As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[Sexual Misconduct & Power Abuse]: Harvey Weinstein and Other Jerks in High Places

12467100

Posts

  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    darkmayo wrote: »
    More misconduct, this time at JFK airport, no celebrities just people in positions of power being accused of giving out preferential treatment and shifts in exchange for sexual favours and punishing those who refuse with absolute crappy shifts.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/jfk-airport-guard-forced-watch-colleagues-sex-suit-article-1.3554599

    What a horrible story. Some extracts from the article:
    Once, in late 2014, a boss called Powell into his office and allegedly said "How much further do you want to go (at Allied)? ... There are things you can do to get where you want to go."
    Another time, the same Allied supervisor said “Since everyone already thinks we had sex, let's bend you over the table,” the documents claim.
    When Powell tried to report the harassment — and an allegation that a female colleague was raped by two coworkers after a work event — her complaints fell on deaf ears, she contends.
    She believes she was fired in May 2016 as retaliation and is seeking unspecified damages.

    Obviously the perpetrators are responsible for what they did, and I see this as an example of another way that capitalism contributes to the problem. The accuser worked for the company for four years, and based on the allegations I know of it appears that for 18 months at least there was some heinous stuff being done around or to her. The capitalist tolerance/advocacy for labour exploitation (i.e. low wages) and the underfunding of the social safety net means that people often have to face the choice of putting up with all kinds of abuse or running out of money for essentials. If workers at the lower levels were exploited less and had a better set of supports for leaving bad jobs to look for ones with better conditions, people could just peace out at the first sign of trouble, and if enough people started doing that, then the organization would have to deal with the source of the retention problem.

    Counterpoint: this thread started with examples of people who make quite a lot more than that and yet same issues. Easier to leave is one way to help but it doesn't really fix the problem.

  • Yes, and...Yes, and... Registered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    darkmayo wrote: »
    More misconduct, this time at JFK airport, no celebrities just people in positions of power being accused of giving out preferential treatment and shifts in exchange for sexual favours and punishing those who refuse with absolute crappy shifts.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/jfk-airport-guard-forced-watch-colleagues-sex-suit-article-1.3554599

    What a horrible story. Some extracts from the article:
    Once, in late 2014, a boss called Powell into his office and allegedly said "How much further do you want to go (at Allied)? ... There are things you can do to get where you want to go."
    Another time, the same Allied supervisor said “Since everyone already thinks we had sex, let's bend you over the table,” the documents claim.
    When Powell tried to report the harassment — and an allegation that a female colleague was raped by two coworkers after a work event — her complaints fell on deaf ears, she contends.
    She believes she was fired in May 2016 as retaliation and is seeking unspecified damages.

    Obviously the perpetrators are responsible for what they did, and I see this as an example of another way that capitalism contributes to the problem. The accuser worked for the company for four years, and based on the allegations I know of it appears that for 18 months at least there was some heinous stuff being done around or to her. The capitalist tolerance/advocacy for labour exploitation (i.e. low wages) and the underfunding of the social safety net means that people often have to face the choice of putting up with all kinds of abuse or running out of money for essentials. If workers at the lower levels were exploited less and had a better set of supports for leaving bad jobs to look for ones with better conditions, people could just peace out at the first sign of trouble, and if enough people started doing that, then the organization would have to deal with the source of the retention problem.

    Counterpoint: this thread started with examples of people who make quite a lot more than that and yet same issues. Easier to leave is one way to help but it doesn't really fix the problem.

    There is no one thing that will by itself "really fix the problem". Really fixing the problem requires massive, sweeping changes to our culture, economic system, and legal system.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Nobeard wrote: »
    No, rape culture has a specific meaning, as Laurie Penny points out:
    “Rape culture” does not imply a society in which rape is routine, although it remains unconscionably common. Rape culture describes the process whereby rape and sexual assault are normalized and excused, the process whereby women’s sexual agency is continuously denied and women and girls are expected to be afraid of rape and to guard against it, the process whereby men are assumed to have the erotic self-control of a gibbon with a sweetie jar of Viagra, creatures who ought to be applauded for not flinging turds everywhere rather than encouraged to apply critical thinking.

    ...You do not have to be a victim of rape to be affected by rape culture. You do not have to be a convicted rapist to perpetuate rape culture. You don’t have to be an active, committed misogynist to benefit from rape culture. I sincerely believe that a staggering proportion of straight and bisexual men are working with some ingrained assumptions about sex and sexuality that they have not fully analyzed. Assumptions about the way women are, what they do, and what they have the capacity to want. Assumptions like: men want sex, and women are sex. Men take, and women need to be persuaded to give. Men fuck women; women allow themselves to be fucked. Women are responsible for drawing up those boundaries, and if men overstep them, that’s not their fault: boys will be boys.

    What is confusing to a great many men, including otherwise accomplished, successful, and sensitive men, is that women can and should be trusted to make their own choice at all. Right now, one of the fundamental operating principles of rape culture, rarely articulated but routinely defended, is this: men’s right to sexual intercourse is as important or more important than women’s basic bodily autonomy. Therefore, while it’s women’s job to police the boundaries of sexuality, to control themselves where men are not required to, they cannot and should not be trusted with any choice that might affect men’s ability to stick it wherever they like and still think of themselves as decent people, even retrospectively. Women’s agency, choices, and desires may matter, but they matter much less, and they always will.

    She also points out why men should be angrier about it:
    (I have never understood why more men aren’t offended by this assumption, why more of them aren’t arguing that possession of a penis does not automatically cripple a person’s moral capacity, but then again, that might mean that behaving with basic decency wouldn’t get you a gold star every time. Who wouldn’t want to live in a world where all it takes to be considered an upstanding guy is lack of actively violent misogyny? Oh, that’s right — women.)

    This may say more about me, but I am flabbergasted at how apparently common and normalized shit like "men’s right to sexual intercourse is as important or more important than women’s basic bodily autonomy". JFC, where do men get this idea? "Women are human beings just like me" is fucking self evident! It's not a special insight!

    All you have to do is look at our culture. One joke me and my wife have when listening to 80s music is whether or not the song belongs on a compilation titled "Songs to Stalk By".

    We've determined that there are a lot of songs on said compilation.

    Men get the idea because our culture feeds them it.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • AridholAridhol Daddliest Catch Registered User regular
    edited October 2017
    Sleep wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Well unless Razor Ramon comes in here.

    Anyone else find it a little gross how instead of people vowing to do better and not work to hide assaults, companies are now issuing "you can't be alone with women" decrees for management personnel. That just seems like more victim blaming.

    It certainly speaks to how confident they are in humans and/or their people.

    Its just not that hard to be a normal respectful person at work or just in society!

    Why do we need special rules because some Fuckers can't coexist with other people?

    People who become aware of, or suspect, sexual harassment or any other harassment for that matter and don't come forward should get in shit when things come out.

    You're supposed to care for the people in your community, not turn a blind eye because it's not you being raped this time.

    Hey buddy, thanks for making me feel like a terrible person for having been raped

    That's a fuckin great feeling to add to my day.

    What I'm saying is that you can fuck right off with this bullshit.

    I don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

    My post was explicitly about the suggestion of companies having "you can't be alone with women" in the workplace policies.

    If I caused offence I'm sorry and you can tell me specifically what I did wrong here because as I see it you completely missed the intent of what I posted and then jumped on me for it.

    Its never the victim of abuse fault and I've never indicated otherwise.

    Aridhol on
  • NobeardNobeard North Carolina: Failed StateRegistered User regular
    darkmayo wrote: »
    More misconduct, this time at JFK airport, no celebrities just people in positions of power being accused of giving out preferential treatment and shifts in exchange for sexual favours and punishing those who refuse with absolute crappy shifts.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/jfk-airport-guard-forced-watch-colleagues-sex-suit-article-1.3554599

    What a horrible story. Some extracts from the article:
    Once, in late 2014, a boss called Powell into his office and allegedly said "How much further do you want to go (at Allied)? ... There are things you can do to get where you want to go."
    Another time, the same Allied supervisor said “Since everyone already thinks we had sex, let's bend you over the table,” the documents claim.
    When Powell tried to report the harassment — and an allegation that a female colleague was raped by two coworkers after a work event — her complaints fell on deaf ears, she contends.
    She believes she was fired in May 2016 as retaliation and is seeking unspecified damages.

    Obviously the perpetrators are responsible for what they did, and I see this as an example of another way that capitalism contributes to the problem. The accuser worked for the company for four years, and based on the allegations I know of it appears that for 18 months at least there was some heinous stuff being done around or to her. The capitalist tolerance/advocacy for labour exploitation (i.e. low wages) and the underfunding of the social safety net means that people often have to face the choice of putting up with all kinds of abuse or running out of money for essentials. If workers at the lower levels were exploited less and had a better set of supports for leaving bad jobs to look for ones with better conditions, people could just peace out at the first sign of trouble, and if enough people started doing that, then the organization would have to deal with the source of the retention problem.

    Capitalism and employment and supervisors is merely the how, which is not as important as the why. Expecting businesses to police male workers in a way reinforces the idea that men are barely sentient ambulatory penises.

    The core of all this sexism bullshit, from the Google guy to Harry Knowles to Weinstein, is the idea that women are somehow less than men. Less human, less important, less capable, less something. It's so thuddingly wrong I think it has to be taught to men in thier adolescence.

  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    I'm not going to speak for Sleep here, bit your statement does cover rape victims who don't speak up. You may not have intended it to but it did.

  • AridholAridhol Daddliest Catch Registered User regular
    The context of it and my previous posts was men who turn a blind eye to the conduct of their friends or colleagues.

    I'll take the opportunity to clarify that I am not speaking about any victims of sexual abuse.
    I don't have the right to speak about it and I won't.

    I am speaking for men like myself who have never had to deal with it explicitly but are guilty if we're silent when it does happen.

    @sleep I apologize directly and I will be more clear in the future.

  • Yes, and...Yes, and... Registered User regular
    edited October 2017
    Nobeard wrote: »
    darkmayo wrote: »
    More misconduct, this time at JFK airport, no celebrities just people in positions of power being accused of giving out preferential treatment and shifts in exchange for sexual favours and punishing those who refuse with absolute crappy shifts.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/jfk-airport-guard-forced-watch-colleagues-sex-suit-article-1.3554599

    What a horrible story. Some extracts from the article:
    Once, in late 2014, a boss called Powell into his office and allegedly said "How much further do you want to go (at Allied)? ... There are things you can do to get where you want to go."
    Another time, the same Allied supervisor said “Since everyone already thinks we had sex, let's bend you over the table,” the documents claim.
    When Powell tried to report the harassment — and an allegation that a female colleague was raped by two coworkers after a work event — her complaints fell on deaf ears, she contends.
    She believes she was fired in May 2016 as retaliation and is seeking unspecified damages.

    Obviously the perpetrators are responsible for what they did, and I see this as an example of another way that capitalism contributes to the problem. The accuser worked for the company for four years, and based on the allegations I know of it appears that for 18 months at least there was some heinous stuff being done around or to her. The capitalist tolerance/advocacy for labour exploitation (i.e. low wages) and the underfunding of the social safety net means that people often have to face the choice of putting up with all kinds of abuse or running out of money for essentials. If workers at the lower levels were exploited less and had a better set of supports for leaving bad jobs to look for ones with better conditions, people could just peace out at the first sign of trouble, and if enough people started doing that, then the organization would have to deal with the source of the retention problem.

    Capitalism and employment and supervisors is merely the how, which is not as important as the why. Expecting businesses to police male workers in a way reinforces the idea that men are barely sentient ambulatory penises.

    The core of all this sexism bullshit, from the Google guy to Harry Knowles to Weinstein, is the idea that women are somehow less than men. Less human, less important, less capable, less something. It's so thuddingly wrong I think it has to be taught to men in thier adolescence.

    This is too simplistic. There's evidence to suggest that all three people you've mentioned, and most abusers in general, are perfectly capable of having normal relationships with both men and women, and in fact it's a common tactic of abusers to use their clout and good reputation within a community and among women in that community as a shield against various kinds of allegations.

    Yes, and... on
  • NobeardNobeard North Carolina: Failed StateRegistered User regular
    Nobeard wrote: »
    darkmayo wrote: »
    More misconduct, this time at JFK airport, no celebrities just people in positions of power being accused of giving out preferential treatment and shifts in exchange for sexual favours and punishing those who refuse with absolute crappy shifts.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/jfk-airport-guard-forced-watch-colleagues-sex-suit-article-1.3554599

    What a horrible story. Some extracts from the article:
    Once, in late 2014, a boss called Powell into his office and allegedly said "How much further do you want to go (at Allied)? ... There are things you can do to get where you want to go."
    Another time, the same Allied supervisor said “Since everyone already thinks we had sex, let's bend you over the table,” the documents claim.
    When Powell tried to report the harassment — and an allegation that a female colleague was raped by two coworkers after a work event — her complaints fell on deaf ears, she contends.
    She believes she was fired in May 2016 as retaliation and is seeking unspecified damages.

    Obviously the perpetrators are responsible for what they did, and I see this as an example of another way that capitalism contributes to the problem. The accuser worked for the company for four years, and based on the allegations I know of it appears that for 18 months at least there was some heinous stuff being done around or to her. The capitalist tolerance/advocacy for labour exploitation (i.e. low wages) and the underfunding of the social safety net means that people often have to face the choice of putting up with all kinds of abuse or running out of money for essentials. If workers at the lower levels were exploited less and had a better set of supports for leaving bad jobs to look for ones with better conditions, people could just peace out at the first sign of trouble, and if enough people started doing that, then the organization would have to deal with the source of the retention problem.

    Capitalism and employment and supervisors is merely the how, which is not as important as the why. Expecting businesses to police male workers in a way reinforces the idea that men are barely sentient ambulatory penises.

    The core of all this sexism bullshit, from the Google guy to Harry Knowles to Weinstein, is the idea that women are somehow less than men. Less human, less important, less capable, less something. It's so thuddingly wrong I think it has to be taught to men in thier adolescence.

    This is too simplistic. There's evidence to suggest that all three people you've mentioned, and most abusers in general, are perfectly capable of having normal relationships with both men and women, and in fact it's a common tactic of abusers to use their clout and good reputation within a community and among women in that community as a shield against various kinds of allegations.

    I don't see how it's too simplistic. Yes abusers know they would be punished if caught, but they don't really think it's immoral for them to sexually assault people.

  • themightypuckthemightypuck MontanaRegistered User regular
    I think it is darkly hilarious that most entertainers have morality clauses in their contracts but Weinstein had a morality indemnification.

    “Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius

    Path of Exile: themightypuck
  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    It’s a story old as time, people in power abusing that power for their own gain. For all the details that’s pretty much what it boils down to, as I see it.

  • kimekime Queen of Blades Registered User regular
    It’s a story old as time, people in power abusing that power for their own gain. For all the details that’s pretty much what it boils down to, as I see it.

