Harvey Weinstein
Discussion
John145 said:
Can we get some relativism here?
In my job I choose the suppliers and individuals I work with and these contracts can be worth initially well into 5 figures with ongoing productionisation going into many millions.
If I allowed a supplier to an individual to influence my decision through sexual acts it is me at fault, me abusing my position and me who would be morally bankrupt as a married man.
It's amazing that people are looking at the effects of a person abusing their position as a justification for the abuse.
Cause and effect. Please try and understand how it works here.
So BAE Systems shouldn't have been fined for bribing companies around the world? Only the recipient of the cash should be...In my job I choose the suppliers and individuals I work with and these contracts can be worth initially well into 5 figures with ongoing productionisation going into many millions.
If I allowed a supplier to an individual to influence my decision through sexual acts it is me at fault, me abusing my position and me who would be morally bankrupt as a married man.
It's amazing that people are looking at the effects of a person abusing their position as a justification for the abuse.
Cause and effect. Please try and understand how it works here.
Your post makes no sense. You can't start off with the view of only blaming any one person for an incident, you have to examine each individuals actions individually and judge each case.
Eric Mc said:
Gecko1978 said:
There are two distinct questions here.
1) who did HW assault etc when and how can he be prosecuted for this.
2) Who went along with his request in return for career advancement.
Question 1 is important as it will send a message to others they are not safe and this is not acceptable
Question 2 will allow the wider world to more clearly see who is making hay out of these events when in reality they accepted it was part of the job.
Victims need a voice but so do we need to be clear who might just take the moral high ground now but were happy to profit from the situation eh your not a great actress but you made HW feel all warm an fuzzy so you got a good role maybe an Oscar down the line. An you then kept quiet till now about this. You say its abhorent but at the time you were more than happy to get ahead.
The problem with your Point 2 is the assumption that "going along with something" seems to excuse his behaviour and not take into account the fact that he was abusing his position.1) who did HW assault etc when and how can he be prosecuted for this.
2) Who went along with his request in return for career advancement.
Question 1 is important as it will send a message to others they are not safe and this is not acceptable
Question 2 will allow the wider world to more clearly see who is making hay out of these events when in reality they accepted it was part of the job.
Victims need a voice but so do we need to be clear who might just take the moral high ground now but were happy to profit from the situation eh your not a great actress but you made HW feel all warm an fuzzy so you got a good role maybe an Oscar down the line. An you then kept quiet till now about this. You say its abhorent but at the time you were more than happy to get ahead.
Even if someone, in the end, benefits from an abuse they suffered, that does not mean it wasn't abuse.
I can’t see that knowingly ‘going along with something’ in pursuit of an aim in any way excuses the behaviour of the offender. Conversely, in any other walk of life where the objective for the 'victim' is some kind of gain, monetary or career, the act could be called prostitution.
‘Going along with something’ doesn’t excuse abuse (except in a ‘hierarchical’ sense), it doesn’t amount to either an assault or coercion when the express intent of service for reward is made or is common knowledge. He is a perfect example of sleaze and corruption and those that knew of his activities bear some responsibility for his long term perversion.
Who new Hollywood, and indeed all other strains of show business, was corrupt in so many ways?
Those starry-eyed girls (and boys in other cases) who were actually assaulted against their will in such conditions need sympathy and understanding for their trauma. The others who considered the likely loss of career more important than their own behaviour can shoulder part of the blame for not refusing and taking the consequences. And some of the responsibility for that decision. I don't for one minute suppose that anything will change after all this.
So he is seeking a cure? I can think of at least one that would be apt, relevant, and at least as gory as some Hollywood films that have been awarded Oscars. A close inspection of the anatomy of that symbol of institutional sleaze provides the answer.
‘Going along with something’ doesn’t excuse abuse (except in a ‘hierarchical’ sense), it doesn’t amount to either an assault or coercion when the express intent of service for reward is made or is common knowledge. He is a perfect example of sleaze and corruption and those that knew of his activities bear some responsibility for his long term perversion.
Who new Hollywood, and indeed all other strains of show business, was corrupt in so many ways?
