Harvey Weinstein: Why is it about so much more than Harvey Weinstein?

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

To be fair, Clinton lost his career. Outside of speaking engagements and the like. I suppose he probably shouldn't even get those given his history. Maybe this will lead to that.

Not really. He was (and still is) pretty popular. 

Ultimately the same reason he didn't get taken down is that his accusers weren't famous and beloved, and he was. Really, same reason Cosby wasn't either. That it was also at the same time period as Thomas/Hill, where people were thrown into the notion that this was 'just how men acted' and obviously these women were asking for it, etc, and it's a problem.

By comparison, note how fast people turned on Anthony Weiner. Things have changed somewhat, though mostly in liberal circles. Conservative ones still don't give a shit.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Not really. He was (and still is) pretty popular. 

Ultimately the same reason he didn't get taken down is that his accusers weren't famous and beloved, and he was. Really, same reason Cosby wasn't either. That it was also at the same time period as Thomas/Hill, where people were thrown into the notion that this was 'just how men acted' and obviously these women were asking for it, etc, and it's a problem.

By comparison, note how fast people turned on Anthony Weiner. Things have changed somewhat, though mostly in liberal circles. Conservative ones still don't give a shit.

I have to believe that worm has turned somewhat over the past few weeks. I doubt he continues to get much in the way of a pass, outside of the standard "ex-president" sort of luminary gigs.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

9 minutes ago, Dornite said:

His career seems to be pretty standard former president. He still campaigns for people and not just Hillary, he did some unofficial diplomacy for Obama, he has a foundation. He does fundraisers, disaster relief and so on.

Yeah, that's fair. I hope this event does effect his public stature negatively. I think he has earned it.

[Dr. Pepper]

I have to admit that I've been wondering if Bill Clinton has been trembling in his boots with the sexual harassment headlines this week.  The public nearly drove Monica Lewinsky to suicide with the way they treated her after it was discovered that her extremely powerful boss had sexual relations with her.  If you were a woman being sexually harassed or assaulted during that time, the way the public handled Clinton's accusers and victims made it nearly too terrifying to report.  Even a year ago when I expressed disgust that Bill had such a prominent place in Hillary's campaign, people were quick to defend with excuses that nothing was proven (even though it was in at least one case) and that the accusers were politically motivated and couldn't be trusted and that it was a long time ago or they went super gross with "but trump is worse".  Maybe the events of the last couple of weeks will push Bill out of the public eye for good, because he's a constant reminder that victims have no power.  

[Zorral]

4 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I have to admit that I've been wondering if Bill Clinton has been trembling in his boots with the sexual harassment headlines this week.  The public nearly drove Monica Lewinsky to suicide with the way they treated her after it was discovered that her extremely powerful boss had sexual relations with her.  If you were a woman being sexually harassed or assaulted during that time, the way the public handled Clinton's accusers and victims made it nearly too terrifying to report.  Even a year ago when I expressed disgust that Bill had such a prominent place in Hillary's campaign, people were quick to defend with excuses that nothing was proven (even though it was in at least one case) and that the accusers were politically motivated and couldn't be trusted and that it was a long time ago or they went super gross with "but trump is worse".  Maybe the events of the last couple of weeks will push Bill out of the public eye for good, because he's a constant reminder that victims have no power.  

But Lewinsky was totally consensual and she wasn't underage.  It was neither harassment nor rape -- and she didn't bring the suit or case, the republican party did.

He was STUPID in the extreme, of course, and we all have had to pay for his stupidity.  What I'd really like, is for him to pay for the consequences of his Telecommunications Act of 1996.  But then, I guess he did -- Hillary lost the election, and lost it very much due to now the media can be bought, consolidated and held by single obscenely wealthy powerful individuals, some of whom aren't even US citizens.  You all recall that it used to be unlawful for a single individual or corp to own both television and newspapers, both radio and newspapers, etc.

[Dr. Pepper]

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

But Lewinsky was totally consensual and she wasn't underage.  It was neither harassment nor rape -- and she didn't bring the suit or case, the republican party did.

