Harvey Weinstein and #MeToo/sexual misconduct scandals

PlaneSpeeking

PlaneSpeeking wrote:

Thank the Lord for the ignore option.

Oh, yes. Someone calla you on your hateful woman hating bull and you can't justify so hit ignore and feel like you've won.

p to the e wrote:

Does it have to be one or the other? There are women who he may have forced himself upon. There are women who may have gladly bedded him. There are women who may have gladly bedded him and then regretted it. There are women who may have been raped but have never said anything. It's not black and white and now it's up to the courts to decide.

We know that but he to say he is a sleaze and not a rapist does a disservice to the women whose lives he ruined. Plenty of women used him to get ahead, they are the ones saying nothing. It is the women he forced himself upon violently that are speaking out b

p to the e wrote:

My other concern in all of this is why is Weinstein the only one that seems to be targetted. I can guarantee that there are many producers who have been just as lecherous yet nothing.

There are plenty of others being investigated, these things take time and again your use or wording downplays what he did. Weinstein wasn't lecherous, he was a rapist.

p to the e

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh, yes. Someone calla you on your hateful woman hating bull and you can't justify so hit ignore and feel like you've won.



We know that but he to say he is a sleaze and not a rapist does a disservice to the women whose lives he ruined. Plenty of women used him to get ahead, they are the ones saying nothing. It is the women he forced himself upon violently that are speaking out b



There are plenty of others being investigated, these things take time and again your use or wording downplays what he did. Weinstein wasn't lecherous, he was a rapist.

You know what I think this is my main problem. I'm focussing more on the people who got ahead and are saying nothing rather than those that have had their lives ruined. Please don't misunderstand me and think I'm defending this toilet brush of a person but maybe I'm just focussing on the wrong aspect of the case.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote:

I think that people like you are as bad as Weinstein, I hate McGowan but to say that she is making this up is just nonsense. Is it any wonder women don't report when they are judged by backwards members of the public like this.

People who don't automatically believe all women are just as bad as someone you claim is a serial rapist. That's some incredible comparison.

Deleted User wrote:

Quick question, if you sister, wife, mom was raped and told you about it would you tell them that until the man was convicted that we could not judge them. Would you then ask them if maybe he was just a sleaze and they were into it for their own benefit? Or is it only famous women you refuse to believe and assume are all making it up.

That's pretty much an example of why juries are meant to be unbiased. Obviously if it was a family member who I trusted I would believe them. Its down to the fact that I know their character.

If your son/husband/brother was accused of rape would you automatically think him guilty or is it just famous men that you are willing to pre judge without due process?

Deleted User wrote:

Oh, yes. Someone calla you on your hateful woman hating bull and you can't justify so hit ignore and feel like you've won.

It's not a win. Its just frustrating and not worth the time to continously have to explain to someone who won't listen.

Women hating? Jesus wept.

Theboinkmaster

Deleted User wrote: »

Saying you think McGowan is lying because she hasn't the talent to make it as an actress is bull****. Plenty of very successful and talentless people male it all the time. McGowan starred in a huge TV show and never has to work again, maybe she chose not to. Saying things like, did he force her is classic victim blaming.

I think people like Rose McGowan and Corey Feldman are harmful to #metoo and sexual assault victims in general.

I've no doubt they've been victims of sexual assault but my god they've capitalised on it and riding it for all it's worth for more fame and money.

She's got a new E! reality show off the back of it and he's trying to raise money to make a film etc.

Also people like Natalie Portman and Merly Streep are also harming it by being self-serving absolute hypocrites (supporting Roman Polanski etc.).

PlaneSpeeking

Deleted User wrote: »

People who don't automatically believe all women are just as bad as someone you claim is a serial rapist. That's some incredible comparison.



That's pretty much an example of why juries are meant to be unbiased. Obviously if it was a family member who I trusted I would believe them. Its down to the fact that I know their character.

If your son/husband/brother was accused of rape would you automatically think him guilty or is it just famous men that you are willing to pre judge without due process?



