Harvey Weinstein, et tu?
conandrob240 said:
no one's attacking the victim. What they endured was horrible. The fact that they chose to not discuss it years after it happened when they were in positions of power and influence , choosing instead to let it happen to countless others, is disgusting.
I don't know. There are plenty of successful men out there who were victimized by priests and yet remained silent for a whole variety of reasons. If we can understand why a CEO chose not to go public about what a priest did to him when he was a choir boy why can't we understand the same behavior in a successful actress?
Sexual assault is a VERY complicated phenomenon and I think it behooves us to use caution about who we blame (other than the perpetrator and his accomplices).
Speaking of accomplices, it seems to me that the folks who we should really be thinking about are the talent agents who knowingly sent young actresses into this monster's den.
Sweetsnuggles said:
The women who acted as honeypots are complicit.
I don't think I understand your post. Can you please elaborate?
Klinker said:
Speaking of accomplices, it seems to me that the folks who we should really be thinking about are the talent agents who knowingly sent young actresses into this monster's den.
You bring up a good point. Agents are skeezy as hck, but at what point to actrors/actresses accept responsibility for their actions? If a director accosts you and you quit, based on your morality good, report him and move on. Let it go on record. If he accosts you, you play along, get the role, get famous, then 10 years later suddenly have the moral compunction to accuse him then why do you get off scott free? Harvey Weinstein is a douchebag, but let's not treat this as a one way affront because it didn't happen in a vacuum. Along the way people were willing to put up with it to further their careers. Are they now blameless? Two sides to every story. Disgusting and amoral as it is.
I hate the title of this thread.
Harvey Weinstein, et tu?
As if he's one of us and we should be shocked by his behavior.
ElizMcCord said:
Klinker said:
Speaking of accomplices, it seems to me that the folks who we should really be thinking about are the talent agents who knowingly sent young actresses into this monster's den.
You bring up a good point. Agents are skeezy as hck, but at what point to actrors/actresses accept responsibility for their actions? If a director accosts you and you quit, based on your morality good, report him and move on. Let it go on record. If he accosts you, you play along, get the role, get famous, then 10 years later suddenly have the moral compunction to accuse him then why do you get off scott free? Harvey Weinstein is a douchebag, but let's not treat this as a one way affront because it didn't happen in a vacuum. Along the way people were willing to put up with it to further their careers. Are they now blameless? Two sides to every story. Disgusting and amoral as it is.
How about you report him, get black listed, find that your accusations don't get taken seriously and then get sued for libel? There are reasons that the less powerful don't always report abuse by the more powerful. As for what people do when they get a little fame and money under their belts, the Cosby case is a good example of the difficulties involved in bringing charges of sexual assault years or even decades after the fact.
I have to admit I am a little puzzled by the way a thread about a male rapist turned into a vehicle to bash his female victims. Its disappointing, really.
Klinker said:
I have to admit I am a little puzzled by the way a thread about a male rapist turned into a vehicle to bash his female victims. Its disappointing, really.
Seriously. This is like a microcosm of Twitter.
Yeah, except that's not at all what's happening.
Klinker said:
I have to admit I am a little puzzled by the way a thread about a male rapist turned into a vehicle to bash his female victims. Its disappointing, really.
Define accomplices. If I was a powerful actor and I knew what he had done and I choose to say nothing, am I an accomplice?
And I think this example of the Catholic Church assaults is a good one. Worth thinking about. This feels a bit different to me because of the dynamics but I need to think more about why. Something about a powerhouse like Streep or Pitt or Clooney knowing about this and doing nothing while they condemn the behavior in others just feels so disingenuous.
Klinker said:
conandrob240 said:
no one's attacking the victim. What they endured was horrible. The fact that they chose to not discuss it years after it happened when they were in positions of power and influence , choosing instead to let it happen to countless others, is disgusting.
I don't know. There are plenty of successful men out there who were victimized by priests and yet remained silent for a whole variety of reasons. If we can understand why a CEO chose not to go public about what a priest did to him when he was a choir boy why can't we understand the same behavior in a successful actress?
Sexual assault is a VERY complicated phenomenon and I think it behooves us to use caution about who we blame (other than the perpetrator and his accomplices).
Laws requiring mandatory reporting of an alleged sexual assault vary by state. Generally, mandated reporters are limited to medical personnel, licensed teachers/administrators, and nursing home administrators who are aware of a report of a sexual assault of a minor, elderly person, or someone who has been deemed incompetent. I do not believe that any state requires a person who has been told of an alleged sexual assault of a competent adult to report such an incident. Of course, if someone knowingly facilitated the sexual assault of another person, I assume that would be a crime under most state statutes. However, I can't imagine being aware of an alleged perpetrator of a past incident and not reporting that suspicion to police would constitute facilitation under most state laws.
While some may feel that anyone who has been told of an alleged sexual assault should report it to the authorities, it is a complicated issue. Many victims don't want the matter reported without their consent because it violates their privacy. In fact, when some states have attempted to pass laws requiring colleges (again, this is my reference point) to report all alleged sexual assaults, some victims advocates have expressed opposition by contending such laws over-ride the rights and interests of victims who should be allowed/empowered to make their own decision....essentially, it is thought to be tantamount to "outing" and re-victimizing them. Sure, one could call the police with a "tip" that John Doe might have sexually assaulted an unnamed person but without a victim or direct witness I am not sure what the police would do with that information.
Finally, should one (e.g. Clooney, Jolie, etc) just speak out publicly against an alleged perpetrator to accuse and denounce him/her? I'd have to think that is a challenging question because it could subject the speaker to civil action for defamation. Perhaps the public figure defense could apply in a case such as Weinstein but who knows...? How many of us on MOL would be willing to assume the risks of a public campaign actively labeling someone a rapist?
The 'honeypot' reference in one of the articles implied that when an actress had a meeting with HW, his assistant(s) would leave the room, closing the doors behind them, most likely knowing what would occur. But isn't this the role of most assistants? You bring the client into your boss' office and then leave? What were they supposed to say or do to prevent a possible assault? They too would be blackballed.
Forget about the other women whom you may think are complicit, what about the actors who knew, saw, walked in on and also said or did nothing? Why aren't they being held to the same standard as the women who "should have said something"?
They are [the actors and other non-victim "knowers"] - in fact, they are worse. You can make a case ( however thin in these circumstances)?for the victims not coming forward but to know or see this happening and not say anything makes you a spineless coward at best or complicit at worst.
kibbegirl said:
The 'honeypot' reference in one of the articles implied that when an actress had a meeting with HW, his assistant(s) would leave the room, closing the doors behind them, most likely knowing what would occur. But isn't this the role of most assistants? You bring the client into your boss' office and then leave? What were they supposed to say or do to prevent a possible assault? They too would be blackballed.
Forget about the other women whom you may think are complicit, what about the actors who knew, saw, walked in on and also said or did nothing? Why aren't they being held to the same standard as the women who "should have said something"?
As a woman, I do not blame another woman who is doing her job in getting me in the room with the man I have an appointment with. I cannot fully know whether she knew or not, the circumstances of what would possibly take place in that room. I blame the man groping me, the man threatening me and the man holding my working future hostage - in the same way he held the working future of his assistants hostage. Unless his assistants were acting as his pimp, I do not blame them. Don't know what a the salary of HW's assistants would be but it isn't enough to say what you think may have happened vs. having concrete evidence of what you know happened. And what actress is going to run out of his office and tell his assistant what occurred?
conandrob240 said:
They are [the actors and other non-victim "knowers"] - in fact, they are worse. You can make a case ( however thin in these circumstances)?for the victims not coming forward but to know or see this happening and not say anything makes you a spineless coward at best or complicit at worst.
kibbegirl said:
The 'honeypot' reference in one of the articles implied that when an actress had a meeting with HW, his assistant(s) would leave the room, closing the doors behind them, most likely knowing what would occur. But isn't this the role of most assistants? You bring the client into your boss' office and then leave? What were they supposed to say or do to prevent a possible assault? They too would be blackballed.
Forget about the other women whom you may think are complicit, what about the actors who knew, saw, walked in on and also said or did nothing? Why aren't they being held to the same standard as the women who "should have said something"?
I did not believe the claims of lack of knowledge by Streep and other stars before and I believe it less and less as more information comes out. They are the ones who could have done something because they were established stars who did not need to fear for their careers.
conandrob240 said:
Yeah, except that's not at all what's happening.
Klinker said:
I have to admit I am a little puzzled by the way a thread about a male rapist turned into a vehicle to bash his female victims. Its disappointing, really.
It certainly sounds like it to me. You just said yourself that the victims have a “thin” case for not coming forward and earlier you said that by saying nothing they are “somehow guilty of something”, as guilty of something as the men who said nothing but weren’t victimized.
If you can explain how we’re not supposed to take that as blaming the victim, I’d like to hear it.
Established doesn't mean you want to risk throwing your future career away. Hollywood still doesn't allow many women to become director's so if losing your standing as an actress was ruined because you announced what was going on, you won't be allowed to director, produce or solicit scripts either. It's over.
Since this was an open secret, one can only assume that the Meryl's of the industry warned others of his monstrous behavior and left it up to them on whether they wanted to work with him. My opinion is that many women chose to work with him. Not because they consented to assault but because they worked very hard at their craft, wanted to work in the industry and didn't allow the scary man to deter their career dreams.
ska said:
I did not believe the claims of lack of knowledge by Streep and other stars before and I believe it less and less as more information comes out. They are the ones who could have done something because they were established stars who did not need to fear for their careers.
This. I have no idea how I would react or what I would choose to do if, God forbid, this happened to me. It's even more complicated when this happens within your industry or workplace because this is now your livelihood and reputation at stake. Additionally, when reading the New Yorker article, it struck me how many of the victims felt guilty and continually second guessed whether they could have done something more to prevent this. I will not Monday morning quarterback what the victims chose to do or not do in this case. My anger and disgust lies solely with Weinstein.
Norman_Bates said:
I have worked closely with many victims, as well as with alleged perpetrators, of sexual assault on college campuses. The dynamics involved in making the decision to report are complicated and fraught with conflicting emotions. The one thing I've heard from many who made the decision to report was "I am doing this because I don't want others to be victimized in the same way." But, many others - for a variety of personal reasons - want desperately to place this horrific event and the associated emotions in a box and bury it as deeply in their subconscious as possible. Some doubt they will be taken seriously, some don't want others passing judgment on their personal lives, some just need time to process what was an unimaginable event, and many believe they will be tainted in the court of public opinion as much as the alleged perpetrator may be. This extends to concerns about careers, etc. such as "who will hire me if they think I'm trouble" and, for many college students, fear about the reactions of their parents.
Okay, Hollywood is not a college campus...I get that. But, my guess is that the human dynamics aren't all that different. I am no fan of Hollywood and the whole movie star thing but I cannot fault someone for making what is a very critical personal decision whether to come forward or not. Seeing accusatory post hoc judgments applied to others who have or have not come forward often serves to endorse the reasons more victims don't come forward. What I don't talk about can't hurt me. But, there is strength and comfort in numbers. We saw that with Bill Cosby. When others are willing to come forward, it helps to alleviate suspicions of "maybe I was the only one". It's also always a lot easier to sing in a choir than solo.
Who on earth said anything about blaming administrative assistants or the women working for him setting up the meetings? I never even thought about that. I would assume they had no knowledge unless there is evidence otherwise. i didn't hear anyone blaming assistants or schedulers. I know I certainly didn't.
kibbegirl said:
As a woman, I do not blame another woman who is doing her job in getting me in the room with the man I have an appointment with. I cannot fully know whether she knew or not, the circumstances of what would possibly take place in that room. I blame the man groping me, the man threatening me and the man holding my working future hostage - in the same way he held the working future of his assistants hostage. Unless his assistants were acting as his pimp, I do not blame them. Don't know what a the salary of HW's assistants would be but it isn't enough to say what you think may have happened vs. having concrete evidence of what you know happened. And what actress is going to run out of his office and tell his assistant what occurred?
conandrob240 said:
They are [the actors and other non-victim "knowers"] - in fact, they are worse. You can make a case ( however thin in these circumstances)?for the victims not coming forward but to know or see this happening and not say anything makes you a spineless coward at best or complicit at worst.
kibbegirl said:
The 'honeypot' reference in one of the articles implied that when an actress had a meeting with HW, his assistant(s) would leave the room, closing the doors behind them, most likely knowing what would occur. But isn't this the role of most assistants? You bring the client into your boss' office and then leave? What were they supposed to say or do to prevent a possible assault? They too would be blackballed.
Forget about the other women whom you may think are complicit, what about the actors who knew, saw, walked in on and also said or did nothing? Why aren't they being held to the same standard as the women who "should have said something"?
Exactly. Mr. Pitt was the partner to at least two women assailted/ harassed by him. Think about that. And before we go down the "confidentiality of victim" path ( which I fully support), I'm guessing there were ways these powerful men & women could "out" this without revealing all the exact specifics.
ska said:
I did not believe the claims of lack of knowledge by Streep and other stars before and I believe it less and less as more information comes out. They are the ones who could have done something because they were established stars who did not need to fear for their careers.
conandrob240 said:
I'm guessing there were ways these powerful men & women could "out" this without revealing all the exact specifics.
Right. Maybe they could go to the police and offer to wear a wire when they were with Weinstein. Oh.....wait..... someone did that and the result was a big fat nothing.
What you seem to be missing here is that this isn't so simple as just reporting a crime. Why don't you knock it off with your little anti victim crusade and try some empathy?
I have been FAR from anti- victim. That accusation is silly. There is no blame on the victim for what happened. There is possible accountability for victim silence for 25 years. And there's definite accountability for non-victims who knew but did and said nothing. They become accomplices.
If you had the power and money of some of these people, you could have shut this down with some well-placed press or boycott of his films. I can think of a number of different paths you could have taken to try to stop it. It wouldn't have been on you to prove criminality.
None of us knows how many industry wide scandals like this are occurring under everyone’s nose, but I’m sure there are more to come. Think for a minute about Scientology- that is modern day slavery and torture that is obvious to anyone who takes 5 minutes to look into it. I wish the Tom Cruises, Meryl Streep’s, and others would take a cue from Kaepernick and shut all this down.
No doubt you’ve all also been reading US versions of this article.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-11/references-to-harvey-weinstein-that-we-missed/9039152
I’m sure there was also a thinly veiled reference in one of the songs in Tell Me On a Sunday, but I can’t remember which. (I might also be confusing which Hollywood sleazebag was referenced)
conandrob240 said:
I have been FAR from anti- victim. That accusation is silly. There is no blame on the victim for what happened. There is possible accountability for victim silence for 25 years. And there's definite accountability for non-victims who knew but did and said nothing. They become accomplices.
If you had the power and money of some of these people, you could have shut this down with some well-placed press or boycott of his films. I can think of a number of different paths you could have taken to try to stop it. It wouldn't have been on you to prove criminality.
As someone who has been close to people who have suffered sexual abuse, I am happy for you that your life has been so free from this tragedy that you can make the statements you have made on this thread.
I very much hope that you and yours continue to enjoy this sort of blissful ignorance although, given the complexities that have been discussed here, it is entirely possible that any number of your loved ones and acquaintances have been victims, even if they have not shared that information with you. If, in the future, you find that to be the case, I hope that you will be easier on them than you have been on these folks.
Peace.
you have no idea what tragedies have occurred in my life to me or those close to me. And I'm neither blissful nor ignorant.
I have said a number of times I am not sure whether there's accountability on some of these victims part. I need to think on that a bit more and don't have enough detail. I do understand the psychological complexity. But part of me considers that an extremely powerful actress with Hollywood bloodlines, power, prestige and money galore was harassed and was privy to knowledge that this continued for 25 years, I think, yes, there may be some accountability there.
And if I was an observer in this (not a victim- hello Brad Pitt, Meryl Streep, George Clooney, add the dozens of other names here) with influence and wealth and power and did NOTHING than there is more than accountability there may be criminal complicity.
The women who acted as honeypots are complicit.