 

 

Except he was not only her boss but also the POTUS, one of the most powerful people in the world.  That made it highly inappropriate regardless if she offered consent.  It's one of those situations where full consent is nearly impossible to ascertain, which is why most agencies private and public will forbid relationships with such power differentials.   An HR department of many companies would hold Bill accountable for his actions.  

And in any case, Bill had a number of accusers.  My point in bring up Lewinsky in particular was how she was treated by the press even though every reasonable person understood the relationship to be highly inappropriate and one that Bill should have never pursued considering he held such a great position of power over her.  

[Zorral]

5 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

 

Except he was not only her boss but also the POTUS, one of the most powerful people in the world.  That made it highly inappropriate regardless if she offered consent.  It's one of those situations where full consent is nearly impossible to ascertain, which is why most agencies private and public will forbid relationships with such power differentials.   An HR department of many companies would hold Bill accountable for his actions.  

And in any case, Bill had a number of accusers.  My point in bring up Lewinsky in particular was how she was treated by the press even though every reasonable person understood the relationship to be highly inappropriate and one that Bill should have never pursued considering he held such a great position of power over her.  

Yah, I agree with all this, other than " It's one of those situations where full consent is nearly impossible to ascertain . . ."  She herself has said over and over that it was.

Still, it is his fault for being one stupid SOB.

 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

12 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

 

Except he was not only her boss but also the POTUS, one of the most powerful people in the world.  That made it highly inappropriate regardless if she offered consent.  It's one of those situations where full consent is nearly impossible to ascertain, which is why most agencies private and public will forbid relationships with such power differentials.   An HR department of many companies would hold Bill accountable for his actions.  

And in any case, Bill had a number of accusers.  My point in bring up Lewinsky in particular was how she was treated by the press even though every reasonable person understood the relationship to be highly inappropriate and one that Bill should have never pursued considering he held such a great position of power over her.  

Yeah - can't stand the apologias made for Clinton.  It's all the same nonsense.  

[mankytoes]

34 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

 

Except he was not only her boss but also the POTUS, one of the most powerful people in the world.  That made it highly inappropriate regardless if she offered consent.  It's one of those situations where full consent is nearly impossible to ascertain, which is why most agencies private and public will forbid relationships with such power differentials.   An HR department of many companies would hold Bill accountable for his actions.  

And in any case, Bill had a number of accusers.  My point in bring up Lewinsky in particular was how she was treated by the press even though every reasonable person understood the relationship to be highly inappropriate and one that Bill should have never pursued considering he held such a great position of power over her.  

When I've read about this (I am young enough that this is really history, not news to me) it always seemed to be about him cheating on his wife and lying about it, not taking advantage of some young girl.

What you talk about is something that really needs to be discussed- is it ever ok to shag/date your subordinates from work? I've never really been under the impression it's a social taboo, so I don't really think you can put the boot into someone like Clinton for that (not that you can't for other things).

I mean, a young employee really is in a vulnerable position if sexually propositioned by a superior. On the other hand, it seems extremely harsh to label a man (I assume people do label women sexual predators, but I can't ever recall hearing it, except for peadophiles) a predator if he didn't initiate things. There must be countless examples of bosses and employees striking up very genuine relationships based on loving feelings. A lot of people spend a lot of their time at work.

I know you might call me an apologist or whatever again, so I should mention that a girl did once start a rumour that me and my friends committed a fairly bizarre sexual assault on her. This was totally fabricated. Luckily this never went anywhere, but I'd be pretty hypocritical to believe every story I heard. My peers gave me the benefit of the doubt, when we could have been in serious trouble. I don't want to draw equivalency between a man's fear of false accusation and a woman's fear of assault, I hate it when people do that. But it is a real fear, and it isn't totally unfounded.

[Eggegg]

48 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

I mean, a young employee really is in a vulnerable position if sexually propositioned by a superior. On the other hand, it seems extremely harsh to label a man (I assume people do label women sexual predators, but I can't ever recall hearing it, except for peadophiles) a predator if he didn't initiate things. There must be countless examples of bosses and employees striking up very genuine relationships based on loving feelings. A lot of people spend a lot of their time at work.

I know at least 3 friends who are now married and this was how they met. I'm not sure you can make a blanket statement about every single situation.

[mankytoes]

2 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

I know at least 3 friends who are now married and this was how they met. I'm not sure you can make a blanket statement about every single situation.

Yeah. And I mean if there was a single President of the USA, you could argue there isn't a single person they wouldn't have a power inbalance with.

[Eggegg]

5 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

Yeah. And I mean if there was a single President of the USA, you could argue there isn't a single person they wouldn't have a power inbalance with.

Yes true. Then not all men in power are predators and not all women are vunerable at the same time. I think its important to take every case on an individual basis and not just pre-judge everything, or pretend that we aren't dealing with adults here as well. 

[Dr. Pepper]

3 hours ago, mankytoes said:

When I've read about this (I am young enough that this is really history, not news to me) it always seemed to be about him cheating on his wife and lying about it, not taking advantage of some young girl.

Yes, and that was a problem and continues to be a problem. This was and often continues to be presented as a private marital concern (well, private except for the part that he was impeached for lying about it).  In part there is a private marital issue at play here, but as a person in a public position of power, there was a public issue as well where there was a very powerful public official who may have been misusing his power.  Even today, and especially during the campaign, people were reluctant to look at this as anything other than a private marital concern instead of understanding it as extremely problematic behavior from an ex president.

Quote

What you talk about is something that really needs to be discussed- is it ever ok to shag/date your subordinates from work? I've never really been under the impression it's a social taboo, so I don't really think you can put the boot into someone like Clinton for that (not that you can't for other things).

I mean, a young employee really is in a vulnerable position if sexually propositioned by a superior. On the other hand, it seems extremely harsh to label a man (I assume people do label women sexual predators, but I can't ever recall hearing it, except for peadophiles) a predator if he didn't initiate things. There must be countless examples of bosses and employees striking up very genuine relationships based on loving feelings. A lot of people spend a lot of their time at work.

 

Companies and government offices tend to have guidelines for what to do in the case of these sorts of relationships at work.  Often they'll find a way to remove the power differential so that the superior is no longer in the chain of command for the subordinate.  It also helps alleviate other interoffice concerns where employees might not know if a raise or promotion was due to the relationship or due to merit.  

It's a bit different when it comes to the POTUS because everyone who has access to him would be a subordinate so it's not like Lewinsky could have moved to a different sort of internship within the White House in order to continue the affair and it's unlikely anything outside of the White House would have given access to her lover.  

Quote

I know you might call me an apologist or whatever again, so I should mention that a girl did once start a rumour that me and my friends committed a fairly bizarre sexual assault on her. This was totally fabricated. Luckily this never went anywhere, but I'd be pretty hypocritical to believe every story I heard. My peers gave me the benefit of the doubt, when we could have been in serious trouble. I don't want to draw equivalency between a man's fear of false accusation and a woman's fear of assault, I hate it when people do that. But it is a real fear, and it isn't totally unfounded.

I don't know what this has to do with anything.  False accusations are incredibly rare and are not a good reason to not believe accusers.  

[Mlle. Zabzie]

1 hour ago, Dr. Pepper said:

  

I don't know what this has to do with anything.  False accusations are incredibly rare and are not a good reason to not believe accusers.  

I feel like everyone knows someone who knows someone who was falsely accused.  The big scandals at UVA and at Duke did not help this perception.  

[mankytoes]

40 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Companies and government offices tend to have guidelines for what to do in the case of these sorts of relationships at work.  Often they'll find a way to remove the power differential so that the superior is no longer in the chain of command for the subordinate.  It also helps alleviate other interoffice concerns where employees might not know if a raise or promotion was due to the relationship or due to merit. 

I don't know what this has to do with anything.  False accusations are incredibly rare and are not a good reason to not believe accusers.  

Which is fair enough, and probably a good idea. But I'm talking more about ethics than procedure. Unless I'm mistaken, because there are other allegations, your previous point was that we should consider Clinton's relationship with Lewinsky as morally wrong on some level, even if it was initiated, or even if she initiated it. Say your friend was the head of a company, and they told you they were looking forward to taking out a young employee who had just started and had shown an interest in them, would you tell them that was immoral? I can't say I would.