It's not a win. Its just frustrating and not worth the time to continously have to explain to someone who won't listen.

Women hating? Jesus wept.

I'm actually a woman too - mumble mumble internalised misogyny or whatever the phrase is.

I miss the days when women in film were encouraged to stand up for themselves genuinely - Bette Davis going toe to toe with her studio e.g.

Now it's 30 year old unfounded rumours that will never see the the inside of a police station let alone a courtroom.

Add to that the diametrically opposing views of gender/colour blind casting vs witchhunts of Scarlett Johannson and others for playing roles they aren't in real life (which I thought was the premise of acting ???).

You fear we'll never see another classic film ever again. Even Danny Boyle's new Bond is alleged to be for the me too generation. God help us film fans.

pixelburp

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I'm actually a woman too - mumble mumble internalised misogyny or whatever the phrase is.

I miss the days when women in film were encouraged to stand up for themselves genuinely - Bette Davis going toe to toe with her studio e.g.

Now it's 30 year old unfounded rumours that will never see the the inside of a police station let alone a courtroom.

As I already posted [*] , Weinstein is being prosecuted based on 2 separate accounts brought forward. If he flies to the UK it sounds like he'd be charged there too - so whatever about McGowen being singled out for criticism, there's a glut of evidence that Weinstein took the casting couch to a whole new level. This is clearly more than just 'unfounded rumour'.

Not to really delve into the slippery slope of equivalence, but the Jimmy Saville case was based on 30+ year old rumours, stories surfaced of victims having even gone to the police, only to have complaints ignored or buried. Powerful people induce fear and influence, or else said power allows for wriggle room to get away with the worst behaviour. Weinstein is hardly the first abuser to find himself beyond repercussion.

* well, unless I'm ignored too

PlaneSpeeking

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I'm actually a woman too - mumble mumble internalised misogyny or whatever the phrase is.

Add to that the diametrically opposing views of gender/colour blind casting vs witchhunts of Scarlett Johannson and others for playing roles they aren't in real life (which I thought was the premise of acting ???).

A woman? Unaccompanied on the internet? I hope your husband is monitoring your usage!

The Scarlet Johannson thing is mental. Victim mentality in full swing.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote:

People who don't automatically believe all women are just as bad as someone you claim is a serial rapist. That's some incredible comparison.

If it was one woman maybe but dozens of women have came out to accuse him of rape. This is not some isolated incident but rather dozens of victims over a number of decades.

A lot of people on here are saying that these victims willing let Weinstein have sex with them to aid their career and are now calling it rape for some reason. It's crap like this that stops people reporting assaults.

Deleted User wrote:

That's pretty much an example of why juries are meant to be unbiased. Obviously if it was a family member who I trusted I would believe them. Its down to the fact that I know their character.

So if a family member says they were raped you believe them instantly but if its another person you have doubts. I take it if your mother was raped on the street and people were calling her a liar online you'd defend them doing so.

Deleted User wrote:

If your son/husband/brother was accused of rape would you automatically think him guilty or is it just famous men that you are willing to pre judge without due process?

I generally believe most women given that the majority of rapes go unreported and of those that do only 2-4%/ meaning that up to 96% of rape allegations are true.

Deleted User wrote:

It's not a win. Its just frustrating and not worth the time to continously have to explain to someone who won't listen.

I think people are listening, just done want to hear the repeated defence of men who have ruined the lives of dozens of women.

Deleted User wrote:

Women hating? Jesus wept.

It seems that way as so many people refuse to believe a crime took place unless a court says so. It's always the woman who is at fault, look at some of the comments here to see how all the blame is on the victim.

Theboinkmaster wrote:

I think people like Rose McGowan and Corey Feldman are harmful to #metoo and sexual assault victims in general.

They are making a career from it and I'd like to see both stop but at the same time they went though some awful horrible **** and maybe this is their way of coping. For too long what happened to Feldman and others was covered up and let happen.

