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

[DMC]

24 minutes ago, IamMe90 said:

Still, I think it'd be a lot to ask males who have been sexually assaulted to hashtag their accountability when it comes to sexual assault. Maybe the best course of action would be for men to not hashtag at all when the subject is pervasive assault of women by powerful men.

Wondering how long until Bryan Singer is interjected into this discussion.  Damnit, just did.

[Darth Richard II]

16 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Wondering how long until Bryan Singer is interjected into this discussion.  Damnit, just did.

Shame!

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 hours ago, IamMe90 said:

I'm presuming the assumption is here is that they help propagate rape culture, even if unwittingly or unconsciously. That would be what they would be accountable for. Still, I think it'd be a lot to ask males who have been sexually assaulted to hashtag their accountability when it comes to sexual assault. Maybe the best course of action would be for men to not hashtag at all when the subject is pervasive assault of women by powerful men.

I believe a couple of men in the film industry have done this. Corey Feldman and James Van Der Beek most notably.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I believe a couple of men in the film industry have done this. Corey Feldman and James Van Der Beek most notably.

Corey Feldman has been saying for years that pedophilia is a huge problem in Hollywood. He blames Corey Haim's long history of drug abuse and eventual death on Haim being raped at the age of 11.

[Which Tyler]

5 hours ago, IamMe90 said:

I'm presuming the assumption is here is that they help propagate rape culture, even if unwittingly or unconsciously. That would be what they would be accountable for. Still, I think it'd be a lot to ask males who have been sexually assaulted to hashtag their accountability when it comes to sexual assault. Maybe the best course of action would be for men to not hashtag at all when the subject is pervasive assault of women by powerful men.

Count me as another confused one here.

I'm of the opinion that the pervasive assault of people by powerful people is a bad thing. I was never under the impression that the Hollywood "casting couch" cliche was gender-specific; though I grant that male people may be more able to resist and still have careers.

I do see the shutting down of men admitting to having been abused as absolutely disgusting, and propogating more sexual abuse of men - just as it has for women.

If we're complaining about people (mostly male in this case) jumping on the bandwagon and saying that it happens to men too; then yeah, fuck 'em. If we're talking about people (regardless of gender) coming out and saying that it happened to them as well; then they are just as deserving of our sympathy, and of our condemnation for their abusers. Throwing the latter group under the bus because this issue is only about women being abused is.... disgusting (I know I used that word before but I can't think of a more appropriate way to say it).

 

 

Oh, and whilst I'm commenting - I'd never heard of Weinstein before this debacle either; and never paid all that much attention to all the "casting couch" rumours, cliches and jokes as being gross exaggerations - I'm sure most of us know the rumours about Richard Gere and hamsters; it doesn't mean that any of us take them seriously.

I was wrong (but still don't take those Gere rumours seriously).

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Which Tyler said:

I was never under the impression that the Hollywood "casting couch" cliche was gender-specific

Oh, come on. Don't be absurd.

[Which Tyler]

35 minutes ago, mormont said:

Oh, come on. Don't be absurd.

Sorry, gender-specific for the perpetrator - absolutely (and obviously, gven the predominance of men in excesively powerful roles in Holywood)

Gender-specific for the victim - far too many rumours and "jokes" about for that to be the case IMO. Gender dominant, I'd give you (way less so than for the perp. though); but since when does being a minority victim mean that you're not a victim and should shut up about it?

[mankytoes]

On 22/10/2017 at 10:59 PM, Yukle said:

It's also extremely and horrifically stupid when women take that side.

That lady whose name I don't respect enough to look up from the Big Bang Theory showed exactly why she is comfortable acting on the most misogynistic show on TV with her garbage about women bringing it on themselves.

Did you actually read her article? She didn't say anything remotely like that, she said she was never targeted because she isn't conventionally attractive. Honestly, that reaction has annoyed me so much, she wrote an intelligent and personal article, and most women jump down her throat for offering a little nuance on the issue. (And no, I'm not a fan of her show). https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/13/opinion/mayim-bialik-feminist-harvey-weinstein.html

This is the "controversial" quote-

" And yet I have also experienced the upside of not being a “perfect ten.” As a proud feminist with little desire to diet, get plastic surgery or hire a personal trainer, I have almost no personal experience with men asking me to meetings in their hotel rooms. Those of us in Hollywood who don’t represent an impossible standard of beauty have the “luxury” of being overlooked and, in many cases, ignored by men in power unless we can make them money."

Yes, that's it. She's getting slaughtered for stating an obvious fact, that these old perverts want to take advantage of beautiful women, not average ones.

Most irritating thing to me currently is that he's in "rehab" or whatever. He is not ill. He is a "sex addict". He's a pervy old twat who wanted to exploit young women for his own gratification. He doesn['t need treatment, he needs to fuck off or lawyer up. As Bronn said, there's no cure for being a cunt (one line I bet GRRM wishes he wrote).

I bet I know what he's thinking right now- when are we going to hear some other names? He is seeming like the fall guy here, I bet I'm not the only one who has heard other names (I'm guessing for libel reasons I can't write any here).

[SeanF]

5 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Corey Feldman has been saying for years that pedophilia is a huge problem in Hollywood. He blames Corey Haim's long history of drug abuse and eventual death on Haim being raped at the age of 11.

It wouldn't surprise me at all.  Most Hollywood players seem to think that Roman Polanski did nothing wrong.

[SeanF]

50 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

Did you actually read her article? She didn't say anything remotely like that, she said she was never targeted because she isn't conventionally attractive. Honestly, that reaction has annoyed me so much, she wrote an intelligent and personal article, and most women jump down her throat for offering a little nuance on the issue. (And no, I'm not a fan of her show). https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/13/opinion/mayim-bialik-feminist-harvey-weinstein.html

This is the "controversial" quote-

" And yet I have also experienced the upside of not being a “perfect ten.” As a proud feminist with little desire to diet, get plastic surgery or hire a personal trainer, I have almost no personal experience with men asking me to meetings in their hotel rooms. Those of us in Hollywood who don’t represent an impossible standard of beauty have the “luxury” of being overlooked and, in many cases, ignored by men in power unless we can make them money."

Yes, that's it. She's getting slaughtered for stating an obvious fact, that these old perverts want to take advantage of beautiful women, not average ones.

Most irritating thing to me currently is that he's in "rehab" or whatever. He is not ill. He is a "sex addict". He's a pervy old twat who wanted to exploit young women for his own gratification. He doesn['t need treatment, he needs to fuck off or lawyer up. As Bronn said, there's no cure for being a cunt (one line I bet GRRM wishes he wrote).

I bet I know what he's thinking right now- when are we going to hear some other names? He is seeming like the fall guy here, I bet I'm not the only one who has heard other names (I'm guessing for libel reasons I can't write any here).

I don't think it's even the sex that interests them, especially.  It's the chance to humiliate beautiful women that really seems to turn them on.  Most men want sex with beautiful women, but few of them want to masturbate into pot plants, or expose themselves.

[Aemon Stark]

I'd certainly heard of Harvey Weinstein, but only insofar as I was familiar with him as "one of those Miramax guys". Couldn't pick him out of a lineup. 

What bothers me about this whole scandal is that it's obvious everyone knew about this for years and did nothing. And I'm sure he's far from the only one. 

[kairparavel]

The biggest problem with Bialik's article is the suggestion that the potential victim has any control over not getting harrassed or assaulted. Or that it has anything to do with how one looks or the status they have. Dress modestly, won't happen to you! Not beautiful, won't happen to you! False on both accounts and a little victim blaming/well of course did you see what she was wearing to boot.

[mormont]

3 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

Sorry, gender-specific for the perpetrator - absolutely (and obviously, gven the predominance of men in excesively powerful roles in Holywood)

Gender-specific for the victim - far too many rumours and "jokes" about for that to be the case IMO. Gender dominant, I'd give you (way less so than for the perp. though); but since when does being a minority victim mean that you're not a victim and should shut up about it?

It doesn't. But you refer to 'the cliche of the casting couch', which undoubtedly is gender-specific: pretty much any reference in popular culture to 'the casting couch' assumes a male perpetrator and female victim. For good reason, because overwhelmingly this appears to be the default, if only for the reason you note above.

1 hour ago, mankytoes said:

Yes, that's it. She's getting slaughtered for stating an obvious fact, that these old perverts want to take advantage of beautiful women, not average ones.

You might be mistaking a fact for an assumption there.

[mankytoes]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

I don't think it's even the sex that interests them, especially.  It's the chance to humiliate beautiful women that really seems to turn them on.  Most men want sex with beautiful women, but few of them want to masturbate into pot plants, or expose themselves.

I've heard that a few times, but I don't really see the evidence. Occam's Razor tells me they're sexually attracted to young women, so they want to have sex with them. It's like that famous Scarface line- "first you get the money, then you get the power, then you get the women". It's like a game, you win and get women as a reward. This is a big motivator for a lot of people- they really want to fuck beautiful people.

Weinstein isn't some exceptional sociopath, he's just another sad old selfish prick.

1 hour ago, kairparavel said:

The biggest problem with Bialik's article is the suggestion that the potential victim has any control over not getting harrassed or assaulted. Or that it has anything to do with how one looks or the status they have. Dress modestly, won't happen to you! Not beautiful, won't happen to you! False on both accounts and a little victim blaming/well of course did you see what she was wearing to boot.

But it does have something to do with status in this case, doesn't it? He was specifically targeting young actresses, not shop workers. And of course she's right to say it has something to do with looks. Say Bialik and Kaley Cuoco (Penny) are both sitting there as young actresses, are you seriously telling me you don't think it's more likely than a Weinstein is going to target Cuoco?

People have no control over their looks, so that isn't victim blaming at all, and she didn't say anything about "dressing modestly".