Honestly, I'm a bit sick of getting dismissed anytime I mention this, because I always get that response. Who says it is incredibly rare? I'm not aware of anyone collecting data on this, when you're in that situation I think the best thing to do is ignore the rumours and hope they go away, not make a bit deal out of them and report them. She didn't report this criminally, but this could easily have cost me my relationship, I can't even imagine if family found out, because you know how easy it is for people to have little doubts, or think "there's no smoke without fire". And to be clear, there was "no fire", this isn't a case where something sexual happened and we had different stories, absolutely nothing happened.

I think there is a difference between not believing accusers and not automatically condemning anyone accused. I've had female friends (with disturbing frequency, actually, considering I don't have that many close female friends) tell me about things that have happened to them, and I've never doubted them. But at the same time, I had a friend accused of rape (dismissed after a police enquiry), and I'm not going to automatically label him a rapist and treat him like one when I heard about that. Would you? If a close friend was accused of a serious sexual crime, would you just turn on them and assume it's true? Like I say, if I accept the idea that you should always believe someone, I am saying people at my university should have treated me like a rapist.

[mankytoes]

2 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I feel like everyone knows someone who knows someone who was falsely accused.  The big scandals at UVA and at Duke did not help this perception.  

Maybe I'm extremely unlucky in that I've both been (with friends) accused of sexual assault (not criminally, but I assume you'd agree that people publically saying this about you is a bit deal) and know someone who was falsely accused of rape (she apparantly had a history of doing this). But I don't think it's really surprising I have this perception, considering no one ever seems to provide any convincing data to back up the "extremely rare" idea.

[Xray the Enforcer]

[mod] Let's please stick to topic. Leave the discussion of false rape accusations for another time, and another thread. Thank you. [/mod]

[dornishpen]

The issues with Bill Clinton go far beyond Monica Lewinsky, Gennifer Flowers et al. He’s been accused of rape (back in the 70s, the victim told friends about it at the time, this is credible); he’s been accused of sexual harassment; he’s been accused of groping an aide while he was president; he’s been accused of sexually assaulting a reporter; he went on Epstein’s (the rich guy who likes to have sex with 13 year old girls) gross plane trips many times. That’s just what I remember off the top of my head.

Yes there’s obviously a problem with the Lewinsky and Flowers situations in terms of power and meaningful consent being impossible, but there are also far more clear cut credible allegations against Clinton.

[Zorral]

It seems to me that it was with Clinton - Lewinsky (impeachment) and Clarence Thomas (1991) (for which Anita Hill suffered enormously in the media, in public and private) that  universities and work places started getting serious (as serious as they ever got, anyway) about dating and power / age differentials, sexual harassment, etc.  I do know there was never anything anybody thought about this at university at all while I was there, until I returned with a Research Project Fellowship to Tulane after 9/11 -- and professors wouldn't even be in the same room with a female student unless the door was wide open, etc.  Other things had changed enormously too, including standards for how women were addressed, language for discussing all sorts of things from race, etc.

Back when I was a grad student the joke among the faculty was that they looked over the new crop of female grad students wondering who would score with this one, that one, etc.  Nobody thought anything of it. In fact, it was considered a coup for the female students to have an affair with any of the star faculty (male)  members, as it would help her career in grad school and later.  I think that started to change somewhat soon after I finished my grad program.  The older faculty though, from what I heard through the grapevines and then e-mail, just never quite 'got it' though -- that women had changed their minds about being honored as serial concubines.

Nevertheless, despite changes, rules and codes, sexual abuse of both males and females continued non-stop at universities and in the work place, as we see.

[ants]

When I recently changed companies, part of the initiation procedures was a session on harassment training.  I actually brought up the question of whether power differentials were a problem, and the HR rep (and a number of others taking the course) found the idea a bit surprising.  In their view a single approach was acceptable, continued harassment was not. It was interesting their view.  

That said, this company (which isn't huge) doesn't have a single reporting line (its a consultancy) and does have multiple couples who formed the relationships at this company.