PlaneSpeeking

Deleted User wrote: »

A woman? Unaccompanied on the internet? I hope your husband is monitoring your usage!

The Scarlet Johannson thing is mental. Victim mentality in full swing.

He's actually tied up in the basement where he will remain until he learns some manners.


** joke ** not married!!!!!

You've just admitted to being prejudiced and sexist. It's hard to have a meaningful discussion with someone who openly admits and knows that they will more often than not believe someone (and by affect disbelieve someone) based on their genitals.

Then you give out about people not believing a crime occurred without facts being presented? Of course that is what most rational people believe. When evidence or facts become clear, then its the right time to come to a judgement, not before then.

I wont even comment on the lunacy of "what if your mother was raped" scenarios that you keep trying to push. I'm against the death penalty but I'm sure if a family member was killed by a drunk driver I'd be clamouring for it. Emotions would cloud my judgement and I would be irrational.

PlaneSpeeking

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

He's actually tied up in the basement where he will remain until he learns some manners.


** joke ** not married!!!!!

Not surprised with that attitude. Women these days!!! ;);)

Sad Professor

Can we cool it down, folks, keep it friendly, etc. Thanks.

/mod

PlaneSpeeking

Deleted User wrote: »

Not surprised with that attitude. Women these days!!! ;);)

Why make one man happy and disappoint thousands ?!! :D:D

Outlaw Pete

Deleted User wrote: »

If it was one woman maybe but dozens of women have came out to accuse him of rape. This is not some isolated incident but rather dozens of victims over a number of decades.

Alleged victims. The following's worth a read:

https://penthouse.com/pages/asia-argento/Toxic-Femininity.php

Fysh

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Alleged victims. The following's worth a read:

https://penthouse.com/pages/asia-argento/Toxic-Femininity.php

Bearing in mind that link is to the website of a hardcore smut publisher, any chance you could either quote some of tue relevant text for folk or provide an alternative link that isn't going to trip webfilters for those e.g. using work wifi on their break?

p to the e

Fysh wrote: »

Bearing in mind that link is to the website of a hardcore smut publisher, any chance you could either quote some of tue relevant text for folk or provide an alternative link that isn't going to trip webfilters for those e.g. using work wifi on their break?

I usually use Google Translate to get around filters. There's nothing unsafe to see in or around the article.

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fpenthouse.com%2Fpages%2Fasia-argento%2FToxic-Femininity.php

PlaneSpeeking

p to the e wrote: »

I usually use Google Translate to get around filters. There's nothing unsafe to see in or around the article.

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fpenthouse.com%2Fpages%2Fasia-argento%2FToxic-Femininity.php

God that's a brilliant article - finally someone with the balls to write it.

pixelburp

What's the angle here anyway? Rose McGowan looks to be milking her ordeal, or may be an unreliable narrator in the story therefore ... poor Weinstein?

It's all well and good affecting some sense of fairness or equanimity against the raging hordes wielding hashtags, but we're talking about a situation with two open legal cases, one in which Weinstein has already been arrested and charged with rape of 2 women, while there are 10+ reports to the UK police of abuse, and the list of testimonies stretching into the dozens. What few I'd read of sounded of a man pretty much without restraint.

And again, let's not lose sight of the fact this was one instance of the many dirty, open secrets of Hollywood. Well knew about the 'casting couch', a hur-hur, sleazy kinda joke but a rotten cultural norm in a reactive industry. It was there, everyone looked the other way 'til I guess the shared online community went "nah, f*ck that".

I get there's a backlash against #metoo for a myriad of reasons, some saner than others, but to me this isn't some subtle outlier - this mutated into a demonstrable instance of one particular producer who took what was considered 'normal' in Hollywood and went wild.

PlaneSpeeking

pixelburp wrote: »

What's the angle here anyway? Rose McGowan looks to be milking her ordeal, or may be an unreliable narrator in the story therefore ... poor Weinstein? .

God no.

More like - Weinstein is a total perv, a completely disgusting man BUT young actresses with little discernable talent were happy to employ the age old casting couch way to the top.

Rose McGowan is one such example.

The backlash against me too etc hasn't been strong enough IMHO. It is a pathetic cowardly way of dealing with an issue that may or may not have happened but the most damaging aspect - and what Matt Damon was unfairly slagged off for - is that degrees of behaviour are being ignored.

I've had my a**e grabbed (elbowed the perp) and I have had unpleasantly lewd comments levied at me (told him to STFU). I am NOT a victim, I am not a survivor of sexual assault and I am certainly not a rape victim.

I resent these women lumping their minor, petty little crap in with genuine victims. It serves no end of harm to true victims - in my youth sexual assault was a serious crime, just stopping short of rape. I've heard an actress describe being asked for her phone number as such.

That's why there must be a fightback against me too and the professional victimhood.

PlaneSpeeking

pixelburp wrote: »

What's the angle here anyway? Rose McGowan looks to be milking her ordeal, or may be an unreliable narrator in the story therefore ... poor Weinstein?

It's all well and good affecting some sense of fairness or equanimity against the raging hordes wielding hashtags, but we're talking about a situation with two open legal cases, one in which Weinstein has already been arrested and charged with rape of 2 women, while there are 10+ reports to the UK police of abuse, and the list of testimonies stretching into the dozens. What few I'd read of sounded of a man pretty much without restraint.

And again, let's not lose sight of the fact this was one instance of the many dirty, open secrets of Hollywood. Well knew about the 'casting couch', a hur-hur, sleazy kinda joke but a rotten cultural norm in a reactive industry. It was there, everyone looked the other way 'til I guess the shared online community went "nah, f*ck that".

I get there's a backlash against #metoo for a myriad of reasons, some saner than others, but to me this isn't some subtle outlier - this mutated into a demonstrable instance of one particular producer who took what was considered 'normal' in Hollywood and went wild.

FYI - this doesn't mean convicted. He may well be but hasn't yet.

Sorry, I kinda like justice and due process and I'd like to save it from the Twitter Liberation Army (not you poster btw!)

pixelburp

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

FYI - this doesn't mean convicted. He may well be but hasn't yet.

Sorry, I kinda like justice and due process and I'd like to save it from the Twitter Liberation Army (not you poster btw!)

Obviously this entire thread is predicated on the issue of being open cases, every opinion here is broadly based off speculation - mine and yours. But when there's almost dizzying levels of testimony and cultural precedent at play, this isn't quite the same level of discussion as (say) a 'common' case of he-said-she-said in the local courts.

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

God no.

More like - Weinstein is a total perv, a completely disgusting man BUT young actresses with little discernable talent were happy to employ the age old casting couch way to the top.
[...]

Right, and the reverse applies too: not sitting on the couch looked to have got you blackballed as being trouble. As above, this is obviously based on testimony, but witness the ... he-said-she-said :rolleyes: of how Peter Jackson was warned off Ashley Judd and Mira Sorvino from being considered for the Lord of the Rings, the two later being one of the many accusers against Weinstein. Could have been tattle, sure & maybe they are/were bad to work with (not like that kind of gossip doesn't find its way into the public domain so happy to be corrected - same goes for the story in general), but can that be said of the other 90? There's a point where any reasoning has to go 'wait, hang on'. That's why they call it institutional abuse after all, if it just becomes part of the mechanics.

I've little doubt, Hollywood knew what was going on, but were happy to look the other way 'cos sure isn't that how it always works? Female actors have to sleep with a producer to get up the ladders. And so it goes.

It should be mentioned too, that this isn't entirely a situation limited to 'young actresses', given the accusations levelled against Kevin Spacey & Bryan Singer. Again, I'd infer knowledge of the abuse here given the speed with which the studios reacted (personally I'd read rumours about Spacey's behaviour a few years before Anthony Rapp spoke up). So is that also a right of passage for Rapp in his career, or different? Then there's the whole Roman Polanski issue, which just makes the subject an even larger nest of hypocritical vipers, but hey.

