Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:Wait - what? They're not?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And to take you logic to its logical completion, all conservatives are Hitlerphiles longing for a fourth Reich.
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:Disagree. While we must fight all such misbehavior, twisting a term because we are (justly) angry at people isn't helpful and can be counterproductive. If it isn't assault, it isn't assault, and calling it assault is not beneficial.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
*it's all sexual assault. Sexual harassment is just wordplay IMO.
quote:I don't see any evidence that this happened. Rather, what we see is Weinstein using his considerable power & influence to intimidate and silence his victims. That's what predators do-- regardless of their political leanings. It's horrible, illegal, immoral-- but not political.
Originally posted by stonespring:
Finally, powerful people in the left-of-center need to stop offering any protection to those around them who harass or abuse others sexually. This kind of thing is much more common than we would like to admit.
quote:Indeed, the title doesn't seem to reflect the seriousness of the content of the OP. Hollywood is not uniformly Democrat-supporting, for a start.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I'm a bit confused by the title. If liberals are hypocritical about sexual assault and harassment, does that mean non-hypocritical conservatives are in favour of it? Because the same shit went down at Fox just recently ...
quote:What a load of crap. And what has this even got to do with anything even if such individuals exist?
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Hypocrisy on the part of left-wing Hollywood's weirdly misnomered "liberals" is not limited to the sexual sphere, and has been around for decades.
Veneration for some of history's worst mass murderers, such as Stalin and Mao, was followed by the valorisation of their epigones, such as Ho Chi Minh and Castro.
quote:And also that the cover ups continue until a critical mass is reached and a brave whistle blower calls their bluff.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
In some ways the whole episode is bizarre.
- who is this chap? Never heard of him before now
- is there nothing else happening in the world?
- if his activities were that widespread to the point of in jokes why did no one say anything?
- the bandwagon is creaking heavily as everyone is jumping on it with some force
Of course we have the Sainted Jimmy as an example that the power some individuals have will be used for selfish rather than altruistic purposes
quote:I suspect it all plays into the whole Pizzagate narrative and conspiracy. People seem to want to believe that there is a "ring" of abusers around the Clintons and that somehow this is more believable than anything which is said about Trump.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I went over to the Daily Mail online which has large headlines about hypocrisy and the 'cowardice of the liberal Establishment', pow! It seems to boil down to the claim that lots of people 'must have known about Weinstein's activities'. That's a very thin claim indeed, for which, there will be presumably very little evidence. Are they suggesting that the Obamas let their daughter work for W., knowing he was a predator?
quote:I think how they continue is all-too understandable.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't really understand how "conspiracies of silence" continue in these situations or why it takes so long for the lid to blow.
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The first person to put their head over the parapet has to be prepared to be crushed, emotionally and financially. Only if they have literally nothing left to lose will they do it.
quote:There may well have been other instances, but in at least one instance the allegations were reasonably widely publicised - though the accused had committed suicide.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
A few years ago I heard from a very reliable source some scandalous information. They told me that the chief of a Christian international development charity was well known for going abroad to abuse children.
quote:If you have any doubts or concerns whatsoever with anyone or anything, you should raise them.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
A few years ago I heard from a very reliable source some scandalous information. They told me that the chief of a Christian international development charity was well known for going abroad to abuse children. I was also told that this was not a unique situation and that there were a number of abusive people in similar situations.
I was not, and am not, in a position to follow up this information but as far as I know that individual has never been investigated or denounced for their behaviour.
Of course, it is possible it is all rumour and made-up nonsense, as I said I have no way to verify or investigate it. But it is scarily plausible that it is accurate and that there are abusers who are in these positions of power.
I don't really understand how "conspiracies of silence" continue in these situations or why it takes so long for the lid to blow.
But I can tell you that people who have spoken to me about it are scared shitless about what might happen to them if they talk about it. It appears that everyone is waiting for someone else to break ranks before they come forward with collaborating experiences.
quote:First I was told things in confidence and second I wasn't told enough details to tell anyone else anyway.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
If you have any doubts or concerns whatsoever with anyone or anything, you should raise them.
quote:Unfortunately journalists are told things all the time. In this instance the events were said to have occurred in unnamed places overseas.
Best practice in Child Protection and Safeguarding requires this. It is our responsibility to report any concerns and for the professionals to decide whether there is any case to answer: there may be none or our phone call may add significantly to existing evidence of wrongdoing.
quote:Easy to say that though, isn't it. There are various problems including that of liable, lacking detailed information and informants/sources being afraid to talk.
Where there is any suspicion it must be raised - indeed you are criminally liable if you fail to report anything that allows significant harm to continue.
quote:Yeah, I have to say that your combination of "OMG, why didn't anyone speak out sooner?" and "OMG, why is everybody rushing to judgment?" seems perfectly calibrated to prevent anyone from saying anything ever. Discussions that focus on the victims and play with various hypothetical coulda/shoulda scenarios seem like they're designed to shift blame. 'Did you see what she was wearing?' 'Why was she even talking to him?' 'She should have been more careful out in public.' All these are kinds of comments are designed to shift focus from the attacker to the victims. The (alleged) problem with Harvey Weinstein wasn't Angelina Jolie or Gwyneth Paltrow. It was Harvey Weinstein.
Originally posted by L'organist:
I'm not victim blaming (as you put it), simply pointing out that with their preparedness to speak out on many subjects, the likes of Jolie, Paltrow, etc, should have/ could have spoken out long before.
In the case of Angelina Jolie, in particular, it is odd that a woman who from 2013 fronted up a campaign against the use of rape as a weapon of war in conflict zones (with William Hague, former UK Foreign Secretary) should still have found herself unable to speak out about sexual harassment in the entertainment industry. That is not victim blaming, it is an observation.
quote:What he said. Whether they could or should have spoken out is irrelevant. He shouldn't have been doing something they needed to speak out against in the first place.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Yeah, I have to say that your combination of "OMG, why didn't anyone speak out sooner?" and "OMG, why is everybody rushing to judgment?" seems perfectly calibrated to prevent anyone from saying anything ever. Discussions that focus on the victims and play with various hypothetical coulda/shoulda scenarios seem like they're designed to shift blame. 'Did you see what she was wearing?' 'Why was she even talking to him?' 'She should have been more careful out in public.' All these are kinds of comments are designed to shift focus from the attacker to the victims. The (alleged) problem with Harvey Weinstein wasn't Angelina Jolie or Gwyneth Paltrow. It was Harvey Weinstein.
Originally posted by L'organist:
I'm not victim blaming (as you put it), simply pointing out that with their preparedness to speak out on many subjects, the likes of Jolie, Paltrow, etc, should have/ could have spoken out long before.
In the case of Angelina Jolie, in particular, it is odd that a woman who from 2013 fronted up a campaign against the use of rape as a weapon of war in conflict zones (with William Hague, former UK Foreign Secretary) should still have found herself unable to speak out about sexual harassment in the entertainment industry. That is not victim blaming, it is an observation.
quote:Good point. Whenever a man is accused of sexual abuse the really important thing to do is to establish that the whole thing is the fault of the women involved.
So, the child of American "theatre royalty", Gwyneth Paltrow, didn't feel able to speak out? Really??? This from a woman who makes a fortune through rampant narcissism and self-promotion with details about her vagina-steaming (I kid you not) and such rot? Similarly Angelina Jolie: more than happy to pursue the family feud with her father Jon Voight (also a Hollywood insider) and with starring roles from when she was 20, felt unable to say anything? And this morning British actress Cara Delvigne has joined the baying mob, though quite how a granddaughter of Joselyn Stevens can claim she didn't know how to complain or who to is a mystery.
quote:The purpose appears to be to attack liberals. And, as mentioned above; if it is hypocrisy for liberals, does it mean that it is de rigueur for conservatives?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:What a load of crap. And what has this even got to do with anything even if such individuals exist?
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Hypocrisy on the part of left-wing Hollywood's weirdly misnomered "liberals" is not limited to the sexual sphere, and has been around for decades.
Veneration for some of history's worst mass murderers, such as Stalin and Mao, was followed by the valorisation of their epigones, such as Ho Chi Minh and Castro.
quote:Most people are not evil or good, we are evil and good. It is just how far and to which side the slider is set.
Originally posted by Martin60:
In hindsight I'm haunted by what he could have done, would have been thinking.
quote:It is not if, but how much. Weinstein has admitted to pushing boundaries, but he has not admitted to rape.
Originally posted by L'organist:
If (and it is "if") Harvey Weinstein did some of the things which are alleged then he is a creep.
quote:So, he is a creep. What isn't proven is if he is a rapist.
In a statement to The Times on Thursday afternoon, Mr. Weinstein said: “I appreciate the way I’ve behaved with colleagues in the past has caused a lot of pain, and I sincerely apologize for it. Though I’m trying to do better, I know I have a long way to go.”
quote:No, not a societal problem, a human one. It's people, individual ones with immortal souls for which each is answerable, who do bad things. Blaming it on society is moral evasion.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
... It is not a liberal problem or, for that matter, a conservative problem. As pointed out above, it is a societal problem. ...
quote:It is a societal problem and an individual one. It is a fallacy to think society does not influence behaviour, a patently ridiculous fallacy. This does not excuse an individual's actions, for which they are responsible. But the soil affects the taste of the wine, no matter the variety of the grape.
Originally posted by Enoch:
No, not a societal problem, a human one.
quote:Yes, you did. And this bit from another link you posted is troublesome.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
As Scalzi said (did I post that link here?)
quote:(Bold Mine)
(Kim) MASTERS: Yes. And somebody, I suspect, leaked that memo. You know, it's - I don't think it's a coincidence that two New York publications ended up with this story - New York Times and New Yorker. He has not been at the peak of his powers for some years now. The company's had money troubles. He's struggled a bit. He hasn't quite had that lock on Oscar that he had for so long.
quote:I don't get that one. The piece of shit bastard. However, that is not liberal hypocrisy any more than Weinstein is. It is the standard fame blinders that nearly everyone seems to have.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Emma Thompson identified genuine liberal hypocrisy, the blind eye in the name of art, with one name: Polanski.
quote:Hyperbole aside, what behavior should we ask of actors who have been harassed, groped, assaulted, etc. Silence? Don’t make a fuss? You do realize that each accuser will now be questioned, cross-questioned, have her past raked over, her credibility scrutinized, possibly get subpoenaed if there's eventually a trial, chance getting her career derailed in the meantime as other (male) producers (and male they mostly are) wonder whether she might accuse them, and generally risk a lot of deeply unpleasant intrusion into her privacy on top of what she has already endured. You seem to be assuming they're all lying. Possibly some are; but few people with sense would lie for rewards like the ones above.
Originally posted by L'organist:
But the spectacle of every actress under the sun leaping gamely onto the "get Harvey" bandwagon is sickening:. . .
quote:Are you suggesting that what Mr. Weinstein has already admitted to isn't traumatizing to his family?
Originally posted by L'organist:
. . . if Mr Weinstein didn't have young children who must be deeply traumatised by this circus it might even be funny.
quote:Not a Paltrow fan, I take it; no matter. Once American film stars – especially those of the female persuasion – reach Paltrow’s level of fame, they are carefully-packaged commodities. Their career decisions lie mostly in the hands of others (again, often male). The star will be under contract to a production company which calls the shots. She’ll have a manager, an agent, a publicist and on and on, all of whose financial fortunes depend on her “draw,” and that draw will be seen by this (mostly male) coterie of dependents in terms of the star’s looks and sex appeal. The star’s say in the roles she plays (and how), the publicized activities she engages in, the aspects of her private life (if she can be said to have one) that get revealed, the scripted “opinions” she releases – it’s all managed, and managed according to the bank accounts and imaginations of these others. If you take a look at the bulk of what American movie-makers screen every year – apparently tailored to the tastes of culturally-deprived, hormone-drenched 14-year-old boys who like explosions and loud noises – you will see the “vagina-steaming” material for what it is. Of course, it’s also possible that Paltrow actually and personally and willingly participated in something like this (I certainly don't know). There is no accounting for some people’s curiosities.
Originally posted by L'organist:
So, the child of American "theatre royalty", Gwyneth Paltrow, didn't feel able to speak out? Really??? This from a woman who makes a fortune through rampant narcissism and self-promotion with details about her vagina-steaming (I kid you not) and such rot?
quote:Family feuds sell. While I don’t share the fairly wide-spread fascination many Americans seem to have with the so-called lives and alleged doings of celebrities, it’s a Real Thing. When she’s alone in a room somewhere (assuming she’s lucky enough to ever have such moments) Jolie is a human being. Wherever public awareness intersects with Jolie, however, she is a commodified industry packaged for sale; see above.
Originally posted by L'organist:
Similarly Angelina Jolie: more than happy to pursue the family feud with her father Jon Voight (also a Hollywood insider) and with starring roles from when she was 20, felt unable to say anything?
quote:Not knowing either reference, the only comment I can make here is that knowing how to complain, or knowing who to complain to, is not necessarily the issue. It’s not knowing (at the time something happened) that there are other victims, or that you are not alone; it’s recognizing that you may not be believed (just as apparently you don’t); that you have little power in comparison with the person who has trespassed against you; it’s recognizing that he may retaliate against you, and that you have little or no recourse.
Originally posted by L'organist:
And this morning British actress Cara Delvigne has joined the baying mob, though quite how a granddaughter of Joselyn Stevens can claim she didn't know how to complain or who to is a mystery.
quote:Two. Against how many others?
Originally posted by L'organist
From the days before Hollywood existed the entertainment industry has had a reputation for attracting men hoping to parlay supposed influence into sexual favours from gullible young people. And from the earliest days too there have been plenty of up-coming actresses and actors who have turned around and said fuck off and have gone on to enjoy good, satisfying and highly successful careers. If you don't believe me, look at Katherine Hepburn and Bette Davis: both spoke about the casting couch in the 1940s yet had stellar careers.
quote:It appears you’ve swallowed – hook, line, and sinker – the antique stereotype of actors as “loose, immoral women.” Again, men by and large run the entertainment industry. Do you really imagine that this “whole bunch of women” is embracing the opportunity to appear in public in little or no clothing? Let me set you straight: Deep in the American Bible Belt, while playing a role for an insignificant little touring company at a dinner theatre, I was ordered by the director to play a scene (previously played in somewhat revealing clothing) in the nude. I refused. I was then reminded of where I was, how many thousands of miles it was back to my home in New York City, how much it would cost me to get there, and what might happen to delay – indefinitely – my next paycheck if I continued to object. And I was a nobody, playing in a nothing-to-brag-about company, for a podunk little outfit, with very little at stake.
Originally posted by L'organist:
I'm mystified that a whole bunch of women who have made a career based on appearing in public wearing little (sometimes) and speaking in front of hundreds as a day-to-day event have found themselves unable to turn around and say "no" when confronted by boorish behaviour.
quote:Really? It rather sounds as though you do – as long as it’s meted out to shameless, disgusting hussies with the bad taste, poor judgment, and questionable morals to go into acting. And showing skin! Tsk!
Originally posted by L'organist:
No, I don't condone abuse -
quote:But shameless hussies don’t, apparently.
Originally posted by L'organist:
Mr Weinstein deserves a level playing field and a fair hearing - something he isn't getting from anyone from the Obamas down. Shameful.
quote:What's crap - and hypocrisy - is the appropriation of the term liberal by left-wing admirers or toleraters of various forms of Stalinism, in Hollywood and elsewhere.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
What a load of crap.
quote:The purpose is to expose left-wingers who call themselves liberals and sympathise with nauseatingly illiberal communist regimes - a form of hypocrisy which, historically, happened in the case of a number of prominent Hollywood figures as regards the USSR in particular.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The purpose appears to be to attack liberals.
quote:Historically, as in past history. Isn't the way it works now, wasn't universal then and has fuck all to do with Weinstein.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:The purpose is to expose left-wingers who call themselves liberals and sympathise with nauseatingly illiberal communist regimes - a form of hypocrisy which, historically, happened in the case of a number of prominent Hollywood figures as regards the USSR in particular.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The purpose appears to be to attack liberals.
quote:Wait - what? They're not?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And to take you logic to its logical completion, all conservatives are Hitlerphiles longing for a fourth Reich.
quote:So they say.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:Wait - what? They're not?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And to take you logic to its logical completion, all conservatives are Hitlerphiles longing for a fourth Reich.
quote:I liked the article and read about three quarters of the comments. What did concern me, and if anyone made this point then I missed it, was that in the embedded piece about thinking of women as a tough (though apparently easy going bloke) all of the women pictured were young and good looking. (I think they were all white too, but I may be wrong about that).
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This may be helpful. John Scalzi is one of the clearest thinkers I know.
quote:That has nothing to do with anything as anyone with a braincell can tell you.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
What's crap - and hypocrisy - is the appropriation of the term liberal by left-wing admirers or toleraters of various forms of Stalinism, in Hollywood and elsewhere.
quote:Of course. As in of course I knew. And I hear you. We all conspire, make excuses in the name of art. Gauguin comes to mind. But not Rolf Harris. Great art is a form of shamanism and shamans are dangerous, indulged, their magic is 'worth' the risk. As it is in religion from top to bottom.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:I don't get that one. The piece of shit bastard. However, that is not liberal hypocrisy any more than Weinstein is. It is the standard fame blinders that nearly everyone seems to have.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Emma Thompson identified genuine liberal hypocrisy, the blind eye in the name of art, with one name: Polanski.
And did you know Thompson initially signed a petition for Polansky's pardon? Whilst it is good she eventually listened to concerns regarding that and withdrew the signature, she did not sign it in ignorance.
quote:1. I have thespians in the family: the male refers to himself as an actor; the 2 female self-refer as actress.
L'organist: first, people who act these days are actors, just as poets are poets (not poetesses), and flight attendants are flight attendants (and not stewardesses). Second, I think you have some profound misunderstandings of the acting profession. Having (long ago and far away) been an actor myself for 8-10 years, perhaps you’d appreciate some enlightenment.
quote:That's a really nice way of putting it.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It's really not edifying.
quote:I have learned to overcome nerves and stage fright and I have put my career on the line on the grounds that standing up for what you believe in is generally more interesting than sucking up to mediocrities (and on other occasions failed to do that) and I can tell you that the second requires vastly greater reserves of courage than the former because the stakes are so much higher. Absolutely, it would have been better if people had come forward earlier, but when I see people being attacked for coming forward I can see why they might have hesitated.
I have never, and would never, suggest that any actress was a hussy, shameless or otherwise: I have merely said that it is strange that people who make a career out of conquering nerves, stage-fright, etc, have seemed unable (individually or in a group) to even hint at the stuff that is now coming out.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
quote:Excellent article. Thank you.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
An account in the Post about why women feel obliged to tolerate abuse.
quote:I looked, but did not see that embedded bit. Could you link it, please?
Originally posted by Huia:
I liked the article and read about three quarters of the comments. What did concern me, and if anyone made this point then I missed it, was that in the embedded piece about thinking of women as a tough (though apparently easy going bloke) all of the women pictured were young and good looking. (I think they were all white too, but I may be wrong about that).
quote:This story is about Hollywood. Youth and beauty are its cult and the measure by which women are measured. This is not to say anyone in the film industry never abuses outside of those parameters, but they are the natural targets within film. If you are not young and pretty (and typically white) you will find few opportunities. Rather, few of the already fewer opportunities.
No one said older women, plain women or overweight women get abused and raped as well, that it is not only the clothes a woman is wearing that have no bearing on whether or not she is raped, her age and what she looks like are not a factor. Babies are raped and Grandmothers are raped.
quote:Rape is about power, yes. But that does not preclude the possibility of preference nor cultural influence. And film culture is about beauty, for women.
Rape is about power.
quote:Dollars to doughnuts they are old. This is not an insult, but things were different in the past and not everyone moves forward.
Originally posted by L'organist:
1. I have thespians in the family: the male refers to himself as an actor; the 2 female self-refer as actress.
quote:Knowing people who do something means you understand everything about what they do? Jesus, then I have a reasonable understanding of nuclear physics, aeronautics, cardiology, etc. Hell, I could be a CEO.*
2. I think I have a reasonable understanding of the acting profession: true, not an actor myself but 2 thespians in the family have (between them)
quote:Read Brenda's link, about industry people with commentc by industry people.
On a general note, I have not suggested that any of the female thespians accusing Weinstein of sexual assault, etc, are lying: I have suggested that they might have found it possible to speak out earlier.
quote:Who gives a fuck? None of this has anything to do with sexual abuse or rape.
Gwyneth Paltrow: launched her "lifestyle" blog - later company - Goop 9 years ago: it is through this that she opines about vaginal-steaming. Her agent has in the past been at pains to underline that views expressed by Paltrow on Goop are nothing whatsoever to do with them so I think it safe to assume this is not something that Paltrow is being forced into.
quote:You know, some of the worst liars I know are actors. There are things which seem similar but are not. Sexual abuse isn't about being nervous. Complaining about it is a career killer nearly everywhere, but especially in Hollywood. In Hollywood, you can lose a job by not answering your mobile fast enough. (This is literally true) If you are labelled "difficult" jobs dry up and calling out sexual abuse of the powerful is a difficult as it gets.
I have never, and would never, suggest that any actress was a hussy, shameless or otherwise: I have merely said that it is strange that people who make a career out of conquering nerves, stage-fright, etc, have seemed unable (individually or in a group) to even hint at the stuff that is now coming out.
quote:Some people knew, I am sure. This is not the same as everybody knowing.
As luck would have it I met the most successful family thesp for a meal yesterday and brought up the Weinstein subject: they said it was an "open secret" about his behaviour, had been for years, and that his UK agent warned females they represent about tendencies - which female thesp confirmed.
quote:I live in LaLa Land and attend a church where about 70% of the congregation is "in the industry". I don't know of any female thespian of any age-- and I know a bunch from B-list to D-list-- who refers to herself as an "actress". "Actor" has been the norm for years. And, yes, actress sounds as dated as stewardess and waitress. And reminds me of one of my clueless students who asked if female clergy were called "priestess".
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Dollars to doughnuts they are old. This is not an insult, but things were different in the past and not everyone moves forward.
Originally posted by L'organist:
1. I have thespians in the family: the male refers to himself as an actor; the 2 female self-refer as actress.
quote:I am under the impression that this change in vocabulary happened in Hollywood rather earlier than it did in the UK. (AIUI, the Guardian style guide said use "actor" in 2010, and a number of female household names prefer "actress".)
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I don't know of any female thespian of any age-- and I know a bunch from B-list to D-list-- who refers to herself as an "actress". "Actor" has been the norm for years.
quote:Given the percentage of British film actors who do a significant amount of work for US productions, there is less difference than there used to be.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:I am under the impression that this change in vocabulary happened in Hollywood rather earlier than it did in the UK. (AIUI, the Guardian style guide said use "actor" in 2010, and a number of female household names prefer "actress".)
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I don't know of any female thespian of any age-- and I know a bunch from B-list to D-list-- who refers to herself as an "actress". "Actor" has been the norm for years.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:But as Mr Cheesy didn’t have anything to go on other than what his mate had told him, I’m not sure this is the case. Safeguarding requires you to report things you’ve seen and your concerns. First hand. Evidence.
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:If you have any doubts or concerns whatsoever with anyone or anything, you should raise them.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
A few years ago I heard from a very reliable source some scandalous information. They told me that the chief of a Christian international development charity was well known for going abroad to abuse children. I was also told that this was not a unique situation and that there were a number of abusive people in similar situations.
I was not, and am not, in a position to follow up this information but as far as I know that individual has never been investigated or denounced for their behaviour.
Of course, it is possible it is all rumour and made-up nonsense, as I said I have no way to verify or investigate it. But it is scarily plausible that it is accurate and that there are abusers who are in these positions of power.
I don't really understand how "conspiracies of silence" continue in these situations or why it takes so long for the lid to blow.
But I can tell you that people who have spoken to me about it are scared shitless about what might happen to them if they talk about it. It appears that everyone is waiting for someone else to break ranks before they come forward with collaborating experiences.
Best practice in Child Protection and Safeguarding requires this. It is our responsibility to report any concerns and for the professionals to decide whether there is any case to answer: there may be none or our phone call may add significantly to existing evidence of wrongdoing.
Where there is any suspicion it must be raised - indeed you are criminally liable if you fail to report anything that allows significant harm to continue.
quote:While I doubt that mr cheesy is required to report what they've been told, doing so would certainly accord with advice that I've been given in child protection training - if you're in any doubt report it. If it's worthless it will be ignored. If it forms part of a pattern it may contribute to building enough evidence for something to be investigated. Nobody is ever going to be arrested, lose their job or have their children taken away based on a single second-hand rumour, but it could add to a body of information that might ultimately allow harm to be prevented. Of course YMMV depending on how confident you are in you local child protection arrangements.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
But as Mr Cheesy didn’t have anything to go on other than what his mate had told him, I’m not sure this is the case. Safeguarding requires you to report things you’ve seen and your concerns. First hand. Evidence.
It doesn’t require you to report what is, essentially, gossip. However good the source. I would be encouraging my mate to go to the authorities if they know more than they’re letting on. (Reading between the lines, it sounds like they’re hoping Cheesy will do their dirty work for them. Classy)
quote:By itself, no. But is part of addressing L’organist’s posts and figures into the antiquated notions of behaviour and decorum which serve to exacerbate the core issue.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Because this is what's important here...
quote:This may be true for Mr. Cheesy, I don't know. It is not true for me, an American schoolteacher. If I have the hint of a whiff of a suspicion that a child is being abused or neglected, I am required by law to report, and could lose my job and face jail time if I don't.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
But as Mr Cheesy didn’t have anything to go on other than what his mate had told him, I’m not sure this is the case. Safeguarding requires you to report things you’ve seen and your concerns. First hand. Evidence.
quote:Please go for the position at my company. I'd love to see you in action... Though possibly not if I were on the receiving end.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Hell, I could be a CEO.*
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:Thankfully I've never had to make the call. But the thing is, it's the investigators' job to find out what's going on, and whether there's evidence to take to trial or to CPS. Not mine. Mine is just to say, "This is worrying. Will you guys look into it? Maybe I've got it all wrong."
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Mousethief: same laws here I believe. Do you find it a tough position, making a call that could, would, lead to investigation? I guess Yes, but I do not know if the thought you may be preventing abuse somehow covers the "it may not be true" aspect. I would find this terribly tough.
quote:With all respect for your good faith and good intentions, which I'm confident of, I think this attitude forms part of the problem.
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
But, assuming it's sane, I'll support whatever action is deemed necessary to get these scum, and all sexual predators, as far away as is possible - getting them the help if they need it and ensuring women are safe which is their right. Disgust is my only reaction to this.
quote:No, what was low was for some prominent Hollywood left-wingers, known in the US as liberals, to continue to laud the USSR long after it was evident (ie from about 1917) that far from being a "liberal construct", it was a murderous dictatorship.
Originally posted by mousethief:
A number of people thought the Soviet Union was a liberal construct. The USSR played to this (Potempkin villages anyone?). Eventually people were disabused and gave up the idea. Using this as a club to beat liberals with is really low.
quote:It ill behoves anyone with such a monumental capacity for incomprehension to talk about logic.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And to take you logic to its logical completion, all conservatives are Hitlerphiles longing for a fourth Reich.
quote:Warm in here.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:It ill behoves anyone with such a monumental capacity for incomprehension to talk about logic.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And to take you logic to its logical completion, all conservatives are Hitlerphiles longing for a fourth Reich.
quote:Not reading your own posts, I see. When you use phrases such "liberal hypocrisy" you are tarring all liberals unless you qualify the phrase. And, since you finally did by saying "some" then it is idiotic to even say "liberal hypocrisy". The more correct terminology would be simply hypocrisy by itself. Because that is what it is. And it is the same hypocrisy that operates in conservatives and moderates as well as lefties.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:It ill behoves anyone with such a monumental capacity for incomprehension to talk about logic.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And to take you logic to its logical completion, all conservatives are Hitlerphiles longing for a fourth Reich.
quote:I’m confused. Because this is exactly how I mean the usage and it is the same for every other victim I know and the same for most others who speak of rape and other abuses.
Originally posted by Ohher:
*Please don’t repeat to me the bullcrap that rape is about power. I am a rape survivor, have worked with many rape survivors, and have trained police and emergency room personnel in responding to rape victims, and let me tell you: rape is about power for the rapist.
quote:Agreed.
For the victim, who experiences this violent imposition of power in and through her sexual being, rape can also be very much about sex.
quote:Not how I see it. Talking about rape being about power is about removing guilt from the victim, not erasing the victim. It is about putting the responsibility solely on the rapist or abuser.
When we insist that rape is about power, we are defining it solely from the rapist’s viewpoint, and we are excluding and erasing (yet again!) the victim from the equation.
quote:Some really helpful insights here.
Originally posted by Ohher:
quote:With all respect for your good faith and good intentions, which I'm confident of, I think this attitude forms part of the problem.
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
But, assuming it's sane, I'll support whatever action is deemed necessary to get these scum, and all sexual predators, as far away as is possible - getting them the help if they need it and ensuring women are safe which is their right. Disgust is my only reaction to this.
Broad-scale studies of convicted rapists show that these men tend to be quite (though not exactly) similar to men who are not rapists. Convicted rapists tend to be somewhat younger than the average guy, a bit more impulsive than the average guy, and a little more violent than the average guy. By a "little," I'm talking single-digit percentages.
Bear in mind that (at least a while back when I was researching this) the typical convicted rapist had committed an average of 12 (self-reported) assaults before being arrested for the first time, and had been through multiple trials (I don't now recall the figure, but think it was in the neighborhood of four) before being convicted for the first time.
If we back up and look squarely at these bare facts, we see a couple of things: one, men at the extreme end of the “sexual misbehavior” spectrum (I hope we can agree that rape is extreme sexual misbehavior) just aren’t all that different from ordinary, regular men who would never do such a thing. Two, we see the extraordinary barriers to removing rapists from roaming at large in society. These barriers are formed of multiple factors: the ordinariness of the perpetrators and how like they may seem to jurors’ husbands, sons, fathers, brothers, bosses and friends; the deeply-rooted and widely-held societal and cultural suspicion of women, particularly around sexual matters*; the fact that it’s only fairly recently (at least in US history – 1973) that women could serve on juries in all 50 states; and so on.
If extreme sexual misconduct is committed by men who just don’t stand out much from the rest of their gender – the majority of men who’d be horrified by the very idea of forcing a woman into sex – then perhaps we’re better off not thinking of predators as “scum.” Perhaps we’re better off trying to understand how we shape the men in our culture / society into people who aren’t all that different from sexual predators. It’s a profoundly unpleasant, perhaps even scarifying idea, but there it is.
*Please don’t repeat to me the bullcrap that rape is about power. I am a rape survivor, have worked with many rape survivors, and have trained police and emergency room personnel in responding to rape victims, and let me tell you: rape is about power for the rapist. For the victim, who experiences this violent imposition of power in and through her sexual being, rape can also be very much about sex. When we insist that rape is about power, we are defining it solely from the rapist’s viewpoint, and we are excluding and erasing (yet again!) the victim from the equation.
quote:People truly suck, we are a contemptible species.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Interestingly, the hold outs on the jury in the rape trial I served on were women. It took a lot of effort, going over the testimony and physical evidence over and over, to persuade them that rape was precisely what the perp had described. There was a strong (and again, horrifying) desire to punish the victim,
quote:One is far more likely to be injured by a car¹ than be raped and yet people motor away because they think they have control.
I think it has something to do with our own mental defense mechanisms and what we have to tell ourselves in order to feel safe as we go about our daily lives. Because the alternative can be quite terrifying
quote:Loss of control is a major issue for most of the survivors I've worked with. It's a tricky issue; feeling that we have control over ourselves and our lives may be an illusion, but it's an important and valuable one. In a world where we actually have little control over significant aspects of our lives (the company relocates our job to China, natural disasters lay waste to the home that represents decades of our life's work, etc.), this illusion of control is all that enables many of us to get out of bed in the morning.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
One is far more likely to be injured by a car¹ than be raped and yet people motor away because they think they have control.
Pretending a victim had some responsibility alleviates some of the fear because they would never do something that "encourages" rape.
¹UK, US
quote:Once again, truly helpful insights that wouldn't have occurred to me. I suspect these insights were hard-won, but I appreciate how they have enriched your ministry, and hopefully mine/ours as well. Thank you.
Originally posted by Ohher:
It's common -- almost universal, in my experience -- that rape survivors' recovery begins with re-asserting this sense of control, and often the first steps include a scrutiny of some version of "What should I have done, worn, said, etc. differently?" It's a mistake, IMO, to derail this scrutiny out of concern over the victims' frequent self-blame early in the process. What really needs to happen, to help her re-assert her sense of autonomy, is for her to come to that understanding (with gentle guidance from helpers) on her own. Just telling the survivor "It's not your fault" too early in the recovery process is something she sometimes hears as "There's nothing you could have done, and nothing anyone can ever do" -- and that could lead to her giving up, interfering with regaining her sense of autonomy.
quote:What is idiotic is to pretend to fail to grasp that in this context it is liberal hypocrisy in particular which is under discussion.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And, since you finally did by saying "some" then it is idiotic to even say "liberal hypocrisy".
quote:It is hypocrisy plain and simple. Labelling it liberal is either trolling or stupid.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:What is idiotic is to pretend to fail to grasp that in this context it is liberal hypocrisy in particular which is under discussion.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And, since you finally did by saying "some" then it is idiotic to even say "liberal hypocrisy".
quote:I looked, but did not see that embedded bit. Could you link it, please?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Huia:
[qb]I liked the article and read about three quarters of the comments. What did concern me, and if anyone made this point then I missed it, was that in the embedded piece about thinking of women as a tough (though apparently easy going bloke) all of the women pictured were young and good looking. (I think they were all white too, but I may be wrong about that).
quote:LilBuddah, Sorry I've used up my access to the WP, but the link in the article wasn't talking about actors and movie people, but workmates, not all of whom are beautiful, hence my comment.
No one said older women, plain women or overweight women get abused and raped as well, that it is not only the clothes a woman is wearing that have no bearing on whether or not she is raped, her age and what she looks like are not a factor. Babies are raped and Grandmothers are raped.
quote:It is a natural response to think "how could this have been prevented?" when something bad happens. Partly it's the fear alleviation that you describe, partly it's a desire to learn from experience.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
One is far more likely to be injured by a car¹ than be raped and yet people motor away because they think they have control.
Pretending a victim had some responsibility alleviates some of the fear because they would never do something that "encourages" rape.
quote:Brenda's link that you referenced wasn't to the Washington Post and I couldn't find the one that was, so I cannot comment on that article.
Originally posted by Huia:
LilBuddah, Sorry I've used up my access to the WP, but the link in the article wasn't talking about actors and movie people, but workmates, not all of whom are beautiful, hence my comment.
Huia
quote:I have no idea whether Weinstein's erstwhile lawyers were 'liberal' or not. That might be an avenue you wish to explore.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:What is idiotic is to pretend to fail to grasp that in this context it is liberal hypocrisy in particular which is under discussion.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And, since you finally did by saying "some" then it is idiotic to even say "liberal hypocrisy".
quote:To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, the truth is rarely plain and never simple.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is hypocrisy plain and simple.
quote:Unfortunately, some of those who quote him are both.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, the truth is rarely plain and never simple.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is hypocrisy plain and simple.
quote:A couple thoughts on the Weinstein story so far. One of the more disturbing facets of the public reaction to the various revelations is that from conservative ideologues. Most people regard this as a story about a man (ab)using his wealth and power to be sexual predator and to cover up his actions after the fact. It seems a fairly clear illustration of the obstacles facing women in the workplace and the kind of entitled impunity that seems to come with wealth and power. When you listen to conservatives, however, the only reason this story is significant is because it shows liberals are hypocrites. Not because sexual abuse is wrong, or the way half of the American labor force is kept in line through fear and tacit intimidation, but because it can be used for political point scoring. Sexual abuse, in and of itself, seems unobjectionable to these sorts unless it can be used to serve a political agenda. It's hard not to conclude from all this that conservatives don't really care about workplace sexual abuse in and of itself.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:What is idiotic is to pretend to fail to grasp that in this context it is liberal hypocrisy in particular which is under discussion.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And, since you finally did by saying "some" then it is idiotic to even say "liberal hypocrisy".
quote:"That's deep. You know they have a section for people like you in the Reader's Digest." --Arthur Dent
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, the truth is rarely plain and never simple.
quote:Sexual assault is not "taking it too far", it's assault. Threatening somebody's job isn't "taking it too far", it's harassment and bullying.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
.. We cannot expect to promote and enjoy immorality and promiscuity and then complain when someone takes it a bit too far. ...
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
)
quote:Wow, this is a blindingly stupid statement. Blaming sexual attitudes you do not like for sexual assault. This is exactly the same reasoning as saying the victim deserved it because her dress was too short.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Seems to me that this dreadful situation and the perfectly correct condemnation of the crimes of this man is but a symptom of a promiscuous and immoral culture.
quote:Well, they have been blaming Eve for all the shit in the world for millennia.
Originally posted by Pomona:
... people will blame anyone but the actual perpetrators. It disturbs me that people who identify as Christians would respond to sexual crimes like this.
quote:The other stupid thing about this is that women are routinely assaulted in cultures that aren't promiscuous and immoral.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Wow, this is a blindingly stupid statement. Blaming sexual attitudes you do not like for sexual assault. This is exactly the same reasoning as saying the victim deserved it because her dress was too short.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Seems to me that this dreadful situation and the perfectly correct condemnation of the crimes of this man is but a symptom of a promiscuous and immoral culture.
quote:There's a counter with it.
Every 98 seconds, an American is sexually assaulted.
And every 8 minutes, that victim is a child. Meanwhile, only 6 out of every 1,000 perpetrators will end up in prison.
quote:Something I read once--I think it was a footnote for Genesis in the Scofield Reference Bible--said that Eve was deceived, but Adam knew what he was doing! And AFAIK Scofield was nowhere near being a flaming liberal.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Well, they have been blaming Eve for all the shit in the world for millennia.
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
.
quote:Just a second. I'm not defending Mudfrog's choice of words, but I don't think the idea is quite the same as victim blaming.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Wow, this is a blindingly stupid statement. Blaming sexual attitudes you do not like for sexual assault. This is exactly the same reasoning as saying the victim deserved it because her dress was too short.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Seems to me that this dreadful situation and the perfectly correct condemnation of the crimes of this man is but a symptom of a promiscuous and immoral culture.
quote:True, although many of these are certainly affected by access to extremely degrading and violent pornography.
Originally posted by RuthW:
The other stupid thing about this is that women are routinely assaulted in cultures that aren't promiscuous and immoral.
quote:I'm pretty sure that at least some of those currently distancing themselves from Weinstein are not doing so because they are genuinely outraged at his behaviour but simply because the whistle being blown means he's damaging to their brand, whatever it is. It's a bottom-line decision, not an ethically motivated one.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I am getting heartily sick of the coverage of this case in the media; my theory is that it's all about transferred guilt. They are all guilty of this stuff to one degree or another but when someone gets caught they all turn and shriek about him because they are also guilty and he has become their scapegoat.
quote:Even if that's true (I've absolutely no way to tell if it is or how many people it applies to), I've a hard time thinking that denouncing ongoing degradation of women in Hollywood is ever a bad thing.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm pretty sure that at least some of those currently distancing themselves from Weinstein are not doing so because they are genuinely outraged at his behaviour but simply because the whistle being blown means he's damaging to their brand, whatever it is. It's a bottom-line decision, not an ethically motivated one.
quote:There is a level of this going on I think.
Besides, demonising Weinstein is also a way of saying to oneself "well he's clearly a monster and I'm not, so no danger of me behaving like that". In that respect I'm firmly with RuthW's post here.
quote:You think assault and rape are about taking sex ‘a bit too far’?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
We cannot expect to promote and enjoy immorality and promiscuity and then complain when someone takes it a bit too far.
quote:That's horrible. What a total bastard.
Originally posted by Boogie:
You think assault and rape are about taking sex ‘a bit too far’?
What about my case where I was assaulted in the Church kitchen by a local preacher who was well respected, to his dying day, as an ‘upholder of morals’ and very much against promiscuity? Just another hypocrite? - or a sign that any culture - including the Christian Church, is as bad as any other in this respect (sexual assault and rape being perpetrated and ignored).
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
quote:I'm really not so sure.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Powerful men are maybe going to be thinking twice about whether they can get away with this behaviour
quote:I wish I could be so optimistic. Part of the problem is that this is not about rape as legally defined, it's about a whole attitude to women that is degrading and abusive without necessarily constituting physical assault, or in which the issue of consent is blurred.
I suppose there could be a horrible pack of aggressive men who rape their way around Hollywood who are just putting up a smokescreen to deflect attention away from themselves and towards Weinstein. But in the current climate, I doubt that's going to work for very long.
quote:Well OK, if we're going to trade anecdotes, then I happen to know that several large scientific conferences have in recent years had public "acceptable behaviour" statements that participants sign up to and there have been denouncements of things that have been said from the front.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm really not so sure.
I mentioned upthread my own eyewitness account from last week of an absolutely clear-cut instance of sexual harrassment in front of an audience at a seminar on non-discriminatory practices. The perpetrator either believed himself to be immune or was oblivious. Nobody in the audience or on the panel reacted.
quote:You are literally guilty of forgetting your own history.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
We cannot expect to promote and enjoy immorality and promiscuity and then complain when someone takes it a bit too far.
quote:I'm curious to know what you mean by this comment. The Salvation Army started as a reaction against poverty, as far as I understand.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:You are literally guilty of forgetting your own history.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
We cannot expect to promote and enjoy immorality and promiscuity and then complain when someone takes it a bit too far.
Tell us all again how the Salvation Army started in the Victorian age.
quote:Yes, change is slow and rarely comes from the top.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
There are things that are changing. It is too slow, these things are still happening without challenge. But there is beginning to be a challenge to the casual misogyny that was an accepted part of male behaviour in some contexts.
quote:I see. So one can't talk about one's own perception of societal ills with respect to sexual norms and freedoms and the results of the same; but at the same time one can legitimately talk about (for example) attitudes to debt, gambling, the housing crisis, buy-to-let etc and the results of the same.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It doesn't matter what 'society promotes'. The powerful will always exploit the weak, be it financially or sexually. Mudfrog blaming current sexual mores for the Weinsteins of this world is blaming the wrong cause.
quote:Because while it's part of the conversation, it's not the conversation we actually need to be having, which is the attitude of men towards the sexual availability of women.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I see. So one can't talk about one's own perception of societal ills with respect to sexual norms and freedoms and the results of the same; but at the same time one can legitimately talk about (for example) attitudes to debt, gambling, the housing crisis, buy-to-let etc and the results of the same.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It doesn't matter what 'society promotes'. The powerful will always exploit the weak, be it financially or sexually. Mudfrog blaming current sexual mores for the Weinsteins of this world is blaming the wrong cause.
It seems to me that the general pornification of society is a very good target for the cause of Weinstein and deeply troubling attitudes to women. I don't see why it is that you don't want that conversation to happen.
quote:Disagree. And I don't see why it is that you think that you can determine the conversation that we should be having.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Because while it's part of the conversation, it's not the conversation we actually need to be having, which is the attitude of men towards the sexual availability of women.
quote:OK. Not sure what this has to do with this conversation.
The conversations I've had with my mother - she's 81 - about her time working in a printing firm in London before she had kids... of having to go to the toilet in pairs: of having to take the stairs rather than risk getting in a lift: of being protected by a group of older, married men on the train commute in from predatory other men.
None of this had anything to do with porn. Take it back another thirty years, pre-war. Nothing to do with porn. Or another thirty to the turn of the century. Nothing to do with porn. Or another thirty.
quote:I don't think it is a distraction. It is a distraction when people keep saying that the pornification has nothing to do with anything even when the evidence (from court cases etc) is that it is.
Blaming porn is a distraction. Blaming 'the permissive society' is a distraction. Men in power assaulting women has gone on for decades, centuries, millennia. The cause is our attitude - men's attitudes.
quote:I think it's fairly clear - harassment of this sort was quite common prior to the widespread availability of porn.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:OK. Not sure what this has to do with this conversation.
The conversations I've had with my mother - she's 81 - about her time working in a printing firm in London before she had kids... of having to go to the toilet in pairs: of having to take the stairs rather than risk getting in a lift: of being protected by a group of older, married men on the train commute in from predatory other men.
None of this had anything to do with porn. Take it back another thirty years, pre-war. Nothing to do with porn. Or another thirty to the turn of the century. Nothing to do with porn. Or another thirty.
quote:Harassment was. But I've not see much evidence that the types of things that Weinstein has admitted (never mind those other things he's been accused of) were. Have you?
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I think it's fairly clear - harassment of this sort was quite common prior to the widespread availability of porn.
quote:Seems to me that's a fair point and another reason why this is a discussion to have rather than try to shut down.
Here's a thought - what if porn was an acting out of fantasies built on harassment rather than the other way around?
quote:Perhaps because it's possible not only for a professional woman to have such nasty experiences in this day and age, but also post them on a discussion form where it's reasonable to expect some sympathetic response, and yet get totally ignored by two guys having a discussion about a tangent only distantly related to her nasty experience.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I'm 43 years old, relatively well known in my field. Why am *I* the one who feels slightly grubby and ashamed?
quote:Then I can't help you. I don't think anyone can.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:quote:OK. Not sure what this has to do with this conversation.
The conversations I've had with my mother - she's 81 - about her time working in a printing firm in London before she had kids... of having to go to the toilet in pairs: of having to take the stairs rather than risk getting in a lift: of being protected by a group of older, married men on the train commute in from predatory other men.
None of this had anything to do with porn. Take it back another thirty years, pre-war. Nothing to do with porn. Or another thirty to the turn of the century. Nothing to do with porn. Or another thirty.
quote:As it happens I only saw that particular post after making my own post as it was made during the time I started my reply and before I completed it.
Originally posted by Ohher:
and yet get totally ignored by two guys having a discussion about a tangent only distantly related to her nasty experience.
quote:Thank you. I think I feel foolish. I thought I was there on my merits and on my terms when really I was there for someone else's reasons and on their terms.
Originally posted by Ohher:
Your "grubby" reaction, by the way, is exactly why I object to claiming assault is about power. That's the assaulter's take, and it ignores victims' experience. Victims are forced into questioning whether their experience, their very selves, have any reality.
My sympathies.
quote:Exactly: nail, head. You had every reason, given your status as a reputable, contributing professional in your field, to suppose you were there on your merits. In fact, it's likely that you were there on your merits -- though the creep's purpose might have been to pull that rug out from under you.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I thought I was there on my merits and on my terms when really I was there for someone else's reasons and on their terms.
quote:Let's hope he now backs off, permanently. If it happens again, reconsider the "aggressive" approach, assuming it's not derailing a promising career.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
And I felt sorry for him. Which I'm aware of having felt in the past about other senior figures who have acted inappropriately. As if I would become the aggressor if I simply said "That's totally inappropriate. Never say anything like that to me again."
quote:Other men know that this person is doing this. And they don't say anything nor do anything. Not knowing ths answers all I can do is say to men everywhere: don't be that guy, who doesn't say something, refuses to play along. Big brave men who don't stop things are major problems. It does not have to be this way. It isn't enough not to do harassment and grope-setup yourself. You have to say to other men and your language needs to be assertive and direct.
Originally posted by Ohher:
quote:Perhaps because it's possible not only for a professional woman to have such nasty experiences in this day and age, but also post them on a discussion form where it's reasonable to expect some sympathetic response, and yet get totally ignored by two guys having a discussion about a tangent only distantly related to her nasty experience.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I'm 43 years old, relatively well known in my field. Why am *I* the one who feels slightly grubby and ashamed?
I'm sorry, Erroneous Monk. And FWIW, I think it is serious, especially if you'll be crossing paths often with this creep in the future.
Your "grubby" reaction, by the way, is exactly why I object to claiming assault is about power. That's the assaulter's take, and it ignores victims' experience. Victims are forced into questioning whether their experience, their very selves, have any reality.
My sympathies.
quote:Don't feel sorry for him and don't feel like you are being the aggressor. The behaviour was totally inappropriate and needs to be stopped.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
And I felt sorry for him. Which I'm aware of having felt in the past about other senior figures who have acted inappropriately. As if I would become the aggressor if I simply said "That's totally inappropriate. Never say anything like that to me again."
quote:Well yes and no.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Other men know that this person is doing this. And they don't say anything nor do anything. Not knowing ths answers all I can do is say to men everywhere: don't be that guy, who doesn't say something, refuses to play along. Big brave men who don't stop things are major problems. It does not have to be this way. It isn't enough not to do harassment and grope-setup yourself. You have to say to other men and your language needs to be assertive and direct.
quote:Excellent. Exactly right. Formulate in your mind a response, so that it'll be there, ready to hand, if and when (God forbid) you need it again.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
And I felt sorry for him. Which I'm aware of having felt in the past about other senior figures who have acted inappropriately. As if I would become the aggressor if I simply said "That's totally inappropriate. Never say anything like that to me again."
quote:I think porn is different to other kinds of media and cinema. For one thing, watching a lot of violent porn is quite regularly being given as some kind of explanation for sexual attacks in court.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And yet almost all movie viewers clearly discern the difference between, say, Wolverine or James Bond and themselves. They evince no desire to go and stab people through the chest with foot-long blades, or leap from airplanes with guns. You may admire Logan or Bond's adventures, but you can clearly discern that it's a script, a fiction in which the scriptwriter and director have heavily weighted events onto Bond's side. If you yourself tried to run along the top of a rail car holding a Walther PPK you would immediately come to grief, and you know it.
I suggest to you that blaming movies/novels/video games/theater is common (dates back to Socrates), but pretty well proven to be a dead end.
quote:Aggressive would be threatening violence. Stating clearly what is happening and what the consequences for such actions would be-- exposure and legal action-- is simply truth-telling, which in certain circles is read as "aggression".
Originally posted by Ohher:
quote:Exactly: nail, head. You had every reason, given your status as a reputable, contributing professional in your field, to suppose you were there on your merits. In fact, it's likely that you were there on your merits -- though the creep's purpose might have been to pull that rug out from under you.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I thought I was there on my merits and on my terms when really I was there for someone else's reasons and on their terms.
quote:Let's hope he now backs off, permanently. If it happens again, reconsider the "aggressive" approach, assuming it's not derailing a promising career.
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
And I felt sorry for him. Which I'm aware of having felt in the past about other senior figures who have acted inappropriately. As if I would become the aggressor if I simply said "That's totally inappropriate. Never say anything like that to me again."
BTW, I think (FWIW) the approach above is assertive rather than aggressive. Aggressive would be threatening him with exposure and legal action.
quote:I agree with you. There is a lot of theoretical work on patriarchy, and patriarchal attitudes, but I am not sure how far this is percolating into people's consciousness. Well, it is percolating, since women are no longer treated as property, and coverture was ended in English law in the 19th century.
Originally posted by Pomona:
As an assault survivor I am glad of the Weinstein coverage shining a light on it.
Porn is connected to assault and rape, not the other way around. Anything else is victim blaming when assault and rape has been happening for as long as humans have existed. It is a symptom of the patriarchy alongside porn, not derived from it.
quote:Am I in some unique world? There's nothing about chaperoning anyone in this. If I hear another older man say "nice ass" about someone he's older enough to be her father, and say nothing, I am guilty of condoning attitude. Nine times out of ten the woman whose ass is said to be nice has no idea it's been said. So I am saying something. And I think all men should.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Well yes and no.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Other men know that this person is doing this. And they don't say anything nor do anything. Not knowing ths answers all I can do is say to men everywhere: don't be that guy, who doesn't say something, refuses to play along. Big brave men who don't stop things are major problems. It does not have to be this way. It isn't enough not to do harassment and grope-setup yourself. You have to say to other men and your language needs to be assertive and direct.
We don't know for certain that other men know. He might frequently be cut off by other men who don't want to listen to that kind of sexist nonsense and so only does it when he thinks he is a power situation where he can get away with it.
Also women shouldn't need chaparones. This prick needs to stop doing it. Not because he's going to get his face punched in by the next man who hears him disrespecting women, but because nobody wants to hear that shit.
quote:I understood this right off.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Also, by referring to the culture of promiscuity and immorality, I was NOT trying to implicate the victims in all this, as if it was THEIR immorality;
quote:And, as has been pointed out several times on this thread, that is humanity across time and culture. But you also added promiscuity, so the criticisms of your other post still stand and this one has done nothing to blunt that.
I was hoping you'd read into my comments that it was the evident culture of immorality, perpetrated quite evidently by men in powerful positions -
quote:The Salvation Army didn't just complain about individual cases of immorality; it also attacked the culture.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I see. So one can't talk about one's own perception of societal ills with respect to sexual norms and freedoms and the results of the same; but at the same time one can legitimately talk about (for example) attitudes to debt, gambling, the housing crisis, buy-to-let etc and the results of the same.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It doesn't matter what 'society promotes'. The powerful will always exploit the weak, be it financially or sexually. Mudfrog blaming current sexual mores for the Weinsteins of this world is blaming the wrong cause.
It seems to me that the general pornification of society is a very good target for the cause of Weinstein and deeply troubling attitudes to women. I don't see why it is that you don't want that conversation to happen.
quote:See my latest post above.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Yes - and my point was that such abuse goes on just as much where the culture is ‘moral’ and against promiscuity - ie the Church. So it isn’t the culture causing the abuse, the abuse goes on whatever the culture - where people are in positions of power over others and they know they can get away with it.
quote:Yes, and I've defended your right to talk about (your perception of) sexual societal ills in this debate.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Salvation Army didn't just complain about individual cases of immorality; it also attacked the culture.
quote:The studies I've read indicate that porn ≠ sexual abuse. Violent porn does seem to have a link.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't think it is a distraction. It is a distraction when people keep saying that the pornification has nothing to do with anything even when the evidence (from court cases etc) is that it is.
quote:So now you remember.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Salvation Army didn't just complain about individual cases of immorality; it also attacked the culture.
Until a certain date everybody accepted that 13 was the age of consent. Everyone accepted it.
What they didn't know was that because of that legal and cultural norm, something dreadful was occurring, using the age of consent - the tacit approval of the prevailing culture - as a cover.
This is what The Salvation Army did
quote:I was thinking of India, where there has been a wave of assaults and rapes; it seems unlikely that this is because of porn. Some people see it as a backlash by men against a relative degree of female emancipation, but these links are very difficult to demonstrate.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:The studies I've read indicate that porn ≠ sexual abuse. Violent porn does seem to have a link.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't think it is a distraction. It is a distraction when people keep saying that the pornification has nothing to do with anything even when the evidence (from court cases etc) is that it is.
Doc Tor's point about his mum is that she existed in a much less pornicised world and was more likely to be harassed. For your hypothesis to become theory, the sexual harassment incidents would need to increase as "pornification" does. This doesn't appear to be true.
quote:We got that, I trust. The problem is that -- I speak only for myself, here -- I'm not sure what you mean by "the culture of promiscuity and immorality." I get the sense (and may be quite mistaken) that you're referring to something contemporary. As I look around the landscape, I see any number of sexual misbehaviors I personally disapprove of, and which most people I know also disapprove of -- marital infidelity is one example. Widespread disapproval does not equate to a "culture of promiscuity and immorality."
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Also, by referring to the culture of promiscuity and immorality, I was NOT trying to implicate the victims in all this, as if it was THEIR immorality;
quote:This fails to address the fact that rape and sexual assault have been a major problem throughout time and in cultures that had the same view on "promiscuity" that you have.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The culture is sometimes a screen - and the culture needs to change.
quote:Yes, I did think of India also. My impression is that the current 'wave' owes more to greater awareness than greater incidence, and access to pornographic material pre-Internet would have been very limited - so pornography can't be 'blamed' in that sense for those types of behaviour.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was thinking of India, where there has been a wave of assaults and rapes; it seems unlikely that this is because of porn. Some people see it as a backlash by men against a relative degree of female emancipation, but these links are very difficult to demonstrate.
quote:Yes, I don't think I said anything different.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:So now you remember.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Salvation Army didn't just complain about individual cases of immorality; it also attacked the culture.
Until a certain date everybody accepted that 13 was the age of consent. Everyone accepted it.
What they didn't know was that because of that legal and cultural norm, something dreadful was occurring, using the age of consent - the tacit approval of the prevailing culture - as a cover.
This is what The Salvation Army did
To sum up, then. It's not the 'promoting immorality' that's the problem. It's the attitudes of men about women that are, whatever the age.
quote:I am specifically talking about the HOLLYWOOD culture, as reflected by the song lyrics from Sunset Boulevard I quoted.
Originally posted by Ohher:
quote:We got that, I trust. The problem is that -- I speak only for myself, here -- I'm not sure what you mean by "the culture of promiscuity and immorality." I get the sense (and may be quite mistaken) that you're referring to something contemporary. As I look around the landscape, I see any number of sexual misbehaviors I personally disapprove of, and which most people I know also disapprove of -- marital infidelity is one example. Widespread disapproval does not equate to a "culture of promiscuity and immorality."
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Also, by referring to the culture of promiscuity and immorality, I was NOT trying to implicate the victims in all this, as if it was THEIR immorality;
But as far as I know, marital infidelity is not just a contemporary issue. It's been a concern for at least 6,000 years (about the time writing was invented, so we have some record of people's thoughts and doings). I rather suspect it went on earlier than that.
It's the vagueness of language here that's a problem for me. How is our culture so different, sexually speaking, from the culture of ancient Egypt or Babylon? Or the Victorians? Or the dynasties of medieval China, etc.? As far as I know, most human societies have attempted to regulate human sexual behavior, and most have had somewhat limited success with these efforts.
quote:In case you need reminding what you actually said.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Yes, I don't think I said anything different.
quote:You put the blame for a culture of sexual assaults full-square on promoting and enjoying immorality and promiscuity.
We cannot expect to promote and enjoy immorality and promiscuity and then complain when someone takes it a bit too far.
quote:Apparently the movie industry is the only remaining institution where sexual abuse still happens. Good to know!
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
This is a cliche - the 'casting couch'/ I am surprised nobody is referencing this. This is the promiscuous and immoral culture of Hollywood - driven by men and abusing women.
It is the basic reason Weinstein has got away with it so long. He is not the first and only man to do this. He's the one who got caught.
quote:This is a fake, but it's hard to tell.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It was a very weird experience recently reading the Daily Mail diatribe about liberal hypocrisy on sexual assault, and right next to the online article is the usual DM helpful comments about various female celebrities, and their state of undress. Thus, 'X flaunts her 32FF assets and pert posterior in a VERY skimpy blue bikini, at yoga retreat'.
The article next to this attacks Hollywood superstars for being 'amoral money-grabbing cowards'. Laugh or cry.
quote:Why just children and women? What about gay male porn? That's a huge market. And what about all the women who watch porn? In 2014 Pornhub looked at the viewing habits of their female viewers. The most popular categories for women were lesbian porn, followed by gay male porn (interestingly enough), then teen, for-women and ebony porn. For 2015...
Originally posted by Ohher:
Thanks, Pomona. Porn exists because the children and women depicted are considered "not quite human."
quote:I don't believe most women search for 'big dicks' or gay male porn because they regard men as not being fully human; the same surely applies to guys?
While the lesbian category still holds the number-one spot, and gay (male) number two, the number-three spot now goes to the big dick category. “Squirting” fell to the number 10 spot.
[...Searches for] “man eating pussy,” “guy eating girl out,” “guy fingering pussy” and “hardcore pussy licking,” [...] were conducted 722% and 934% more often by women than by men.
It might also be worth noting that women who use Pornhub search for the terms “squirting orgasm,” “daddy,” “big dick” and “big black dick” significantly more than men do.
[...] just as not all little girls like Barbie dolls, not all women like cute, cuddly sex. Quite the opposite, actually. Female sexuality is complicated and varied, and it can keep up with even the most ambitious of male fantasies.
quote:No one is saying it is. Men are the primary abusers, though.
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
As for Weinstein and sexual abuse: patriarchal attitudes are no doubt are involved, not least with it being men holding the dominant positions in Hollywood. But sexual assault isn't just a heterosexual phenomenon
quote:Language is important here. The article says 'More Common Than Previously Known' which is not the same as astonishingly common. Even assuming that women are equally as likely to be predatory as men, there are fewer of them in a position of power, so the numbers will be lower.
More controversially, female-on-male rape appears to be astonishingly common.
quote:Most theories see power as the dominant factor in abuse. This does not preclude female perpetrators. What minimises their impact is the male dominated culture which limits the number of women who attain power.
This is something I struggle to get my head round but seems to be true, and so I'm skeptical about theories of sexual assault which entirely ignore female perpetrators.
quote:My experience too (and yes, Me Too). Another depressing day on Facebook.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Over on other platforms a meme is making the rounds. If you've ever been sexually harassed or assaulted, you post 'Me Too.' Not a woman I know has posted, "Oh, no can do. I've never had an issue." Not one.
.
quote:From the Scientific American article:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Language is important here. The article says 'More Common Than Previously Known' which is not the same as astonishingly common.
quote:This was from a major survey of about 200,000 people. It was repeated a few years later, and then a third time. Each version produced almost identical results: men and women reported being forced to have sex against their will in almost equal numbers in the last 12 months, and women seemed to be largely responsible for it happening to the men*. Other surveys have since produced similar figures. Here's the paper this article is based on.
The results were surprising. For example, the CDC’s nationally representative data revealed that over one year, men and women were equally likely to experience nonconsensual sex, and most male victims reported female perpetrators. Over their lifetime, 79 percent of men who were “made to penetrate” someone else (a form of rape, in the view of most researchers) reported female perpetrators. Likewise, most men who experienced sexual coercion and unwanted sexual contact had female perpetrators.
quote:Sure, but by restricting discussion unnecessarily you can get a one-sided perspective. For instance, I'm quite happy to accept that patriarchy and male entitlement plays a major role in Weinstein's shitty behaviour, but the existence of significant unreported female sexual offending suggests to me that it's not the only factor. And as you say, power is important.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I am not accusing you of this, but the problem with the way you state the issue is that it is one generally used to justify ignoring it.
quote:I'd heard that the total levels are similar but the most serious violence (including murder) is overwhelmingly committed by men. But oh boy, that's a whole other can of bitterly contested worms.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
In most good, anonymised studies of domestic abuse, the figures show that abuse against men (by female and male partners) is on a par with abuse against women (by male and female partners).
quote:That is what the Scientific American says, yes. But that sentence does not represent the entire picture. This infographic from the study they link paints a broader picture. It says that women are more likely to be abused by a significant percentage.
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
Each version produced almost identical results: men and women reported being forced to have sex against their will in almost equal numbers in the last 12 months,
quote:And this paper supports the first as well. The graph on page 304 shows this clearly.
and women seemed to be largely responsible for it happening to the men*. Other surveys have since produced similar figures. Here's the paper this article is based on.
quote:Bold Italics, mine.
Remarkably, the surveys have found that men and women had a similar 12-month prevalence of nonconsensual sex (i.e., 1.9 million women and 1.9 million men were raped or made to penetrate in 2011 data) (Breiding et al.,2014). There was greater divergence by sex in lifetime reports.
quote:Are you meaning to imply that it's OK for young guys to comment on attractive posteriors? 'cause I don't see why the age of the commenter makes a blind bit of difference.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
If I hear another older man say "nice ass" about someone he's older enough to be her father, and say nothing, I am guilty of condoning attitude. Nine times out of ten the woman whose ass is said to be nice has no idea it's been said. So I am saying something. And I think all men should.
quote:Sexual predation is inexcusable and should be called out AND wearing the label "liberal" while tolerating sexual or political tyranny is hypocrisy and should be called out.
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's almost as if the conservatives are trying desperately to distract our attention away from sexual abuse by putting up the smokescreen of partisan bickering.
quote:"Imagine, if you will, someone who read only the Reader's Digest between 1950 and 1970, and someone in the same period who read only The Nation or The New Statesman. Which reader would have been better informed about the realities of Communism?" --Susan Sontag
"That's deep. You know they have a section for people like you in the Reader's Digest." --Arthur Dent
quote:But isn't that exactly what you're seeing, and exactly what you want?
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:Sexual predation is inexcusable and should be called out AND wearing the label "liberal" while tolerating sexual or political tyranny is hypocrisy and should be called out.
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's almost as if the conservatives are trying desperately to distract our attention away from sexual abuse by putting up the smokescreen of partisan bickering.
quote:What a strange collection of words to type in this context. Who gave you the power to unilaterally decide what "genuine" liberalism is?
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Here's another possibility: if liberal hypocrisy is being called out, some of those doing so just might have a commitment to genuine liberalism rather than to old-fashioned prejudices in favour of men's entitlement to sexually exploit women.
quote:I give up. What's the answer?
]"Imagine, if you will, someone who read only the Reader's Digest between 1950 and 1970, and someone in the same period who read only The Nation or The New Statesman. Which reader would have been better informed about the realities of Communism?" --Susan Sontag
quote:Sorry LB, I screwed up. I had read a similar article in the WP, and I'd had a disasterous day, so I possibly conflated the two. I apologise if I sent you on a wild goose chase for something that was elsewhere.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Brenda's link that you referenced wasn't to the Washington Post and I couldn't find the one that was, so I cannot comment on that article.
Originally posted by Huia:
LilBuddah, Sorry I've used up my access to the WP, but the link in the article wasn't talking about actors and movie people, but workmates, not all of whom are beautiful, hence my comment.
Huia
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
This is a powerful summary of womens' situation. It's a poem, and a free click. I know that most women will nod while reading it. But what of the men? Who is it they recognize when they read this, or do they recognize nobody?
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:Age tends to come with a degree of authority and can accentuate a power imbalance, and there is the question of likelihood of reciprocal attraction as opposed to simple ogling. Whether it's ever ok to discuss the physical attractiveness of other people is a different matter, as is whether the effects of patriarchy make it worse for men to discuss women than the other way around. I know, for example, that before we were a couple my wife and a mutual friend were eyeing me up in my hockey kit. Now that doesn't particularly bother me, but I don't live in a society that constantly objectifies me. There is a penumbra around sexual harassment that can fade into courtship behaviours depending on the situation. Often it's not the behaviour itself but the behaviour within its context. It's a little bit like the sort of jokes you might get between friends and bullying behaviour. On the surface the words and tone might be similar, but the context is very different. Now it's up to the person making those "jokes" to be certain whether that behaviour is going to be ok with the person on the receiving end and if in doubt they need to back off.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Are you meaning to imply that it's OK for young guys to comment on attractive posteriors? 'cause I don't see why the age of the commenter makes a blind bit of difference.
quote:Oh for God's sake. Thats idiotic. I imply nothing. Why would you attack for something I never said? I simply took an example parallel to Weinstein okay?
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:Are you meaning to imply that it's OK for young guys to comment on attractive posteriors? 'cause I don't see why the age of the commenter makes a blind bit of difference.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
If I hear another older man say "nice ass" about someone he's older enough to be her father, and say nothing, I am guilty of condoning attitude. Nine times out of ten the woman whose ass is said to be nice has no idea it's been said. So I am saying something. And I think all men should.
quote:And the time when conservatives could get all moral behavior and talk about character and self-restraint and is long, long, =long= past. Stick a fork in it, it's done, when you elect a self-proclaimed pussy grabber. Whited sephulchre now has a new illustration in Wiki.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:But isn't that exactly what you're seeing, and exactly what you want?
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:Sexual predation is inexcusable and should be called out AND wearing the label "liberal" while tolerating sexual or political tyranny is hypocrisy and should be called out.
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's almost as if the conservatives are trying desperately to distract our attention away from sexual abuse by putting up the smokescreen of partisan bickering.
And the people who finally managed to bust the bubble of protection he lived in exactly the liberal journalists and actors you're railing against?
It's not as if a bunch of family-values orientated conservatives rode into town to clean up Hollywood? He was brought down (finally) by less powerful people in and around the movie industry.
Your main objection to him in all this appears to me not his sexual behaviour, but that he gave the Democrats a shedload of cash. Perhaps you'd be better off aiming your guns (all 300 million of them) at the political donation system.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:Sexual predation is inexcusable and should be called out AND wearing the label "liberal" while tolerating sexual or political tyranny is hypocrisy and should be called out.
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's almost as if the conservatives are trying desperately to distract our attention away from sexual abuse by putting up the smokescreen of partisan bickering.
quote:Brenda, I don't think you and KC are in any real disagreement here. If you read his posts closely, he tacitly admits that it's not hypocrisy to "wear the label "[conservative]" while tolerating sexual or political tyranny". As I mentioned earlier the only objection American conservatives have to Weinstein is his habit of making financial contributions to the Democratic party. It's only hypocrisy for liberals because conservatives self-admittedly don't care about sexual assault, unless it can be used for propaganda purposes against their political enemies.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And the time when conservatives could get all moral behavior and talk about character and self-restraint and is long, long, =long= past. Stick a fork in it, it's done, when you elect a self-proclaimed pussy grabber. Whited sephulchre now has a new illustration in Wiki.
quote:An Oranged sepulchre?
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Whited sephulchre now has a new illustration in Wiki.
quote:Yeah the whole "liberal hypocrisy" narrative reads to me as apologetic for the grabber-in-chief. Just another variation of Trump's own "everybody's doin' it" theme.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:Sexual predation is inexcusable and should be called out AND wearing the label "liberal" while tolerating sexual or political tyranny is hypocrisy and should be called out.
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's almost as if the conservatives are trying desperately to distract our attention away from sexual abuse by putting up the smokescreen of partisan bickering.quote:Brenda, I don't think you and KC are in any real disagreement here. If you read his posts closely, he tacitly admits that it's not hypocrisy to "wear the label "[conservative]" while tolerating sexual or political tyranny". As I mentioned earlier the only objection American conservatives have to Weinstein is his habit of making financial contributions to the Democratic party. It's only hypocrisy for liberals because conservatives self-admittedly don't care about sexual assault, unless it can be used for propaganda purposes against their political enemies.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And the time when conservatives could get all moral behavior and talk about character and self-restraint and is long, long, =long= past. Stick a fork in it, it's done, when you elect a self-proclaimed pussy grabber. Whited sephulchre now has a new illustration in Wiki.
quote:Yes, re Gingrich. Interestingly, the current Mrs. G has been nominated to be US ambassador to the Vatican. Don't know what she's like. But if *he* tags along, then
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But then, the GOP were apparently able to survive the specter of Newt Gingrich pious public railing about Bill Clinton's immoral activity at the same time he's delivering divorce papers to hospitalized wife so he can run off with his mistress. So, yeah, Trump was not all that much out of their bandwidth. Boys will be boys. Yuk yuk yuk.
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
quote:It was practical and thoughtful. If your spouse dies, it is rude to her family if you start fucking her replacement right away. However, if your ex kicks the bucket, fuck that night. Miss Manners would be proud.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
*I'm not against divorce, just his horribly heartless way of doing it. IIRC, his hospitalized first wife was expected to die. He dumped the divorce papers on her anyway, rather than just waiting. (Of course, she didn't die, but he didn't know what would happen.)
quote:He thinks he's a bonobo. Sex it up until differences are smoothed over. (Although I seem to remember that bonobos are generally matriarchal. Bother.)
For the last couple of years, a member of a small theatre group I work with has been finding it necessary to put his arms around me. He does this whenever we disagree about something (or at least whenever I say something he doesn't care for); he seems to think this is a way to resolve differences.
quote:What's "strange" is the suggestion of "power" being an issue here.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:What a strange collection of words to type in this context. Who gave you the power to unilaterally decide what "genuine" liberalism is?
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Here's another possibility: if liberal hypocrisy is being called out, some of those doing so just might have a commitment to genuine liberalism rather than to old-fashioned prejudices in favour of men's entitlement to sexually exploit women.
quote:I give up. What's the answer? [/QUOTE]
"Imagine, if you will, someone who read only the Reader's Digest between 1950 and 1970, and someone in the same period who read only The Nation or The New Statesman. Which reader would have been better informed about the realities of Communism?" --Susan Sontag
quote:OK I don't think that is what you said before - but let's run with it.
quote:What's "strange" is the suggestion of "power" being an issue here.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
What a strange collection of words to type in this context. Who gave you the power to unilaterally decide what "genuine" liberalism is?
I am saying that genuine liberalism involves opposition to sexual and political tyranny, and that those calling themselves liberals but tolerate either, are hypocrites who do not represent real liberalism.
quote:It is very hard to understand what you are saying when you change the terms of your argument in such a dramatic way and offer zero evidence for your assertions or even a proper explanation as to what they're supposed to mean.
What's "strange" - downright bizarre, actually - is that you would not get that.
quote:Mmm. I still am not really clear what the OP is saying and you're not really making a particularly strong case for it either.
And yes, of course conservatives can be equally hypocritical, especially those who hold traditional ideals about how "gentlemen" treat "ladies" but don't live up to them, or downright neanderthals like Trump, who made even the corrupt, mendacious and hypocritical Clinton look good in comparison.
But this thread is about liberal hypocrisy, so start another one on conservative hypocrisy if you want to.
quote:I am ignorant of what this quote is supposed to mean. I assume that the answer is supposed to be the Readers Digest, but I can't really understand why.
quote:You are blustering, either because you are ignorant of the issues, or because you are all too aware of them and are embarrassed by what Sontag admitted.
quote:I give up. What's the answer?
"Imagine, if you will, someone who read only the Reader's Digest between 1950 and 1970, and someone in the same period who read only The Nation or The New Statesman. Which reader would have been better informed about the realities of Communism?" --Susan Sontag
quote:I've been divorced so I've got pretty strong opinions. But this is really more about adultery and what sort of person screws around on his desperately ill wife, dumps her when shes on her death bed, thaeb goes out and rails on and on and ON about another guys adultery
Originally posted by Golden Key:
cliffdweller--
quote:Yes, re Gingrich. Interestingly, the current Mrs. G has been nominated to be US ambassador to the Vatican. Don't know what she's like. But if *he* tags along, then
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But then, the GOP were apparently able to survive the specter of Newt Gingrich pious public railing about Bill Clinton's immoral activity at the same time he's delivering divorce papers to hospitalized wife so he can run off with his mistress. So, yeah, Trump was not all that much out of their bandwidth. Boys will be boys. Yuk yuk yuk.
1. Poor pope!
2. If he tries to divorce *this* wife as callously as he did his first*, maybe the pope will have a little talk with him...
*I'm not against divorce, just his horribly heartless way of doing it. IIRC, his hospitalized first wife was expected to die. He dumped the divorce papers on her anyway, rather than just waiting. (Of course, she didn't die, but he didn't know what would happen.)
quote:I whole heartedly agree with half of what you're saying. I'm not worried about Weinstein being lynched. I've never believed we need to think someone is innocent until proved guilty -- that's for juries. The rest of us don't need to shut our brains in a box until the trial is over. If even one of the stories about Weinstein is true he's a first degree slime ball and I hope his career is over.
Originally posted by L'organist:
If (and it is "if") Harvey Weinstein did some of the things which are alleged then he is a creep.
But the spectacle of every actress under the sun leaping gamely onto the "get Harvey" bandwagon is sickening: if Mr Weinstein didn't have young children who must be deeply traumatised by this circus it might even be funny.
So, the child of American "theatre royalty", Gwyneth Paltrow, didn't feel able to speak out? Really??? This from a woman who makes a fortune through rampant narcissism and self-promotion with details about her vagina-steaming (I kid you not) and such rot? Similarly Angelina Jolie: more than happy to pursue the family feud with her father Jon Voight (also a Hollywood insider) and with starring roles from when she was 20, felt unable to say anything? And this morning British actress Cara Delvigne has joined the baying mob, though quite how a granddaughter of Joselyn Stevens can claim she didn't know how to complain or who to is a mystery.
From the days before Hollywood existed the entertainment industry has had a reputation for attracting men hoping to parlay supposed influence into sexual favours from gullible young people. And from the earliest days too there have been plenty of up-coming actresses and actors who have turned around and said fuck off and have gone on to enjoy good, satisfying and highly successful careers. If you don't believe me, look at Katherine Hepburn and Bette Davis: both spoke about the casting couch in the 1940s yet had stellar careers.
The world will always be full of chancers - male and female - who seek to bully (and that is the correct term) people into bed with them. If you stand up to a bully 99 times out of 100 they fold.
I'm mystified that a whole bunch of women who have made a career based on appearing in public wearing little (sometimes) and speaking in front of hundreds as a day-to-day event have found themselves unable to turn around and say "no" when confronted by boorish behaviour.
No, I don't condone abuse - abuse of power, privilege, sexual abuse, whatever - but I also don't like the spectacle of a man being lynched without a hearing by a group of people who seem to have in common a belief in the power of PR and a willingness to expose themselves, their person (sometimes their partners and children) to any amount of publicity and to offer their thought on almost any subject regardless of knowledge or training.
Mr Weinstein deserves a level playing field and a fair hearing - something he isn't getting from anyone from the Obamas down. Shameful.
quote:Shall I tell you a story, Twilight? When I was 18 or so I was coerced into sexual activity with someone I lived in a hostel with. I generally think of it as sexual assault although it does meet the criteria for rape. Weed and forced watching of porn were involved. I didn't report it to the police. I didn't tell the staff of the hostel I lived in. I didn't tell anyone for many years. I still don't talk about it very much. I remained friends with my rapist while I lived at the hostel. He was much taller and physically stronger than me, and much more streetwise - the others at the hostels were much more 'streetsmart' and had mostly been homeless from the age of 16, I was working-class but from a 'better' household and struggled and still struggle with mental illness. I'm so sorry that you are inconvenienced by survivors not acting in the ways you think we are supposed to, but yesterday I had a panic attack in the toilets at college for half an hour because someone used the same body spray that my rapist used so maybe try to support us rather than suggesting that we are complicit in our abuse.
Originally posted by Twilight:
If only they had listened to Courtney and boycotted the party.
Karl: As far as I've read, Weinstein has never beaten anyone up even though we know he was turned down on many occasions. He is accused of rape in one instance and for that he should have been reported to the police. I don't see how any of this compares with high school bullies. Sadly, the law protects adults better than children.
In continuing to ignore the rumors, and in cases like Courtney's loud accusations, both men and women were being complicit for the sake of their wannabe careers.
quote:You see my post as victim blaming. I see your answer as a patronizing attitude toward women that says they are not capable of living a courageous, self-determining, autonomous life.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
And we're back to victim blaming.*
quote:Dude. That's just fucked up.
Originally posted by Twilight:
They made a deal.
quote:I called "complicit," the people who heard Courtney Love's stories about Weinstein and ignored her and went on to his party that same night. It's a form of rewarding his behavior with friendship when he should have been shunned. There are more and more stories coming out about the people who would go to "board meetings," with him along with some innocent young woman and then all get up and leave suddenly so that he would be alone with them. Yes. I call that complicit.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
'Complicit' is a strange word to use about sexual harassment and abuse. I suppose it means helping someone to commit a crime, so if you are complicit in your own sexual abuse, you are partly responsible for it. What does this mean? We are not back to wearing the wrong clothes, going to the wrong party, are we?
quote:How would you have felt if you had told the staff at the hostel and they had sided with him? Wouldn't you have thought they were complicit in the future rapes he might have committed?
Originally posted by Pomona:
Shall I tell you a story, Twilight? When I was 18 or so I was coerced into sexual activity with someone I lived in a hostel with. I generally think of it as sexual assault although it does meet the criteria for rape. Weed and forced watching of porn were involved. I didn't report it to the police. I didn't tell the staff of the hostel I lived in. I didn't tell anyone for many years. I still don't talk about it very much. I remained friends with my rapist while I lived at the hostel. He was much taller and physically stronger than me, and much more streetwise - the others at the hostels were much more 'streetsmart' and had mostly been homeless from the age of 16, I was working-class but from a 'better' household and struggled and still struggle with mental illness. I'm so sorry that you are inconvenienced by survivors not acting in the ways you think we are supposed to, but yesterday I had a panic attack in the toilets at college for half an hour because someone used the same body spray that my rapist used so maybe try to support us rather than suggesting that we are complicit in our abuse.
Survivors being 'complicit' with their abusers is usually survivors just trying to survive. We are still not to blame and only abusers are ever to blame for abuse. I was raped because my rapist decided to rape me, not because I was his friend.
quote:I'm not blaming you for my rape, I'm blaming you for the horrifying victim-blaming you're doing. The women victimised by Weinstein are abuse survivors, and speaking as a survivor it is YOU that is insulting rape victims, not them. They are NOT complicit in their abuse - they were groomed. You should be ashamed of yourself for treating other survivors like that.
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:How would you have felt if you had told the staff at the hostel and they had sided with him? Wouldn't you have thought they were complicit in the future rapes he might have committed?
Originally posted by Pomona:
Shall I tell you a story, Twilight? When I was 18 or so I was coerced into sexual activity with someone I lived in a hostel with. I generally think of it as sexual assault although it does meet the criteria for rape. Weed and forced watching of porn were involved. I didn't report it to the police. I didn't tell the staff of the hostel I lived in. I didn't tell anyone for many years. I still don't talk about it very much. I remained friends with my rapist while I lived at the hostel. He was much taller and physically stronger than me, and much more streetwise - the others at the hostels were much more 'streetsmart' and had mostly been homeless from the age of 16, I was working-class but from a 'better' household and struggled and still struggle with mental illness. I'm so sorry that you are inconvenienced by survivors not acting in the ways you think we are supposed to, but yesterday I had a panic attack in the toilets at college for half an hour because someone used the same body spray that my rapist used so maybe try to support us rather than suggesting that we are complicit in our abuse.
Survivors being 'complicit' with their abusers is usually survivors just trying to survive. We are still not to blame and only abusers are ever to blame for abuse. I was raped because my rapist decided to rape me, not because I was his friend.
I was raped as a seventeen year-old virgin and I know it's awful. The ripple effects informed the rest of my life. So I understand that it's awful and I'm sorry it happened to you, I just don't know why you're blaming me for it.
quote:Unfortunately it has happened, and still happens, a lot on the left (the SWP, Novara Media, Kris Weiss etc) - but it happens everywhere there are men.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This kind of stuff has happened on the left actually. I remember a well-known orator, and it turned out that he had been supplied with young girls for decades, who presumably he had sex with. As the story came out, the girls' parents were furious, but they were over 16, and they consented.
But emotionally, it's a kind of rape, as they were so young, and they were told that they were helping this great man, and the cause of socialism, blah blah blah.
Is there anywhere where it does not go on?
quote:Twilight, what is your definition of "coercion"?
Originally posted by Twilight:
... I'm talking about women who were told that if they refused to have sex with Weinstein (or watch him shower or whatever,) then their career would suffer, and so they went along with his demands. They made a deal. ...
quote:Well, OK, I was sexually abused by a woman, but I don't want to derail the thread.
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:Unfortunately it has happened, and still happens, a lot on the left (the SWP, Novara Media, Kris Weiss etc) - but it happens everywhere there are men.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This kind of stuff has happened on the left actually. I remember a well-known orator, and it turned out that he had been supplied with young girls for decades, who presumably he had sex with. As the story came out, the girls' parents were furious, but they were over 16, and they consented.
But emotionally, it's a kind of rape, as they were so young, and they were told that they were helping this great man, and the cause of socialism, blah blah blah.
Is there anywhere where it does not go on?
quote:Firstly - sorry, it was Sam Kriss I meant, not Kris Weiss.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:Well, OK, I was sexually abused by a woman, but I don't want to derail the thread.
Originally posted by Pomona:
quote:Unfortunately it has happened, and still happens, a lot on the left (the SWP, Novara Media, Kris Weiss etc) - but it happens everywhere there are men.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This kind of stuff has happened on the left actually. I remember a well-known orator, and it turned out that he had been supplied with young girls for decades, who presumably he had sex with. As the story came out, the girls' parents were furious, but they were over 16, and they consented.
But emotionally, it's a kind of rape, as they were so young, and they were told that they were helping this great man, and the cause of socialism, blah blah blah.
Is there anywhere where it does not go on?
quote:If you wish to be clear, you must first understand the situation. And it doesn't appear you do.
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:You see my post as victim blaming. I see your answer as a patronizing attitude toward women that says they are not capable of living a courageous, self-determining, autonomous life.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
And we're back to victim blaming.*
*And let's be clear. I am not talking about rape victims. I'm talking about women who were told that if they refused to have sex with Weinstein (or watch him shower or whatever,) then their career would suffer, and so they went along with his demands. They made a deal. It's an insult to rape victims to lump them altogether.
quote:Agreeing with all of the above. But also wondering to what extent we are getting the cause-and-effect backwards. Perhaps it is not so much a case of women who are willing to get naked for a part are women who will be willing to sleep with a pig to get a part. Perhaps-- and honestly I am wondering, not stating, because I am speaking outside of my own experience-- I am wondering if perhaps it is rather the other way around-- that, in some cases, one of the side effects of sexual assault is having some natural boundaries broken down, leading perhaps to more compliance/less resistance to nudity "for the sake of the role". Perhaps abuse at an early age is training/normalizing an experience that ought not to be normalized. Which may be why it's taking so many years for women to get to the point where they look back and go, "wait, that was really messed up..."
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Cutting and pasting to trim out the thickets of nested quotations a little: "I'm mystified that a whole bunch of women who have made a career based on appearing in public wearing little (sometimes) and speaking in front of hundreds as a day-to-day event have found themselves unable to turn around and say "no" when confronted by boorish behaviour."
I believe links have been posted explaining why women have found themselves unable to respond. I address the issue of clothing. If it's your -job- to wear certain clothing, then by definition the choice is not yours. Nobody gets up in the morning and chooses to wear a bunny costume every day. You wear it the way you wear the McDonald's cap or the shirt that says United Airlines on the pocket.
But. Even if a woman chooses to wear a bustier, even if she chooses to wear nothing at all -- this does not entitle anyone to assault her. You may ogle her short-shorts or her belly shirt and think in the privacy of your own mind what you like; your thoughts are your own, between you and your God. But you may neither touch nor shout lewd suggestions; we are coming, I hope, to where you can't even make the lewd suggestions to your male friends over a beer. No one is entitled to assault, no matter what anybody wears. Clothing is never an invitation.
quote:Again, I think everything about this post is correct except the gratuitous addition of "on the left". Sure, the people in Weinstein's orbit, his handlers/enablers, were probably liberal. And the people in Roger Ailes' orbit were almost certainly ultra-conservative. What we're seeing is that this has nothing whatsoever to do with left/right, but rather about power and vulnerability. It's a pattern exists in all sorts of spheres, where powerful predators are allowed access to young women.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Grooming is the word I was looking for, in my story about the left-wing orator. Young girls were groomed by other people on the left, and they were like lambs to the slaughter. You can certainly blame the groomers, and I know some of them to this day, and some of them were very famous, but you can't blame the girls, or say that they were complicit.
quote:Indeed, the difference is the left at least belatedly condemns it; the right elects the abuser as President.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Again, I think everything about this post is correct except the gratuitous addition of "on the left". Sure, the people in Weinstein's orbit, his handlers/enablers, were probably liberal. And the people in Roger Ailes' orbit were almost certainly ultra-conservative. What we're seeing is that this has nothing whatsoever to do with left/right, but rather about power and vulnerability. It's a pattern exists in all sorts of spheres, where powerful predators are allowed access to young women.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Grooming is the word I was looking for, in my story about the left-wing orator. Young girls were groomed by other people on the left, and they were like lambs to the slaughter. You can certainly blame the groomers, and I know some of them to this day, and some of them were very famous, but you can't blame the girls, or say that they were complicit.
quote:Or at least to blame by not wearing ankle-length skirts.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The right wing also tend to blame women as complicit.
quote:And then you lose me. Possibly I am being particularly obtuse, but I am not understanding the point you are making.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Agreeing with all of the above. But also wondering to what extent we are getting the cause-and-effect backwards.
quote:It's uncommon but I have come across multiple cases in clinical practice, and I am not sure that I agree it's not institutionalised. I think it goes unrecognised to a large extent - which makes it difficult to track. However, the narrative a boy being 'initiated' by an older woman has been around for a long time. And the terms in which the sexual abuse of boys by female teachers are reported in the press still fail to recognise the seriousness of the offence and the damage it does.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Is women's sexual violence rare? I don't know. My mother was incredibly abusive, and later in life, of course, it all repeated. Anyway, I think it is a derail, and it would deserve its own thread.
quote:The casting couch maybe isn't rape, but it's certainly abusive and "rape adjacent". If you're expected to offer sex to get a top job, the industry you're working in is deeply fucked up and shitty. It's also grossly unfair to the applicants who don't go along with it - they don't get to compete on their own merits.
Originally posted by Twilight:
I am not talking about rape victims. I'm talking about women who were told that if they refused to have sex with Weinstein (or watch him shower or whatever,) then their career would suffer, and so they went along with his demands. They made a deal. It's an insult to rape victims to lump them altogether.
quote:While lots of people have said this on this thread, I don't think it's a valid comparison. Attacking Weinstein cost the left almost nothing.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Indeed, the difference is the left at least belatedly condemns it; the right elects the abuser as President.
quote:I realise I wasn't clear, but I was only separating by the gender of the perpetrator, not the survivor. Male sexual violence against all genders is different to female sexual violence of all genders. By 'institutionalised' I mean in terms of being part of a wider sphere of oppression - we live in a patriarchy not a matriarchy, male violence in general is part of public and private life in a way female violence isn't. Of course, none of that makes the recipients of female violence better off - it is in no way about diminishing their experiences. I am just clarifying that the power dynamics I am talking about are different to eg a teacher/pupil dynamic, and ditto the symptoms of gender at play.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:It's uncommon but I have come across multiple cases in clinical practice, and I am not sure that I agree it's not institutionalised. I think it goes unrecognised to a large extent - which makes it difficult to track. However, the narrative a boy being 'initiated' by an older woman has been around for a long time. And the terms in which the sexual abuse of boys by female teachers are reported in the press still fail to recognise the seriousness of the offence and the damage it does.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Is women's sexual violence rare? I don't know. My mother was incredibly abusive, and later in life, of course, it all repeated. Anyway, I think it is a derail, and it would deserve its own thread.
I think the reasons males are unable to speak out are different but nonetheless real.
I am not sure it is helpful to separate off male survivors from the discussion. This violence is largely about power dynamics, and gendered assumptions that harm both men and women.
We need all genders to see it as problem, and to see it as a problem residing in the abuser not the survivor.
We need to understand grooming, and how abuse of power works systemically - not look at isolated incidents of why did you make this risky choice.
People do and put up with all sorts of shit to survive.
quote:Statistics on this seems wildly discordant. You used to get stats of about 15% for abuse of boys and young men, but latterly, I have seen figures of 38% quoted, and even higher. I don't know how much of this is by women.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:It's uncommon but I have come across multiple cases in clinical practice, and I am not sure that I agree it's not institutionalised. I think it goes unrecognised to a large extent - which makes it difficult to track. However, the narrative a boy being 'initiated' by an older woman has been around for a long time. And the terms in which the sexual abuse of boys by female teachers are reported in the press still fail to recognise the seriousness of the offence and the damage it does.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Is women's sexual violence rare? I don't know. My mother was incredibly abusive, and later in life, of course, it all repeated. Anyway, I think it is a derail, and it would deserve its own thread.
I think the reasons males are unable to speak out are different but nonetheless real.
I am not sure it is helpful to separate off male survivors from the discussion. This violence is largely about power dynamics, and gendered assumptions that harm both men and women.
We need all genders to see it as problem, and to see it as a problem residing in the abuser not the survivor.
We need to understand grooming, and how abuse of power works systemically - not look at isolated incidents of why did you make this risky choice.
People do and put up with all sorts of shit to survive.
quote:Not accurate. Attacking Weinstein now isn't very costly. At the height of his powers, it would cost politicians a lot of money and those in the industry their livelihood.
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:While lots of people have said this on this thread, I don't think it's a valid comparison. Attacking Weinstein cost the left almost nothing.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Indeed, the difference is the left at least belatedly condemns it; the right elects the abuser as President.
quote:I think there might be a concerted campaign to elect the ticket with a view to impeaching the pussy grabber and replacing them with their VP, or holding an emergency party convention prior to the election and petitioning the electors to vote for whoever the convention picks. Either way it might precipitate a constitutional crisis but I think without some sort of drastic action enough democratic voters would be disgusted enough to vote for a third party candidate that a loss would be assured. Court picks, of course, are dependent on the Senate, and it's been made clear in recent years that you can block them for whatever reason you feel like and make up a reason later.
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
So what do you do? Accept four years of Cheney/Palin (plus their Supreme Court Justice nominations)? Risk Roe vs Wade, crippling reductions in welfare and whatever else? Or hold your nose, vote for Bill grab-em-by-the-pussy Clinton, and decide that most of the allegations were politically motivated?
I suspect the left would be more conflicted than conservatives have been, but in the end motivated reasoning is a powerful force. It'd certainly be a far more painful decision than turning on Weinstein.
quote:Sorry-- it was a speculative thought that I was spinning, then halfway thru the spin realized it was perhaps inappropriate for me to speculate when it's outside of my experience, so really more for those who have experienced sexual assault to say to what degree it is/is not the case-- should they choose to do so.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:And then you lose me. Possibly I am being particularly obtuse, but I am not understanding the point you are making.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Agreeing with all of the above. But also wondering to what extent we are getting the cause-and-effect backwards.
quote:I see it as part of the same process. What a woman has to do in order to be part of the business,
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
My speculation was that rather than suggesting that a woman who is willing to take off her clothes on camera will be willing to sleep with Weinstein or anyone else to get ahead, perhaps the cause-and-effect is the other way around. Perhaps one of the side-effects of sexual exploitation/assault such as Weinstein perpetrated was that it normalizes that behavior and breaks down barriers, making those victims more likely to consent to, say, gratuitous on-screen nudity.
quote:Weinstein's victims included women he had no yet worked with and those with little experience in the business and those who were part of the business side.
I was further speculating that perhaps that is even, consciously or subconsciously, part of the motivation for predators like Weinstein-- not just the immediate sexual gratification but also the "grooming" of someone for a different sort of exploitation on film.
quote:I didn't intend to imply that only film has such a problem. Any profession that has gatekeepers will have a greater level of problems than standard.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
{From the bleachers, 'cause I don't want to jump into the middle of a battle royal.}
FYI:
It's not just acting.
quote:Making all due allowance for the strong emotions naturally raised by this subject, that is too personal for Purgatory. It goes beyond robust disagreement into personal attack.
Originally posted by Pomona:
You should be ashamed of yourself for treating other survivors like that.
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I would also like some of the people who have attacked me for calling abuse victims "complicit in their own abuse." to show me that quote.
quote:Knock yourself out.
Originally posted by Twilight:
They made a deal.
quote:I confess that I don't follow Courtney Love and am unfamiliar with this incident, but I wonder if it's possible that not every party attendee was aware of Love's accusations. If I were planning to attend a big do at some important producer's behest, I'd probably be getting my hair and nails done or thinking about what to wear.
Originally posted by Twilight:
I used the word "complicit," in reference to the people who ignored Courtney Love's accusations against Weinstein and went ahead to his party that night.
quote:Maybe, or maybe the party would just grit its teeth and replace him after one term. It doesn't matter though - my argument is that turning on your candidate mid-election and letting your Wicked Enemies win and enact their Shitty Evil Policies is a zillion times harder than having a pop at Weinstein five days after he's already been destroyed.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I think there might be a concerted campaign to elect the ticket with a view to impeaching the pussy grabber and replacing them with their VP, or holding an emergency party convention prior
quote:Thanks!
Court picks, of course, are dependent on the Senate
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:If coercion is (per Wikipedia)
Originally posted by Twilight:
... women who engaged in consensual sex, however groomed and coerced ...
quote:I rest my case.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I am ignorant of what this quote is supposed to mean.
quote:What case? You haven't made any case that cheesy's comment here settles. I don't get the quote either, unless it's just an exercise in arch sarcasm based on a tired stereotype that has long, long ceased to resemble reality.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:I rest my case.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I am ignorant of what this quote is supposed to mean.
quote:And people may have heard, but not believed her-- for a a variety of reasons.
Originally posted by Ohher:
quote:I confess that I don't follow Courtney Love and am unfamiliar with this incident, but I wonder if it's possible that not every party attendee was aware of Love's accusations. If I were planning to attend a big do at some important producer's behest, I'd probably be getting my hair and nails done or thinking about what to wear.
Originally posted by Twilight:
I used the word "complicit," in reference to the people who ignored Courtney Love's accusations against Weinstein and went ahead to his party that night.
quote:I did some fact-checking on this.
Originally posted by mousethief:
What case? You haven't made any case that cheesy's comment here settles. I don't get the quote either, unless it's just an exercise in arch sarcasm based on a tired stereotype that has long, long ceased to resemble reality.
quote:I don't know the particulars of the Courtney Love incident either. On page five Doc Tor described the incident as Courtney warning everyone publicly about Weinstein before the party. I had responded to that when I said it was a shame people hadn't listened to her. Of course those who hadn't heard anything she said were not among those I was referring to when I said those whoignored her accusations were complicit. You do have to hear something before you can ignore it.
Originally posted by Ohher:
quote:I confess that I don't follow Courtney Love and am unfamiliar with this incident, but I wonder if it's possible that not every party attendee was aware of Love's accusations. If I were planning to attend a big do at some important producer's behest, I'd probably be getting my hair and nails done or thinking about what to wear.
Originally posted by Twilight:
I used the word "complicit," in reference to the people who ignored Courtney Love's accusations against Weinstein and went ahead to his party that night.
quote:And it's not beyond the wit of anyone posting here to google it?
Originally posted by Twilight:
I don't know the particulars of the Courtney Love incident either. On page five Doc Tor described the incident as Courtney warning everyone publicly about Weinstein before the party. I had responded to that when I said it was a shame people hadn't listened to her. Of course those who hadn't heard anything she said were not among those I was referring to when I said those whoignored her accusations were complicit. You do have to hear something before you can ignore it.
quote:They heard. They heard it loud and clear. And they didn't ignore it. It just wasn't the message that Love gave: it was the message that Hollywood gave.
You do have to hear something before you can ignore it.
quote:I think "forcing" is the key word here. Intimidation and threats can mean a lot of different things. Threatening to kill someone or beat them up if they didn't have sex with them would count as rape to me, but threatening to take an actor off a film would not be rape, in my opinion.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:If coercion is (per Wikipedia)
Originally posted by Twilight:
... women who engaged in consensual sex, however groomed and coerced ...
"the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of intimidation or threats or some other form of pressure or force"
it hardly seems reasonable to describe such an act as "consensual".
quote:Most people, when it's pointed out to them that they're standing in a hole they've dug themselves, would stop and look for a way out.
Originally posted by Twilight:
The women who I said "made a deal," are women who simply, straightforwardly, decided to trade sex for career advancement. It happens. According to the several autobiographies I've read about Hollywood, it happens fairly frequently, and while it is a free choice it does muddy the waters and make the Weinsteins of the world bolder and makes it harder for the women who don't want to do that.
quote:Of course it was still rape and of course he deserved to go to jail and of course she deserves sympathy.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:And people may have heard, but not believed her-- for a a variety of reasons.
Originally posted by Ohher:
quote:I confess that I don't follow Courtney Love and am unfamiliar with this incident, but I wonder if it's possible that not every party attendee was aware of Love's accusations. If I were planning to attend a big do at some important producer's behest, I'd probably be getting my hair and nails done or thinking about what to wear.
Originally posted by Twilight:
I used the word "complicit," in reference to the people who ignored Courtney Love's accusations against Weinstein and went ahead to his party that night.
Or they showed poor judgment.
The victim in the rape trial I mentioned upthread certainly showed poor judgment. She was upset, so she went off with a stranger, got drunk and high in an alleyway, and started making out. That was very foolish.
Her rapist decided those foolish choices amounted to consent-- even when she said no. Even when he had to use a knife to convince her to comply. At least one of my fellow jurors agreed with him.
Yes, she was foolish. All of us are foolish sometimes. God knows I have made foolish, stupid choices sometimes-- and not all of them when I was young. I was fortunate. She was not.
I don't think that means she is not deserving of sympathy. She suffered greatly for her foolish choices. I doubt very much that she ever went off alone with a stranger again. Quite possibly there were other, more significant limitations on her personal freedom. I can acknowledge that she made foolish choices, while also being sympathetic and hopefully caring about what she suffered. She didn't deserve rape. And i can recognize that my own foolish choices could have led to similar horrible outcomes, had I not been as fortunate.
quote:Except male victims are disbelieved every bit as badly, and female perpetrators get the benefit of the doubt at least as much as male ones.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A wise friend of mine reflects on this, and points out that it's not that women don't testify, or even that they are not believed. It's that women matter less than men.
quote:Aaaaaand ... we're back to "legitimate rape". And duplicitous or malicious or ashamed women who change their minds after sex. Classic rape culture clichés.
Originally posted by Twilight:
... I don't think we should take physical force or physical threats out of the definition of rape, otherwise any woman who ever has sex and says later she was "talked into it" or really hadn't wanted to can charge rape in a court of law. ...
quote:I find this all confusing. I was thinking that male victims were not disbelieved, they just didn't enter the frame of reference. I mean, the idea that men could be victims of domestic violence, sexual harassment, enforced sex, and so on, was beyond many people's credulity. Well, this is changing now, I think. I just noticed Sir Tom Jones' comments about the sexual abuse of men.
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:Except male victims are disbelieved every bit as badly, and female perpetrators get the benefit of the doubt at least as much as male ones.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A wise friend of mine reflects on this, and points out that it's not that women don't testify, or even that they are not believed. It's that women matter less than men.
quote:Here's a quote from myself , from my first post on this thread, talking to L'Organist who thought Weinstein was being lynched:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
Twilight, here's a list of the women making accusations against Weinstein.
quote:Now you and apparently Brenda have set me up as his defender based on what?
Twilight: I'm not worried about Weinstein being lynched. I've never believed we need to think someone is innocent until proved guilty -- that's for juries. The rest of us don't need to shut our brains in a box until the trial is over. If even one of the stories about Weinstein is true he's a first degree slime ball and I hope his career is over.
quote:I was talking rape defintions nothing about Weinstein. Don't put shit in quotes that I didn't say, you fucking moron.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:Aaaaaand ... we're back to "legitimate rape". And duplicitous or malicious or ashamed women who change their minds after sex. Classic rape culture clichés.
Originally posted by Twilight:
... I don't think we should take physical force or physical threats out of the definition of rape, otherwise any woman who ever has sex and says later she was "talked into it" or really hadn't wanted to can charge rape in a court of law. ...
The NYPD had an audio recording of Weinstein admitting a prior assault. No charges were laid. Can we please dispense with the "oh, she should have stood up for herself" crap? One woman did. The New York legal system said, yeah, whatever, go away, sure, we can prove he did it but we'll never get a conviction.
quote:I think the legal definitions of rape have been expanding way beyond the idea of physical force. For example, impersonating someone else can be classed as rape; ditto, refusing to withdraw during intercourse, where this has been agreed; and of course, women who are very drunk or otherwise out of it, cannot give consent. I think in some countries abuse of power can indicate that rape has been committed, and there are also emotional threats here.
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:Aaaaaand ... we're back to "legitimate rape". And duplicitous or malicious or ashamed women who change their minds after sex. Classic rape culture clichés.
Originally posted by Twilight:
... I don't think we should take physical force or physical threats out of the definition of rape, otherwise any woman who ever has sex and says later she was "talked into it" or really hadn't wanted to can charge rape in a court of law. ...
The NYPD had an audio recording of Weinstein admitting a prior assault. No charges were laid. Can we please dispense with the "oh, she should have stood up for herself" crap? One woman did. The New York legal system said, yeah, whatever, go away, sure, we can prove he did it but we'll never get a conviction.
quote:Clearly several of us heard the word "complicit" below as blaming.
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:Of course it was still rape and of course he deserved to go to jail and of course she deserves sympathy.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:Or they showed poor judgment.
Originally posted by Twilight:
I used the word "complicit," in reference to the people who ignored Courtney Love's accusations against Weinstein and went ahead to his party that night.
The victim in the rape trial I mentioned upthread certainly showed poor judgment...
I don't think that means she is not deserving of sympathy. She suffered greatly for her foolish choices. I doubt very much that she ever went off alone with a stranger again. Quite possibly there were other, more significant limitations on her personal freedom. I can acknowledge that she made foolish choices, while also being sympathetic and hopefully caring about what she suffered. She didn't deserve rape. And i can recognize that my own foolish choices could have led to similar horrible outcomes, had I not been as fortunate.
I really wish people would stop addressing rape cases to me as if they were refuting something I said. Where on earth did I say or imply that a woman's bad choices mean she can not be a victim of rape deserving of sympathy and the full force of the law?
I expressed sympathy for Courtney Love and sorrow that more people didn't heed her warning because it might have saved some of the women we are hearing about today from being hurt? How in the world is that such a mean thing to say that I have to listen to you and others repeat rape case stories as though they are all my fault?
quote:Webster's defines "complicit": "helping to commit a crime or do wrong in some way He was complicit in the cover-up." So you can see why it felt like blaming. Given that you're talking about women who ended up getting either harassed, threatened, abused, or raped, you can see I hope why so many of us heard your use of the word "complicit" as unsympathetic to victims. My story about the rape trial was to illustrate the point you appear now to be trying to make-- that one can assess someone's behavior as foolish or even irresponsible, while still having sympathy for them. That assessment was not immediately apparent in your original posts, not just to me but apparently to several other posters as well.
Originally posted by Twilight:
[qb]
I used the word "complicit," in reference to the people who ignored Courtney Love's accusations against Weinstein and went ahead to his party that night.
quote:Well, clearly it's not just me as there were several posts in a row forming a similar interpretation of your use of "complicit", as your earlier remark indicates.
Originally posted by Twilight:
I really wish people would stop addressing rape cases to me as if they were refuting something I said...
When your rape case doesn't seem to relate to anything I've said, it begins to seem like deliberate misunderstanding of my posts for the sake of being able to imply that I would have been sitting on that jury saying rape hadn't really taken place because she made bad choices. Next someone will say she was wearing a short skirt and I thought she was asking for it.
That's some twisted, sick manipulation even for you, Cliffdweller.
I want out of here, please ban me.
quote:Really thoughtful & helpful distinctions.
Originally posted by Pomona:
ALL rape is violent. It is sexual violence by definition. The violence is the violation of the person. Most rapes are perpetrated by partners or family members, not a stranger in a dark alley. 'Only "violent rape" is real rape' is extremely damaging, particularly when grooming takes place over a long period of time.
I'm not a woman, and being transgender means that many prominent radical feminists aren't exactly very fond of me - saying that all rape is 'real rape' is not remotely suggesting that all PIV [penis in vagina] sex is rape (which is actually what is sometimes argued). I don't think that all sex workers are raped at work, but choosing between having sex with someone you're not attracted to and paying the bills blurs the consent lines to a huge degree. I am a big supporter of sex workers and their rights, but that doesn't mean not acknowledging the complexities of how consensual sex is if it becomes your job. It is really not OK to suggest that thinking that sexual exploitation of workers is bad somehow equals thinking women are weak - not least because of the subtext of equating experiencing abuse and exploitation with being weak and helpless.
quote:We are all familiar with couples with an old, rich man married to a much younger, attractive woman. We tend to suspect that many of these relationships are often not exactly the marriage of true minds, but a quid pro quo arrangement: he spends lots of quid and gets access to her quo.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Age tends to come with a degree of authority and can accentuate a power imbalance, and there is the question of likelihood of reciprocal attraction as opposed to simple ogling.
quote:Do you see no difference between an actor voluntarily saying to a producer, "If you cast me as X in your upcoming movie, I'll sleep with you" and a producer saying to an actor, "Sleep with me if you expect to work in my movie?"
Originally posted by Twilight:
Do you honestly believe no woman in Hollywood ever exchanged sexual favors for other favors? Do you not know that there are women in this world who are self-determining and have made a conscious decision to use sex, when needed, to get what they want out of life?
quote:In the first case, do actors who do not "voluntarily" offer to sleep with the producer get parts? Because if all the best parts are getting traded in a part-for-sex deal, I'm not sure it makes too much difference who initiated the trade.
Originally posted by Ohher:
Do you see no difference between an actor voluntarily saying to a producer, "If you cast me as X in your upcoming movie, I'll sleep with you" and a producer saying to an actor, "Sleep with me if you expect to work in my movie?"
quote:Nearly as rare as unicorns, IME. And bullshit anyway, bringing it up in this discussion as Weinstein is clearly a predator.¹
Originally posted by Twilight:
Do you honestly believe no woman in Hollywood ever exchanged sexual favors for other favors? Do you not know that there are women in this world who are self-determining and have made a conscious decision to use sex, when needed, to get what they want out of life?
quote:Rubbish. Modern feminism poses that women should be treated as equal but still are not. It is called reality.
This third wave feminism that poses every woman as a helpless victim of big bad men is so offensive to my second wave feminism that poses women as men's equals in all areas -- including some areas that aren't always nice.
quote:Except in this case, the producer is saying to the actor "Sleep with me if you expect to work ever again."
Originally posted by Ohher:
Do you see no difference between an actor voluntarily saying to a producer, "If you cast me as X in your upcoming movie, I'll sleep with you" and a producer saying to an actor, "Sleep with me if you expect to work in my movie?"
quote:Yes. Jesus Christ on a fucking pogo stick, you cannot see this?
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
But when we're talking about rich men who are their own boss, is there an ethical difference between offering someone work for sex and acquiring an attractive young wife / girlfriend with your money?
quote:Yeah, much of that is also part of patriarchy. Men are treated as less than men (i.e. women) if they have been victims.
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:Except male victims are disbelieved every bit as badly, and female perpetrators get the benefit of the doubt at least as much as male ones.
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
A wise friend of mine reflects on this, and points out that it's not that women don't testify, or even that they are not believed. It's that women matter less than men.
quote:Twilight, if you need to take a break from this thread, then take a break.
Originally posted by Twilight:
Don't put shit in quotes that I didn't say, you fucking moron.
quote:She didn't. Those were what are called scare quotes or sneer quotes. They are used to add question to the validity of the terms so enclosed.
Originally posted by Twilight:
Don't put shit in quotes that I didn't say, you fucking moron.
quote:I partly agree, although I'd add that male victims can be seen as failing both gender roles. But that discussion would probably pull us too far from Weinstein and his victims.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yeah, much of that is also part of patriarchy. Men are treated as less than men (i.e. women) if they have been victims.
quote:Eh, I'm with ya here Twilight. I've been staying out of this discussion in spite of having a bunch of stuff to say in response to various posts precisely because I had a pretty good idea how the discussion was going to go and because seemingly deliberate misreadings of things I've said have had such a severe impact on my real life that it hasn't seem worth worth banging my head against the same brick wall again.
Originally posted by Twilight:
That's some twisted, sick manipulation
quote:It was a response to your pathetic, snobby, virtue-signalling jibe at the Reader's Digest.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't get the quote either
quote:Only enough to keep it running, do research into it, and run a solid post on it.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And frankly, I'm not really that interested.
quote:1. Take it up with Douglas Adams, it's his quote.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:It was a response to your pathetic, snobby, virtue-signalling jibe at the Reader's Digest.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't get the quote either
quote:Oh I see. What you mean is that you used google and ripped a line from a debate out of context and thought to yourself "oh, I'll just that" without understanding what it was actually about. And then you somehow think this is a slam-dunk for your argument.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It was a response to your pathetic, snobby, virtue-signalling jibe at the Reader's Digest.
quote:If you read the link I provided above, you'll see that this was what the whole debate was about - and it is in no way a proven truth.
No, the RD is not The New York Review of Books, but when it came to communism, it displayed far greater insight than some more sophisticated publications.
quote:Why would one deride someone because they were not a famous Nazi compromiser? That sentence makes no sense. What actually are you on about?
It is like deriding an ordinary anti-fascist because they did not carry the same cultural clout as high-profile compromisers with Nazism such as Herbert von Karajan or Martin Heidegger.
quote:Only interested to the extent of doing the minimum one might expect someone else to do if they're introducing something said by someone into a discussion that is supposed to be a slam-dunk for their argument.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:Only enough to keep it running, do research into it, and run a solid post on it.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And frankly, I'm not really that interested.
quote:Yeah, because to be absolutely frank, it appears to be a long and complicated discussion touching on various issues, including the egos of various high-profile writers, 30-plus years ago.
"Frankly"?
quote:Go and teach your grandmother to suck eggs.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Maybe you don't know anything about the RD. That seems likely from what you've posted about it. I do because I read it for decades.
quote:Good question.
Why do I even bother?
quote:That last comment says it all.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
ripped a line from a debate out of context and thought to yourself "oh, I'll just that" without understanding what it was actually about.
you've only used this quote as a quick-fire response without having the foggiest clue what it is about.
I can't be bothered to try to untangle who said what to whom
quote:My grandmother's as dead as your brain.
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:Go and teach your grandmother to suck eggs.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Maybe you don't know anything about the RD. That seems likely from what you've posted about it. I do because I read it for decades.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:What is it with this thread that it keeps on drawing personal attacks from people who should know better?
Originally posted by mousethief:
My grandmother's as dead as your brain.