Those starry-eyed girls (and boys in other cases) who were actually assaulted against their will in such conditions need sympathy and understanding for their trauma. The others who considered the likely loss of career more important than their own behaviour can shoulder part of the blame for not refusing and taking the consequences. And some of the responsibility for that decision. I don't for one minute suppose that anything will change after all this.
So he is seeking a cure? I can think of at least one that would be apt, relevant, and at least as gory as some Hollywood films that have been awarded Oscars. A close inspection of the anatomy of that symbol of institutional sleaze provides the answer.
Vocal Minority said:
I agree - it's very easy to assume it was a cold calculated decision.
There's so many questions though. Define 'went along with' - did they feel they'd have a choice, what did he say he'd do if they didn't, what position were these women in at the time in terms of being able to walk away - these are all things we don't know. Can't possibly know - but are still relevant
When you aren't in the situation it's always easy to say what you would have done...
These issues are seldom simple.
The temptation is strong to treat them that way as it makes sense of what is arguably senseless and our minds will always want to makes sense of it.
Just a suggestion.
I did attempt to phrase it in such away to separate victim and willing participant but accept this is perhaps immposible to do. There's so many questions though. Define 'went along with' - did they feel they'd have a choice, what did he say he'd do if they didn't, what position were these women in at the time in terms of being able to walk away - these are all things we don't know. Can't possibly know - but are still relevant
When you aren't in the situation it's always easy to say what you would have done...
These issues are seldom simple.
The temptation is strong to treat them that way as it makes sense of what is arguably senseless and our minds will always want to makes sense of it.
Just a suggestion.
HW abused his power no doubt about it. An perhaps that is all that can be said less we besmirch any of his victims.
Rob Schneider has claimed he was harassed by a director as well , but also how sexual abuse is rampant throughout the industry with agents , casting directors, producers and directors all up to it .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rM-iTP-B-aM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rM-iTP-B-aM
Unless you haven't been in that position, it can be difficult to understand but there is huge difference between:
1) If I have sex with you, you will give me X
and
2) If you have sex with me, I will give you X
Both are choices but the second choice should never be offered and the person offering that is entirely in the wrong
1) If I have sex with you, you will give me X
and
2) If you have sex with me, I will give you X
Both are choices but the second choice should never be offered and the person offering that is entirely in the wrong
liner33 said:
Rob Schneider has claimed he was harassed by a director as well , but also how sexual abuse is rampant throughout the industry with agents , casting directors, producers and directors all up to it .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rM-iTP-B-aM
As others have said, without detracting from the culpability of Weinstein, or the trauma of his victims, one suspects there are plenty more cases that it might bring to the surface and, tragically, yet more that for various reasons the miscreants will get away with.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rM-iTP-B-aM
This thread has been pruned.
There is an unhealthy level of denial around over this issue. One of the legal rags did a survey last week on the profession and it made for uncomfortable reading. The situation has improved enormously during my career, but it is still far from satisfactory when you see these kinds of statistics:
The difference in perception between men and women is worrying:
In the early years of my career, my department head would get sweaty and dance with young women at drink parties and retreats. He slept with plenty of them. One I remember was asked by her supervisor, a new male partner, what the hell she had been thinking and she responded, "career move". Needless to say, she was gone within a year.
The behaviour is much less overt now, but there are still people whose behaviour needs to be questioned.
There is an unhealthy level of denial around over this issue. One of the legal rags did a survey last week on the profession and it made for uncomfortable reading. The situation has improved enormously during my career, but it is still far from satisfactory when you see these kinds of statistics:
The difference in perception between men and women is worrying:
In the early years of my career, my department head would get sweaty and dance with young women at drink parties and retreats. He slept with plenty of them. One I remember was asked by her supervisor, a new male partner, what the hell she had been thinking and she responded, "career move". Needless to say, she was gone within a year.
The behaviour is much less overt now, but there are still people whose behaviour needs to be questioned.
hyphen said:
John145 said:
Can we get some relativism here?
In my job I choose the suppliers and individuals I work with and these contracts can be worth initially well into 5 figures with ongoing productionisation going into many millions.
If I allowed a supplier to an individual to influence my decision through sexual acts it is me at fault, me abusing my position and me who would be morally bankrupt as a married man.