This is my problem with discussing this issue, you aren't allowed to offer any disagreement with the accepted ideas whatsoever without getting attacked. Bialik could have just offered the same copy and paste statement as most of Hollywood, but she actually put some thought into it. It's fine to disagree with her, but bullying her into an apology is just nasty. The message to women is- we want to hear what you have to say, but only if you tell us exactly what we think already. Otherwise, shut your mouth. (The message to men is often similar, except they often don't want to hear what we have to say at all). I think a lot of people like me share liberal values, but feel alienated from many aspects of the movement.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

But it does have something to do with status in this case, doesn't it? He was specifically targeting young actresses, not shop workers. And of course she's right to say it has something to do with looks. Say Bialik and Kaley Cuoco (Penny) are both sitting there as young actresses, are you seriously telling me you don't think it's more likely than a Weinstein is going to target Cuoco?

Weinstein wasn't just targeting actresses; he was targeting every woman he possibly could, including his assistants and other employees of his companies.

[mankytoes]

1 hour ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Weinstein wasn't just targeting actresses; he was targeting every woman he possibly could, including his assistants and other employees of his companies.

I'm not suggesting he was literally just going for actresses, but young actresses are particularly vulnerable because he's a powerful guy in their industry, and it's a high risk high reward career.

[HexMachina]

2 hours ago, mankytoes said:

I've heard that a few times, but I don't really see the evidence. Occam's Razor tells me they're sexually attracted to young women, so they want to have sex with them. It's like that famous Scarface line- "first you get the money, then you get the power, then you get the women". It's like a game, you win and get women as a reward. This is a big motivator for a lot of people- they really want to fuck beautiful people.

Weinstein isn't some exceptional sociopath, he's just another sad old selfish prick.

But it does have something to do with status in this case, doesn't it? He was specifically targeting young actresses, not shop workers. And of course she's right to say it has something to do with looks. Say Bialik and Kaley Cuoco (Penny) are both sitting there as young actresses, are you seriously telling me you don't think it's more likely than a Weinstein is going to target Cuoco?

People have no control over their looks, so that isn't victim blaming at all, and she didn't say anything about "dressing modestly".

This is my problem with discussing this issue, you aren't allowed to offer any disagreement with the accepted ideas whatsoever without getting attacked. Bialik could have just offered the same copy and paste statement as most of Hollywood, but she actually put some thought into it. It's fine to disagree with her, but bullying her into an apology is just nasty. The message to women is- we want to hear what you have to say, but only if you tell us exactly what we think already. Otherwise, shut your mouth. (The message to men is often similar, except they often don't want to hear what we have to say at all). I think a lot of people like me share liberal values, but feel alienated from many aspects of the movement.

And yet Bialik specifically mentions methods of changing/enhancing one's looks in the quote you lifted:

" And yet I have also experienced the upside of not being a “perfect ten.” As a proud feminist with little desire to diet, get plastic surgery or hire a personal trainer, I have almost no personal experience with men asking me to meetings in their hotel rooms. Those of us in Hollywood who don’t represent an impossible standard of beauty have the “luxury” of being overlooked and, in many cases, ignored by men in power unless we can make them money."

The implication seeming to be - don't do this, it just opens you up to these advances from men. 

[Week]

5 hours ago, mankytoes said:

Did you actually read her article? She didn't say anything remotely like that, she said she was never targeted because she isn't conventionally attractive. Honestly, that reaction has annoyed me so much, she wrote an intelligent and personal article, and most women jump down her throat for offering a little nuance on the issue. (And no, I'm not a fan of her show).

Except for when she said:

Quote

I still make choices every day as a 41-year-old actress that I think of as self-protecting and wise. I have decided that my sexual self is best reserved for private situations with those I am most intimate with. I dress modestly. I don’t act flirtatiously with men as a policy.

59 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

I'm not suggesting he was literally just going for actresses, but young actresses are particularly vulnerable because he's a powerful guy in their industry, and it's a high risk high reward career.

Victim blaming -- still not ok. Sexual harassment and assault is not an acceptable risk for a legal profession in our society. 

[mankytoes]

Just now, HelenaExMachina said:

And yet Bialik specifically mentions methods of changing/enhancing one's looks in the quote you lifted:

" And yet I have also experienced the upside of not being a “perfect ten.” As a proud feminist with [blittle desire to diet, get plastic surgery or hire a personal trainer, [/b]I have almost no personal experience with men asking me to meetings in their hotel rooms. Those of us in Hollywood who don’t represent an impossible standard of beauty have the “luxury” of being overlooked and, in many cases, ignored by men in power unless we can make them money."

 

Ok, but I think it's a stretch to say she's implying they deserve to be assaulted because of that, she's just explaining how they are different.

Women should be free to diet or get surgery. That might make them more likely to be targets of harrassment, but it doesn't mean they deserve to be. Identifying a cause isn't the same as identifying blame.

She made a lot of good points, and they've all been ignored for one statement that people can interpret in a way that lets them get outraged.

[Dr. Pepper]

15 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here, but why would men who are describing their own experiences being sexually harassed and abused in the industry identify with #holdmeaccountable or #illdobetter?

I'm not sure I meant to suggest that the exact same men who decided to impose themselves into the conversation with their #mentoo tag be the ones to also be the ones to hold themselves accountable and committing to do better, though I'm not sure why they couldn't.  Being a victim of something doesn't necessarily prevent someone from taking a stand for others.  

My primary point was that #mentoo was the only major male response, and it was highly problematic.