PlaneSpeeking

pixelburp wrote: »

Obviously this entire thread is predicated on the issue of being open cases, every opinion here is broadly based off speculation - mine and yours. But when there's almost dizzying levels of testimony and cultural precedent at play, this isn't quite the same level of discussion as (say) a 'common' case of he-said-she-said in the local courts.



Right, and the reverse applies too: not sitting on the couch looked to have got you blackballed as being trouble. As above, this is obviously based on testimony, but witness the ... he-said-she-said :rolleyes: of how Peter Jackson was warned off Ashley Judd and Mira Sorvino from being considered for the Lord of the Rings, the two later being one of the many accusers against Weinstein. Could have been tattle, sure & maybe they are/were bad to work with (not like that kind of gossip doesn't find its way into the public domain so happy to be corrected - same goes for the story in general), but can that be said of the other 90? There's a point where any reasoning has to go 'wait, hang on'. That's why they call it institutional abuse after all, if it just becomes part of the mechanics.

I've little doubt, Hollywood knew what was going on, but were happy to look the other way 'cos sure isn't that how it always works? Female actors have to sleep with a producer to get up the ladders. And so it goes.

It should be mentioned too, that this isn't entirely a situation limited to 'young actresses', given the accusations levelled against Kevin Spacey & Bryan Singer. Again, I'd infer knowledge of the abuse here given the speed with which the studios reacted (personally I'd read rumours about Spacey's behaviour a few years before Anthony Rapp spoke up). So is that also a right of passage for Rapp in his career, or different? Then there's the whole Roman Polanski issue, which just makes the subject an even larger nest of hypocritical vipers, but hey.

It's EXACTLY a he said-she said. Just on a bigger scale.

johnny_ultimate

I fully agree with due process and a fair trial. Harvey Weinstein is before a court facing serious charges and he’s as entitled to a proper, fair trial as much as anybody. A decision should be reached on the evidence associated with the allegations in question.

Equally, many of the allegations made against Weinstein will never be before a court for a plethora of reasons. Instead, we have almost a hundred women (quite a few of whom are among the most famous in the world) - and those corroborating those stories - and robust investigative reporting detailing a long history and pattern of misconduct. That, to me, is an overwhelming and persuasive indicator of someone who has caused a huge amount of distress through repugnant behaviour, and that’s leaving aside the allegations of serious crime. It’s not trial by social media - it’s instead the first-hand accounts of dozens of accusers and exemplary journalism. There are cases that have arisen from MeToo that I’ve found myself uncertain or uneasy about - Weinstein is not one of them, even if the most serious allegations must be seriously examined through the justice system.

Let the courts judge if any criminal conviction is justified. But so far Weinstein hasn’t received any reprimand beyond loss of reputation. Based on an ever-growing list of accusations from many, many people (only a fraction of whom could be in any way accused of ‘milking’ their allegations... although some of the ‘backlash’ to some of the more vocal accusers leaves me uncomfortable as well), that seems wholly justified and IMO leaves little room for doubt about the man’s behaviour.

PlaneSpeeking

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I fully agree with due process and a fair trial. Harvey Weinstein is before a court facing serious charges and he’s as entitled to a proper, fair trial as much as anybody. A decision should be reached on the evidence associated with the allegations in question.

Equally, many of the allegations made against Weinstein will never be before a court for a plethora of reasons. Instead, we have almost a hundred women (quite a few of whom are among the most famous in the world) - and those corroborating those stories - and robust investigative reporting detailing a long history and pattern of misconduct. That, to me, is an overwhelming and persuasive indicator of someone who has caused a huge amount of distress through repugnant behaviour, and that’s leaving aside the allegations of serious crime. It’s not trial by social media - it’s instead the first-hand accounts of dozens of accusers and exemplary journalism. There are cases that have arisen from MeToo that I’ve found myself uncertain or uneasy about - Weinstein is not one of them, even if the most serious allegations must be seriously examined through the justice system.