It's amazing that people are looking at the effects of a person abusing their position as a justification for the abuse.
Cause and effect. Please try and understand how it works here.
So BAE Systems shouldn't have been fined for bribing companies around the world? Only the recipient of the cash should be...In my job I choose the suppliers and individuals I work with and these contracts can be worth initially well into 5 figures with ongoing productionisation going into many millions.
If I allowed a supplier to an individual to influence my decision through sexual acts it is me at fault, me abusing my position and me who would be morally bankrupt as a married man.
It's amazing that people are looking at the effects of a person abusing their position as a justification for the abuse.
Cause and effect. Please try and understand how it works here.
Your post makes no sense. You can't start off with the view of only blaming any one person for an incident, you have to examine each individuals actions individually and judge each case.
The hope of getting a shag as the main driver to conduct a business activity is the ultimate cause.
Eric Mc said:
Inability to display empathy or compassion is a well known psychopathic trait.
You'd need a lot more symptoms than that to diagnosis any kind of psychopathy. Lots of people bandying about terminology they don't understand on this thread. But really it boils down to the fact people who don't share your values/beliefs/opinions are not mentally ill. You, and others, need to deal with that. The fact you feel strongly enough to suggest others are borderline ill because their opinion differs from yours actually suggests an implacably dogmatic approach, and, truthfully, little else. 
How many of us on here ‘call out’ sexist behaviour when we witness it? Very, very few I imagine.
At best we ignore it and maybe mutter under our breath, “what an annoying t
t.” Possibly, we might even warn ‘Jane in accounts’ to avoid ‘John from IT’ because he’s well known for being a lech at the xmas party. At worst we go along with the ‘banter’ for fear of not being seen to be ‘one of the lads’.
It’s us men who are at fault and ultimately it will be for men to change their behaviour, not women.
....
This guy understands:
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/life/as-men-its...
...
At best we ignore it and maybe mutter under our breath, “what an annoying t
t.” Possibly, we might even warn ‘Jane in accounts’ to avoid ‘John from IT’ because he’s well known for being a lech at the xmas party. At worst we go along with the ‘banter’ for fear of not being seen to be ‘one of the lads’.It’s us men who are at fault and ultimately it will be for men to change their behaviour, not women.
....
This guy understands:
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/life/as-men-its...
...
popeyewhite said:
Eric Mc said:
Inability to display empathy or compassion is a well known psychopathic trait.
You'd need a lot more symptoms than that to diagnosis any kind of psychopathy. Lots of people bandying about terminology they don't understand on this thread. But really it boils down to the fact people who don't share your values/beliefs/opinions are not mentally ill. You, and others, need to deal with that. The fact you feel strongly enough to suggest others are borderline ill because their opinion differs from yours actually suggests an implacably dogmatic approach, and, truthfully, little else. anonymous said:
[redacted]
"Mark’s flatmate, in Mark’s words, was “feeling horny,” and wanted sex. So, Mark had an idea. We’re both about the same size, he said to his flatmate. Why don’t you put on the shirt I was wearing tonight, and if you go and climb into bed with her, she’ll think it’s me.Mark’s flatmate agreed that this was a great idea, and so he did as Mark suggested. He went upstairs, and into Mark’s bedroom.
A little later, the woman came downstairs in distress. She was furious at Mark. She couldn’t imagine how someone could have done something so sick. It was 2am, and she was some way from her student accommodation, but she couldn’t stand to be around Mark and his flatmate any longer. She wanted to leave immediately. If you want to go, then go get a taxi, said Mark, shrugging with bravado and smiling as he recounted the story."
Sounds legit.
I based on this incredible story (thanks for sharing) just think if only he'd kept his shirt on in the obviously pitch black and totally silent bedroom of a strange woman he'd just met.
He would've got away with it if only he'd done that (probably).
Eric Mc said:
popeyewhite said:
Eric Mc said:
Have you had counselling for your condition ?
Counsellors discuss emotional and relational issues Eric. Doctors treat conditions.Here's the British Association of Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) website to explain what counselling is: https://www.bacp.co.uk/about_bacp/
I hope it's helpful.
Apologies for veering OT everyone!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff