Harvey Weinstein

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

Bottom line: Sexual harassment is wrong.

What's going on with Weinstein isn't new, it's just the he's the newest famous guy to fall from grace for this kind of thing.

The truly scary thing is how many people (and I say people because while it may be mostly men it's NOT all men) do NOT fall from grace despite doing as bad as Weinstein did or worse for most of their lives.

There's an old saying: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Sexual abuse almost always comes from a situation in which one person has significant power over the other.

This problem isn't going to away any time soon and probably won't go away ever, but if public implosions like Weinstein can at least cause some people to rethink their actions it's a start.

[Canarr]

Bottom line: Sexual harassment is wrong.

Signed.

You're right in saying that power corrupts; and Hollywood is probably the one industry where corruption can run even more rampant than elsewhere. Considering the millions of (wannabe) young actors and actresses streaming into town, all looking to become famous, all scraping by doing whatever jobs they can - unless they know or meet someone who can make their name.

And now that the bomb's gone off, apparently Weinstein's activities were at one time an open secret, and at the same time totally unknown to anyone. Actors, producers, directors, journalists - of either gender - have spoken up with different versions of either, "I had no idea!" or "Well, I tried to do something, but nobody would support me!"

That's probably easier to justify, both to oneself and to others, than, "Yes, I knew, but I kept quiet. Why? Well, he produced my movie/cast me in a movie/promoted my clothing line/bought my story..."

Yeah, from all appearances, Weinstein's been a tremendous asshole for 30+ years. But he had tons of willing helpers. Men and women.

[jackfaire]

From every story I heard of Weinstein prior to this incident I heard I got the impression that Weinstein was an asshole.

He was already not a likable guy. Sadly that seems to be a factor. I will admit we are seeing more people called out for this in the last decade than previously but sadly there are factors that will probably keep this happening for a good long while.

If you look at Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein there is a common factor. They were taken down by people who had either achieved greater power than themselves or they lost their power.

By the time anyone gave a shit about something we all (the general public) knew Bill Cosby had done a full decade had passed and took another comedian going "hey remember that thing we all knew about yeah that's still a thing and we've literally never done anything about it"

But when he said that Bill Cosby hadn't really been influential anymore so he was suddenly a target. Now he could be taken down for his actions and justice could happen.

The people taking down Weinstein have eclipsed his power. They are more powerful than him justice can be done.

What this says to all of the other victims and victimizers out there is that they still can't do anything. Until we believe a victim and take down a person of power at the point they did something instead of waiting for the victim to either have more power or the victimizer to have less then we still won't be tackling the actual problem.

[Canarr]

What this says to all of the other victims and victimizers out there is that they still can't do anything. Until we believe a victim and take down a person of power at the point they did something instead of waiting for the victim to either have more power or the victimizer to have less then we still won't be tackling the actual problem.

That is the core of the issue here: believing a victim. It's an easy slogan to shout, but a difficult concept to fit within rule of law.

Basically, you don't have a victim unless a crime was committed. And you don't *legally* know a crime was committed until

a) someone made a report with the police.
b) a prosecutor filed the corresponding charge with the court.
c) the duly appointed court finds accordingly and sentences the perpetrator.

Example: having money taken from me makes me the victim of theft. But - if I wanted to accuse anyone of being a thief, I would need to supply some sort of proof that he actually took my money. Merely making the claim on social media to all of my seven Twitter followers doesn't make it true. Especially if I don't actually go to the police, because the person in question is very powerful - or maybe, because he promised me something else in return.

From all accounts, the people Harvey Weinstein sponsored did extremely well. His support could mean the difference between movie roles winning you an Oscar, and modelling at the opening of a new car salon. So, it's not entirely inconceivable that some of the people who now claim they were being victimized actually profited quite handsomely from their victimization at some point.

There will always be people with money and status who are willing to use either or both to acquire sexual favors. And there will always be people with youth and beauty who are willing to use either or both in order to acquire resources they lack. Consequently, there will always be Weinsteins, and there will always be those he preys upon and who simultaneously profit from it. Especially in a place like Hollywood.

Maybe if prostitution were legal, things might be different. Who knows.

[jackfaire]

Except it's a double-edged sword. Yeah sure Quid Pro Quo can benefit the person hell if it doesn't they wouldn't give in to it. The problem is that it's a double edged sword.

Choosing not to do things usually doesn't end up with the person saying "okay cool no hard feelings" It usually results in the person hitting you with the stick instead until you either fall in line or you go away and find another career.

They are victims because they're choices are limited to "do it and get the career you deserve to get through hard work or don't and be run out of town"

In every company I have ever been hired for every employee manual talks about how Quid Pro Quo is sexual harassment. It's incredibly rare for someone to say, "Oh yeah (powerful person) totally propositioned me when I was up and coming. I said no and they accepted the no and then didn't stand in my career at all"

Usually what we get is either "I went along and naturally got the rewards" or "they never propositioned me"

The people who reported it were nobodies. No one cares when they report it and predators aren't stupid enough to give them proof usually.

I was harassed in the Army for the simple fact that I treated women like equals and my squad leader felt that women were little better than property. He made damn sure he never harassed me anywhere where others were present. I was only 20 and not used to that kind of behavior and nothing in my high school diploma said "if someone's pressuring you to do things their way do (x)"

I eventually reported him and was basically told without proof there was nothing that could be done. Being the military I couldn't even refuse to be alone with him. I even tried to get a transfer to another squad but due to the rules at the time he got veto power over my transfer and no one high enough was willing to override his decision eventually ending up with me leaving the military.

The treatment I was receiving was that he wanted to dictate to me how I run my house, raised my daughter, where I lived (beyond the reasonable near base rule that all soldiers have to follow) and what I drove. He wanted to control every aspect of my life beyond those he had the right to.

Actors and Actresses being subjected to this usually have two choices suck it up and possibly become someone or cut your losses and find another career.

"profiting" from being a victim doesn't make it better. It actually makes it worse. It tends to lead people to say "Well yeah but look how well they're doing"

[s_stabeler]

It's actually simpler than that. There are far more aspiring actresses in hollywood than actually make it- so "If you don't sleep with me you could miss out on your big break" is itself often enough- which is unfair on people who may well deserve to get the break, but aren't willing to sleep with someone to get it.

Basically, it's in a similar category to teachers offering to sleep with students for better grades- in that case, it means there can be a temptation to mark students down to encourage them to sleep with the teacher.( or at least the student may worry about such- it's kind of irrelevant which)

[Canarr]

I'm not saying it's right. But I think it's inevitable. People are like that.

What I *am* saying that all those Hollywood people expressing shock about Weinstein are a bunch of hypocrites and liars. "No, of course I didn't know about that!"

There's this video of Courtney Love from 2005 where she warns young actresses from accepting invitations for private hotel parties with Weinstein. Love claims she was blacklisted by CAA for that.

People knew.

[jackfaire]

I'm not saying it's right. But I think it's inevitable. People are like that.

People knew.

I am not saying no one knew. Absolutely some people knew. But what we forget after the fact is that there are degrees of Knowing.

If all you ever hear about your boss is rumors and gossip the tendency is to dismiss them. "I heard from Nancy who heard from Bob who heard from Carlos that Jane got a private meeting if you know what I mean"

That's not knowing. Knowing would be the person whom Jane confided in, the person the boss bragged to, or the janitor that walked in on it.

Everyone else is being asked to create a mob and grab pitchforks based on rumors and gossip something we spend actual class-time teaching kids not to do.

Seriously look at the non-Hollywood world. How often have jealous rivals made sure everyone "knew" that X person got her job by sleeping with the boss. It's practically a trope by this point.

When you KNOW it should absolutely be taken seriously. Outrage and shock should be the reaction.

But wait you don't get outraged and shocked because you use to joke about your nice neighbor "ha it's always the quiet ones" turning out to be a serial killer even though you've probably made the joke about every quiet neighbor you've ever had.

I agree if someone is all "I am shocked and outraged" and second person is all "but I told you about when he did it to me, you walked in on it, he bragged about it to you" then yeah we should judge them, but we shouldn't assume they just automatically knew it to be true and not gossip.

[Greenday]

Kevin Spacey - What a jackass. "I totally don't remember this incident at all. But I'm sorry for what I did while I was drunk. Also, I'm closeted gay so that probably affected it."

So he doesn't remember the incident at all but he remembers being drunk when it happened? How does that work?

And then goes on to discredit homosexuality at the same time. Piece of shit.

[s_stabeler]

To be fair:
1. the incident was something like a decade ago, so I suspect it's more "I can't remember exactly what happened, so I can't really confirm it, but since I ws drunk at the time, they are probably not lying"
2. If you read what he said, he outright said HIS behaviour was unacceptable- which, IMHO, makes some difference (as in, most celebs claim they did nothing wrong- he at least acknowledges he did something wrong.
3. I don't think he blamed his homosexuality- it's more a case of either unfortunate timing in when he chose to come out, or this prompted him to decide to come out.

don't get me wrong- what he did wasn't acceptable, however i'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt that he's grown up since.

[Canarr]

Well, according to this article,

a) it was 30 years ago
b) Spacey's saying he doesn't remember
c) he said "if" that happened, it “would have been deeply inappropriate drunken behavior”

No idea if Spacey is an abusive jackass, or if he just had too much to drink and put the moves on someone who was way too young for him to do that.

[Greenday]

Well, according to this article,

a) it was 30 years ago
b) Spacey's saying he doesn't remember
c) he said "if" that happened, it “would have been deeply inappropriate drunken behavior”

No idea if Spacey is an abusive jackass, or if he just had too much to drink and put the moves on someone who was way too young for him to do that.

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ha...-actor-n816336

Did he forget about the last decade?

[Canarr]

From the article you quote, Spacey hasn't commented on that one yet.

Personally, I agree with you: it very strongly seems that Spacey has a similar history of harassment as Weinstein has. But so far, seeming is all there is, so he deserves the benefit of the doubt.

[Canarr]

Can I just add that some of these "metoo" harassment allegations are getting to be downright ridiculous?

In the UK, the Deputy PM is under investigation for his alleged behavior against a younger female journalist. What did he do?

In an article in The Times on November 1, Maltby claimed Green put "a fleeting hand against my knee - so brief, it was almost deniable".

And allegedly, he sent her a text asking her out. Green has denied both allegations, but he's still being investigated. For maybe, briefly, putting a hand on someone's knee.

Of course, if you ask Tory MP Anna Soubry, then he "he should go further and step aside from his key Cabinet role while the matter is looked into".

Why? Well, because "to me, as an old criminal barrister it looks like a pattern of behaviour, it’s difficult to believe it would be the first time".

It's not even sure that anything actually happened, at all, much less that it happened repeatedly. But apprently, the mere allegation that something maybe happened should be enough for a politician to step down from his office?

Yes, sexual harassment is horrible, and should be punished according to the law. But "I think maybe he touched my knee!" isn't sexual harassment, and to try and frame it as such does a huge disservice to actual victims of sexual harassment and violence.

[Greenday]

But "I think maybe he touched my knee!" isn't sexual harassment, and to try and frame it as such does a huge disservice to actual victims of sexual harassment and violence.

It is absolutely sexual harassment. It's an unwanted sexual advance. That's an inappropriate thing to do to someone at work and the kind of thing that leads to much worse if left unchecked. Because it really IS a slippery slope. If you can get away with a hand on someone's knee, what else can you get away with? A hand on the thigh? Arm around the waist? Hugging someone closely from behind?

No unwanted contact, period. No one should have to deal with that.