing business"(in many ways for me that's even more worrying and damning of the culture in place) and because they're in, they're going to stay quiet, in case they're out?

Think about the women who disappeared. The likes of Renee Zellweger - she was riding high, was both bankable and multiple award winner, she got her Oscar/Golden Globe/BAFTA for "Cold Mountain" (Miramax) and then she fell off the cliff, out of that league completely. She reappeared 10 years later in a fairly messed up state and pretty much only to return as Bridget Jones once again, directed by a woman and filming in Europe. Was it illness or addiction, or would she have a story to tell? Could she be a warning for other seemingly successful women?

Wibbs

Candie wrote: »

Streep, Paltrow et al are bit players in the wider drama, the priority should be the until-now untouchables and the powerful establishment that protected them both within the industry and from the rule of law.

Bit players to a point C. In those particular examples? Streep has been in the business since the 1970's. Unless she was method acting Stevie Wonder throughout then of course she had heard stories or seen it up close. Paltrow is Hollywood generational royalty. She grew up in the business. No way was she unaware of what went on at times. Maybe she thought her status within the business protected her. That it seems it didn't protect someone like her is informative in of itself.

strandroad wrote: »

Think about the women who disappeared. The likes of Renee Zellweger - she was riding high, was both bankable and multiple award winner, she got her Oscar/Golden Globe/BAFTA for "Cold Mountain" (Miramax) and then she fell off the cliff, out of that league completely. She reappeared 10 years later in a fairly messed up state and pretty much only to return as Bridget Jones once again, directed by a woman and filming in Europe. Was it illness or addiction, or would she have a story to tell? Could she be a warning for other seemingly successful women?

It would not surprise me one bit. Though talent, men and women, can disappear for other more mundane reasons. Addiction would be one. The money doesn't mind Colin Farrell and general "hellraisers". If anything they're good for publicity, but they'll get dropped if they don't show up on set and make bank. Colin didn't miss cast calls even at his height of being the resident drunken Irishman with the glint in his eye, so all good. The previous generation hell raisers were mostly the same. Someone like Peter OToole did screw with production and he got relegated to TV and supporting roles. I can think of two current stars that went on the wane like O'Toole.

Other reasons can be that actors/actresses are "difficult" and "demanding" and people get fed up working with them. Unless they're hugely bankable stars they'll get dropped PDQ too.

Some may just get fed up with the grind and because they've bazillions in the bank just basically retire or go into other pursuits.

I think now we can definitely add to that list women(and some men) who've turned down some greasy lecher's advances as clearly another reason for surprise career stalls. And dare it be said surprise career launches might be down to women(and some men) who did accept some greasy lecher's advances.

Wibbs

I read earlier today where one young lass who was on the road to more was assaulted by Weinstein and she confided in her costar Colin Firth. Who now expresses regret he only gave her sympathy at the time. She's forgiven him and confirmed he was supportive, but for me it begs the question what sort of "man" wouldn't take that crap further and at best have words with the abuser? Pitt at least did apparently take Weinstein to task(but stopped there). Jesus, you can call me old fashioned, but with so called "men" around like that, no wonder women were afraid to speak out.

strandroad

Wibbs wrote: »

Other reasons can be that actors/actresses are "difficult" and "demanding" and people get fed up working with them. Unless they're hugely bankable stars they'll get dropped PDQ too.

I'd be careful with this one though, if someone is blacklisted because of non compliance this is exactly what would be disseminated about them to explain their fall from grace. An actress was reportedly dropped from a franchise for being "difficult", and the other version in blind items was that she would no longer be nice to the director because she wanted her own personal relationships or was in one, so he bullied and dropped her.

Quentin Tarantino, decades-long friend of Wienstein, with whom he's collaborated on many projects, and of whose abusive tendencies he knew absolutely nothing, is in great pain:

“For the last week, I’ve been stunned and heartbroken about the revelations that have come to light about my friend for 25 years Harvey Weinstein. I need a few more days to process my pain, emotions, anger and memory and then I will speak publicly about it.”

Not a squeak about the pain, emotions or anger of the victims.

Now its certainly possible he knew nothing of it but I think it's unlikely since they weren't just friends but also colleagues, in the very business the abuse took place. There's very little room for benefit of the doubt here but there is room, and I suppose we should let him have it for now.

Methinks the lengthy reflection on Quents personal heartbreak will coincidentally afford his team and himself the chance to keep an eye on any further revelations coming out, and formulate an angle from which to proceed. It's all about the angle.

strandroad

Candie wrote: »

Now its certainly possible he knew nothing of it but I think it's unlikely since they weren't just friends but also colleagues, in the very business the abuse took place. There's very little room for benefit of the doubt here but there is room, and I suppose we should let him have it for now.

He closely collaborated with Robert Rodriguez, McGowan's boyfriend, for years, and directed McGowan in "Grindhouse".

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Wibbs wrote: »

I read earlier today where one young lass who was on the road to more was assaulted by Weinstein and she confided in her costar Colin Firth. Who now expresses regret he only gave her sympathy at the time. She's forgiven him and confirmed he was supportive, but for me it begs the question what sort of "man" wouldn't take that crap further and at best have words with the abuser? Pitt at least did apparently take Weinstein to task(but stopped there). Jesus, you can call me old fashioned, but with so called "men" around like that, no wonder women were afraid to speak out.

Just as people often act counter intuitively when they're assaulted, people can have strange reactions when assault is disclosed to them. Victims might also have intense feelings of fear and shame, and may just be coming to someone for sympathy and support rather than for them to "fix" it. The thought of going public can be almost as frightening as the assault itself.

In disclosure training for working with survivors, one of the things that's emphasised is not to pressure them to push things further in terms of criminal charges etc., and to be careful about using the word "rape" if they don't. It's best to avoid displays of anger as well. All of which can be very difficult, as anger, disgust, protectiveness, vengefulness are all very human reactions to hearing that, especially about someone close to you.

What I'm saying is I wouldn't automatically condemn the reactions of the men who knew, it's possible they were pleaded with not to do anything. And while they weren't living under the same risk of being hassled, molested and raped, there was still a big power imbalance there between them and someone like Weinstein. While typically allegations of this sort are taken more seriously when a man makes them, there was every chance they wouldn't be heard, or wouldn't be believed if they were, and they'd just ruin their lives for no gain. This stuff was also FAR less spoken of in the 90s, it was a very different culture.

I'm not saying they did the exact right thing morally, but with something as systemic as this there are no easy choices.

eviltwin

Harvey's power to kill a career didn't just extend to the women he targeted, I'm sure it would have had an effect on anyone, male or female, who called him out on it and tried to put him in his place.

I find the entire thing almost beyond belief that one man seemed to have so much power that he could do this to so many people and get away with it for so long.

strandroad

eviltwin wrote: »

Harvey's power to kill a career didn't just extend to the women he targeted, I'm sure it would have had an effect on anyone, male or female, who called him out on it and tried to put him in his place.

I find the entire thing almost beyond belief that one man seemed to have so much power that he could do this to so many people and get away with it for so long.

He was a producer, a far more important role than a director for example, with far more reaching impact and network. He positioned himself as a gatekeeper to a particular slice of the market too - popular movies that were also ambitious; award winners anyone could watch. If you wanted to advance in your career past stupid blockbusters or ****ty rom-coms, Harvey was there.

arayess

Ewan mcGregor is some cock, hopping on the bandwagon about Weinstein but happy to laud Roman Polanski and say that his rape of a child wasn't his business but hops on the weinstein bandwagon.
McGregor is an utter sh1tebag.
And he isn't alone...many hollywood supporters of Polanski were quick to attack Weinstein.
Place is a cesspit

"I was sent the script from Roman Polanski asking me to play the part. Roman's not someone I knew or met but he's certainly someone I wanted to work with," McGregor said. "I don't comment on his case because it has nothing to do with me. I work with him as an actor ... I've known him for less than a year."

Weinstein. It's about time this came to light and he is getting is just deserts.

"Heard rumours over the years but this is awful. Bye Bully!"

arayess

eviltwin wrote: »

Harvey's power to kill a career didn't just extend to the women he targeted, I'm sure it would have had an effect on anyone, male or female, who called him out on it and tried to put him in his place.

I find the entire thing almost beyond belief that one man seemed to have so much power that he could do this to so many people and get away with it for so long.

but that just means that certain people put their careers ahead of confronting this. They were enablers whether that is uncomfortable news or not. That is what is was/is.

seems a bit cheap now for the same hollywood A list to be moralising on weinstein now

suicide_circus

Could it be said that Weinstein is himself a victim of the patriarchal society that allowed his behaviour?

Skylinehead

suicide_circus wrote: »

Could it be said that Weinstein is himself a victim of the patriarchal society that allowed his behaviour?

No.

Outlaw Pete

Bob saying Harvey has no remorse and that he effectively divorced him years ago:

This hurts, but I don't feel an ounce of remorse coming from him, and that kills me too. When I heard his written, lame excuse… Not an excuse. When I heard his admission of feeling remorse for the victims and then him cavalierly, almost crazily saying he was going to go out and take on the NRA, it was so disturbing to me. It was utter insanity. My daughters all felt sick hearing this because we understood he felt nothing. I don't feel he feels anything to this day. I don't.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

The more that comes out about this the worse it is. It's not just that he felt entitled to sex, didn't understand or care about consent, didn't care about women's agency. He got actively aroused by frightening women.

I heard the wire tap of him and the Italian model this morning, it's horrifying. While I'd say the whole "hey come on, you're misreading this, you're being crazy, I just want to talk, don't be rude" patter is familiar to most women reading, the fact that the woman is sobbing and begging really ups the rotten factor.

Sabrina Future Burger

Sabrina Future Burger wrote: »

The more that comes out about this the worse it is. It's not just that he felt entitled to sex, didn't understand or care about consent, didn't care about women's agency. He got actively aroused by frightening women.

I heard the wire tap of him and the Italian model this morning, it's horrifying. While I'd say the whole "hey come on, you're misreading this, you're being crazy, I just want to talk, don't be rude" patter is familiar to most women reading, the fact that the woman is sobbing and begging really ups the rotten factor.

"Don't embarrass me" "I'm a famous guy"

The weight of badgering and pestering, the aggression and entitlement, he's the whole harassment package.

His brothers statement strikes me as a little hollow. If anyone had the power to confront HW, it was his brother and partner.

strandroad

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Bob saying Harvey has no remorse and that he effectively divorced him years ago:

Did he.

He refused to discuss certain specifics, such as the claim in The New York Times that he and the board were aware of Harvey’s settlements with women during Harvey’s most recent contract negotiation [2015]

And this is how he would manage their employees who were bullied by HW:

I would often counsel people and say, “You know what, you have a choice here. Leave. Leave, please leave.” I don't know why some of them stayed.

Billy86

Candie wrote: »

"Don't embarrass me" "I'm a famous guy"

The weight of badgering and pestering, the aggression and entitlement, he's the whole harassment package.

His brothers statement strikes me as a little hollow. If anyone had the power to confront HW, it was his brother and partner.

And "you're causing a scene".

It's exactly how people get manipulated and bullied into things they don't want to do. Plenty will straight say to f*** off, but plenty can also quite easily be coerced into doing something they don't want to because of this.

Also agree on the brother - both have reputations of simply not being nice guys (though not sure if Bob has any reputation for this kind of carry on) and much like the deal that Harvey pay off the legal fees/hush money which Bob was 100% aware of, this just strikes me as him trying to protect his investment and future earning potential.

suicide_circus

Skylinehead wrote: »

No.

worth a shot, we've gone so far down the rabbit hole already

While we lads all like to say "What kind of man wouldn't do anything?" and all that, if the victims won't go to the cops or report it then odds are they'll be asking confidants to keep it to themselves as well. I do think it's ridiculous that it apparently was always enough to stop the men doing anything.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

I read earlier today where one young lass who was on the road to more was assaulted by Weinstein and she confided in her costar Colin Firth. Who now expresses regret he only gave her sympathy at the time. She's forgiven him and confirmed he was supportive, but for me it begs the question what sort of "man" wouldn't take that crap further and at best have words with the abuser? Pitt at least did apparently take Weinstein to task(but stopped there). Jesus, you can call me old fashioned, but with so called "men" around like that, no wonder women were afraid to speak out.