Let the courts judge if any criminal conviction is justified. But so far Weinstein hasn’t received any reprimand beyond loss of reputation. Based on an ever-growing list of accusations from many, many people (only a fraction of whom could be in any way accused of ‘milking’ their allegations... although some of the ‘backlash’ to some of the more vocal accusers leaves me uncomfortable as well), that seems wholly justified and IMO leaves little room for doubt about the man’s behaviour.

Response to bold phrases:

1. No smoke without fire is NOT a valid legal argument, yet. Thankfully.

2. It's exactly what it it is.

3. I refer you to Iago:

Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed

So basically what some are saying in this thread is that Weinstein is the unfortunate victim of toxic feminists. That many of the most famous actresses in the world have banded together to sully the reputation of this poor unfortunate man.

ffs, I've heard of lowering the bar but this takes the cake. That anyone could still support let alone defend Weinstein in anyway says a lot. So far almost, maybe even at this stage more than 100 women have came forward to accuse him of sexual assault and rape and we still have people defending him. You can link all the Playboy articles you want but at the end of the day 100 women have claimed that Weinstein raped them and I believe them. Its funny reading this thread and others as a handful of posters seem to be offended by women standing up for themselves, the words toxic feminism and third wave feminism pops up a lot and makes me wonder just how afraid of women having a voice are some men.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote:

So basically what some are saying in this thread is that Weinstein is the unfortunate victim of toxic feminists. That many of the most famous actresses in the world have banded together to sully the reputation of this poor unfortunate man.

Calm down Cathy Newman. What some people are saying is that all probability is pointing towards weinstein being a deviant. Let's let justice run its course.

Some are also saying that it certainly isn't beyond the realm of possibility that some people willing participated in sexual acts with weinstein in order to get roles and now are claiming assault on the back of genuine complaints.

There is no blaming here. Just some opinions. Tone down the outrage

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote:

Calm down Cathy Newman. What some people are saying is that all probability is pointing towards weinstein being a deviant. Let's let justice run its course.

The problem is that most will never get justice and this defending of Weinstein until he is convicted is ridiculous. There are people here defending are attacking those women who he abused. The last time someone tried to get justice from Weinstein he was able to pay off those investigating and then ruin a woman's life.

Deleted User wrote:

Some are also saying that it certainly isn't beyond the realm of possibility that some people willing participated in sexual acts with weinstein in order to get roles and now are claiming assault on the back of genuine complaints.

No one had denied this, but at the same time anyone using their position of power to coerce sex from another is a sexual offender. The problem is that many here are assuming that people like McGowan wasn't a victim but did it to forward her career based on what exactly?

Plenty of actresses made use of the casting couch but many defenders of Weinstein are now using this to try and say that Weinstein is some victim of evil feminists. Is it any wonder that so many victims don't go to the police when you see threads like this and people defending a man accused of raping over 100 women

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote:

Plenty of actresses made use of the casting couch but many defenders of Weinstein are now using this to try and say that Weinstein is some victim of evil feminists. Is it any wonder that so many victims don't go to the police when you see threads like this and people defending a man accused of raping over 100 women

I honestly haven't seen anyone defend him. I've seen people (rightly) saying that he is a very bad individual who will have his day in court

So all those people saying he's not a rapist and stating that these women voluntarily had sex with him to further their careers aren't defending them.

By your logic, Jimmy Saville is an innocent man unfairly judged by the media given that he was never found guilty of any crime.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote:

So all those people saying he's not a rapist and stating that these women voluntarily had sex with him to further their careers aren't defending them.

People saying that some women had consensual sex with him to further their career and in those cases, it wasn't rape are correct.

Nobody has the facts of any actual rape and are waiting to see what happens when the evidence is presented.

If rape is proved, I'm sure everyone hopes the book is thrown at him. Nobody is defending him.