You know something interesting, Wibbs? I've read people on here and elsewhere ask why people who knew didn't say anything? The same people would often understand why the victims themselves didn't.

But surely the people who knew didn't say anything for practically the same reasons; they knew it would also destroy their lives as well. Not just that, but it would still be their word against one of the most powerful people in the entertainment industry.

I don't think it has anything to do with, "oh, he's white and male, so he'll be listened to" - look what happened to Corey Feldman and David Icke, and numerous other people who are white and male and still weren't listened to.

People didn't say anything because of fear. Because of who Weinstein was.

PCeeeee

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You know something interesting, Wibbs? I've read people on here and elsewhere ask why people who knew didn't say anything? The same people would often understand why the victims themselves didn't.

But surely the people who knew didn't say anything for practically the same reasons; they knew it would also destroy their lives as well. Not just that, but it would still be their word against one of the most powerful people in the entertainment industry.

I don't think it has anything to do with, "oh, he's white and male, so he'll be listened to" - look what happened to Corey Feldman and David Icke, and numerous other people who are white and male and still weren't listened to.

People didn't say anything because of fear. Because of who Weinstein was.

You're dead right. But what Wibbs is saying needs to be said. Over and over again. Old fashioned as I no doubt am we should act when it is in our view morally right to do so. We might need encouragement to do so in the face of whatever might come our way afterward.

The saying of it by our peers makes us sure of ourselves and that's important.

server down

eviltwin wrote: »

Harvey's power to kill a career didn't just extend to the women he targeted, I'm sure it would have had an effect on anyone, male or female, who called him out on it and tried to put him in his place.

I find the entire thing almost beyond belief that one man seemed to have so much power that he could do this to so many people and get away with it for so long.

Oh don’t be naive. It can’t be one person.

server down

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You know something interesting, Wibbs? I've read people on here and elsewhere ask why people who knew didn't say anything? The same people would often understand why the victims themselves didn't.

But surely the people who knew didn't say anything for practically the same reasons; they knew it would also destroy their lives as well. Not just that, but it would still be their word against one of the most powerful people in the entertainment industry.

I don't think it has anything to do with, "oh, he's white and male, so he'll be listened to" - look what happened to Corey Feldman and David Icke, and numerous other people who are white and male and still weren't listened to.

People didn't say anything because of fear. Because of who Weinstein was.

David Icke isn’t listened to because he believes we are ruled by lizards.

I fail to see why say Ben Affleck could have his career destroyed at this stage. Or why reporting on one man would end careers. Unless it isn’t one man.

Also interesting how journalists have stayed away. Sure there were “sexism in Hollywood” stores about not enough female leads. Or Oscars. Not this.

eviltwin

server down wrote: »

Oh don’t be naive. It can’t be one person.

Its not just one person, its a trickle effect, I doubt he was the only person involved in this kind of activity but he's the most powerful, the one with the most to lose, the biggest name so he's the one who is getting the heat.

conorhal

Deleted User wrote: »

You know something interesting, Wibbs? I've read people on here and elsewhere ask why people who knew didn't say anything? The same people would often understand why the victims themselves didn't.

But surely the people who knew didn't say anything for practically the same reasons; they knew it would also destroy their lives as well. Not just that, but it would still be their word against one of the most powerful people in the entertainment industry.

I don't think it has anything to do with, "oh, he's white and male, so he'll be listened to" - look what happened to Corey Feldman and David Icke, and numerous other people who are white and male and still weren't listened to.
People didn't say anything because of fear. Because of who Weinstein was.

As much as you might disagree with such a person, Lauren Southern made a great response to exactly what you're talking about.
The thrust of her point about why people didn't speak out earlier is that 'it's better to be wrong too late, then it is to be right too early' (just ask Galileo).
If you are a lone voice crying in the wilderness you will be dismissed, worse, you might just end up like John the Baptist, a head on a plate.
That's a legitimate fear. I wouldn't judge anybody for feeling it.

In the 90's Miramax dominated the Oscar's and if you wanted one you had to do business with Weinstein. As Southern points out, in a survey of 1,500 Oscar acceptance speeches, Weinstien was thanked more often than God. In 96' 22 of the top Oscar categories went to Miramax backed film's all the other major studios, combined bagged 5.
But, fear protect the establishment.
It's interesting how Weinstien, now that he has no power, has become Hollywood's 'scape-goat', and I mean that in the original sense of the phrase, back when a tribe would pin the sins of the tribe to an animal and send it out into the wilderness so that retribution would fall on it and not them.
It's interesting how an industry in which the 'casting couch' as been around since it's inception has chosen to lump it's sins on one individual and cast him into the desert but little has been said about the systemic nature of the problem, nor have other names leaked out (except on social media).
The goat has been cast into the wilderness, God's, look not upon our tribe!

server down

eviltwin wrote: »

Its not just one person, its a trickle effect, I doubt he was the only person involved in this kind of activity but he's the most powerful, the one with the most to lose, the biggest name so he's the one who is getting the heat.

Is he? His studio wasn’t the biggest. The only way a threat like “you’ll never work in this town again” works is if it true. Therefore other studio heads are providing cover.

JupiterKid

The BBC news website is saying that the Board of the Academy Awards is meeting to "review" Weinstein's membership.

This smells to me like a circling of the wagons - Weinstein will be sacrificed for the "greater good" of perpetuating the Hollywood entertainment industry. There's just too much at stake for them if this scandal widens to bring other big players down - it's all about the money. Sickening.:mad:

We shall see how this all pans out. But Tinseltown seems desperate to limit the damage and preserve the status quo.

Meanwhile, Weinstein is reportedly at a treatment facility somewhere undisclosed in Europe.

conorhal

JupiterKid wrote: »

The BBC news website is saying that the Board of the Academy Awards is meeting to "review" Weinstein's membership.

This smells to me like a circling of the wagons - Weinstein will be sacrificed for the "greater good" of perpetuating the Hollywood entertainment industry. There's just too much at stake for them if this scandal widens to bring other big players down - it's all about the money. Sickening.:mad:

We shall see how this all pans out. But Tinseltown seems desperate to limit the damage and preserve the status quo.

Meanwhile, Weinstein is reportedly at a treatment facility somewhere undisclosed in Europe.

It's worth noting that as a nominee and winner, Roman Polanski is a voting member, who anally raped a 13yr old girl that he drugged up, but that's fine as long as it's not a 'trending topic'.

meeeeh

server down wrote: »

David Icke isn’t listened to because he believes we are ruled by lizards.

I fail to see why say Ben Affleck could have his career destroyed at this stage. Or why reporting on one man would end careers. Unless it isn’t one man.

Also interesting how journalists have stayed away. Sure there were “sexism in Hollywood” stores about not enough female leads. Or Oscars. Not this.

The article in New Yorker explains how journalists were trying for years to publish something yet every time either the witnesses backed of or legal treaths were sent. I'm not saying all journalists are blameless but there is a reason journalists can't just name someone without having water tight proof.

server down

meeeeh wrote: »

The article in New Yorker explains how journalists were trying for years to publish something yet every time either the witnesses backed of or legal treaths were sent. I'm not saying all journalists are blameless but there is a reason journalists can't just name someone without having water tight proof.

Yes. Fair enough. However I notice that there was plenty of reports on Uber’s toxic misogyny and general misogyny in IT (nothing like this scale - Uber aside).

tara73

JupiterKid wrote: »

Meanwhile, Weinstein is reportedly at a treatment facility somewhere undisclosed in Europe.

He's in Europe??:eek: How can they let this piece of sh*** fly out? So many people with much lesser skeletons in the closet get on the 'no fly list' in a wink, but this person can fly out. He will most likely never coming back to the US to avoid any conviction, like his counterpart Polanski.

Do you have a source for this?

pitifulgod

tara73 wrote: »

He's in Europe??:eek: How can they let this piece of sh*** fly out? So many people with much lesser skeletons in the closet get on the 'no fly list' in a wink, but this person can fly out. He will most likely never coming back to the US to avoid any conviction, like his counterpart Polanski.

Do you have a source for this?

He din't end up going to Europe in end, he's in Arizona rehab.
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/harvey-weinstein-diner-arizona-restaurant-rehab-article-1.3560418

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

There has been a lot of talk about 'enablers' of sexual assault and paedophilia, which is something I want to talk about.

There is rarely one predator operating on their own. There is an entire support group who are prepared to procure, traffic, threaten, intimidate, and dismiss victims.

To use a crude analogy: if the predator is the frontman, then they enablers are the backstage crew.

It's the PR assistant who looks the other way.
It's the journalist who takes a kickback to kill a story.
It's the cop who is on the payroll to pass information.
It's the doctor and medical staff who leak confidential patient notes.
It's the fellow celebrities who don't want to get involved.
It's the ruthless legal team who will crush a victim without mercy as long as they get paid.
It's the two faced politician who claims to be a feminist but protects rapists.
And it's the general public who pretend they never knew what was going on, or blame the victims because of what they wore.

Take a lot at the enablers in this BBC clip. It's the suited and booted PR people who immediately shut down the questions about Weinstein with a joking-but-serious "I think we're going to pass on that one".

Immediate shutdown.

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-41619317/harvey-weinstein-allegations-exploring-hollywood-s-casting-couch-culture


Know your enemy. It isn't just the predator who needs to be held accountable.

The one thing these rats don't like is expose and publicity. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. And they'll turn on each other in two seconds flat to save themselves. They use divide and conquer tactics on us; but they are equally vulnerable. The one thing they've never fully to able to control is information and communication.

Their power structure is a paper tiger. Any bit of sustained pressure at all and it will collapse in on itself.

You may not realise it, but you have woken up in the age of information warfare. And that's what this is: full blown warfare.

And everyone has the potential to be a General just by keeping themselves informed and relaying accurate information. The internet has levelled the playing field. The collective intelligence available to us has the power to destroy these people overnight if we use it properly. Knowledge truly is power.


So dig, dig, dig.

tara73

I don't really get this rehab thing. Oh, he's going into Rhab and --boof-- he comes out and is a cleansed, great character person?? what a nonsense.

or does a voluntarily Rehab visit has any advantages in case it all gets to court..? I think it was mentioned somewhere beforehand. he just does it for his own advantages again.

what a disgrace, all words fail here. which therapist wants to have anything to do with this scum. but oh, there's money involved, sure they 'cure' him..yaaaawn.

PCeeeee

PCeeeee wrote: »

You're dead right. But what Wibbs is saying needs to be said. Over and over again. Old fashioned as I no doubt am we should act when it is in our view morally right to do so. We might need encouragement to do so in the face of whatever might come our way afterward.

The saying of it by our peers makes us sure of ourselves and that's important.

See - it's easy to say it when you're not in that situation. But if I were in one of absolute and total fear of the consequences, then I don't know what I'd do, truth be told.

server down

tara73 wrote: »

I don't really get this rehab thing. Oh, he's going into Rhab and --boof-- he comes out and is a cleansed, great character person?? what a nonsense.

or does a voluntarily Rehab visit has any advantages in case it all gets to court..? I think it was mentioned somewhere beforehand. he just does it for his own advantages again.

what a disgrace, all words fail here. which therapist wants to have anything to do with this scum. but oh, there's money involved, sure they 'cure' him..yaaaawn.

An old history teacher of mine said that rehab is like confession. Confess and be cleansed of and forgiven for your sins. The catholic church might expect you to reform afterwards though. Rehab just takes the money.

server down

[Deleted User] wrote: »

See - it's easy to say it when you're not in that situation. But if I were in one of absolute and total fear of the consequences, then I don't know what I'd do, truth be told.

I’m trying to work out how otherwise mouthy multi millionaires would be in total fear of one guy.

server down

server down wrote: »

I’m trying to work out how otherwise mouthy multi millionaires would be in total fear of one guy.

Not just one guy. Someone with powerful friends who could destroy your career, no matter who you are. Someone else mentioned about Reese Witherspoon and how she vanished and how they wouldn't be surprised if it had been because of Weinstein.

We don't know how many other people had their careers vanish for certain.