    Doesn't mean we shouldn't fight to change it

    Battle.net ID: kime#1822
    3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
    Steam profile
  • Yes, and...Yes, and... Registered User regular
    Nobeard wrote: »
    Nobeard wrote: »
    darkmayo wrote: »
    More misconduct, this time at JFK airport, no celebrities just people in positions of power being accused of giving out preferential treatment and shifts in exchange for sexual favours and punishing those who refuse with absolute crappy shifts.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/jfk-airport-guard-forced-watch-colleagues-sex-suit-article-1.3554599

    What a horrible story. Some extracts from the article:
    Once, in late 2014, a boss called Powell into his office and allegedly said "How much further do you want to go (at Allied)? ... There are things you can do to get where you want to go."
    Another time, the same Allied supervisor said “Since everyone already thinks we had sex, let's bend you over the table,” the documents claim.
    When Powell tried to report the harassment — and an allegation that a female colleague was raped by two coworkers after a work event — her complaints fell on deaf ears, she contends.
    She believes she was fired in May 2016 as retaliation and is seeking unspecified damages.

    Obviously the perpetrators are responsible for what they did, and I see this as an example of another way that capitalism contributes to the problem. The accuser worked for the company for four years, and based on the allegations I know of it appears that for 18 months at least there was some heinous stuff being done around or to her. The capitalist tolerance/advocacy for labour exploitation (i.e. low wages) and the underfunding of the social safety net means that people often have to face the choice of putting up with all kinds of abuse or running out of money for essentials. If workers at the lower levels were exploited less and had a better set of supports for leaving bad jobs to look for ones with better conditions, people could just peace out at the first sign of trouble, and if enough people started doing that, then the organization would have to deal with the source of the retention problem.

    Capitalism and employment and supervisors is merely the how, which is not as important as the why. Expecting businesses to police male workers in a way reinforces the idea that men are barely sentient ambulatory penises.

    The core of all this sexism bullshit, from the Google guy to Harry Knowles to Weinstein, is the idea that women are somehow less than men. Less human, less important, less capable, less something. It's so thuddingly wrong I think it has to be taught to men in thier adolescence.

    This is too simplistic. There's evidence to suggest that all three people you've mentioned, and most abusers in general, are perfectly capable of having normal relationships with both men and women, and in fact it's a common tactic of abusers to use their clout and good reputation within a community and among women in that community as a shield against various kinds of allegations.

    I don't see how it's too simplistic. Yes abusers know they would be punished if caught, but they don't really think it's immoral for them to sexually assault people.

    It can't be as simple as that, because the patterns of behaviour that we know about include abusers treating some women decently, and some abuse (sexual and otherwise) being directed at men. There have also been well-documented instances of abusers who at least espouse the right kinds of ideas about equality and feminism (e.g. Hugo Schwyzer, Jamie Kilstein).

    Abusers have a problem with women. That's a general idea everyone can and should get behind. I don't know why you'd want to suggest that it's the only idea or the only one worth paying attention to.

  • FrankiedarlingFrankiedarling Registered User regular
    kime wrote: »
    It’s a story old as time, people in power abusing that power for their own gain. For all the details that’s pretty much what it boils down to, as I see it.

    Doesn't mean we shouldn't fight to change it

    For certain. Just an observation I suppose. But I doubt it’s something fixed by education. It’s not sociopaths or people who view other humans as less than. It’s just abuse of power. Probably needs to be fought with good old oversight and consequences.

  • Yes, and...Yes, and... Registered User regular
    kime wrote: »
    It’s a story old as time, people in power abusing that power for their own gain. For all the details that’s pretty much what it boils down to, as I see it.

    Doesn't mean we shouldn't fight to change it

    For certain. Just an observation I suppose. But I doubt it’s something fixed by education. It’s not sociopaths or people who view other humans as less than. It’s just abuse of power. Probably needs to be fought with good old oversight and consequences.

    And, where possible, immediate loud opposition.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Nobeard wrote: »
    Nobeard wrote: »
    darkmayo wrote: »
    More misconduct, this time at JFK airport, no celebrities just people in positions of power being accused of giving out preferential treatment and shifts in exchange for sexual favours and punishing those who refuse with absolute crappy shifts.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/jfk-airport-guard-forced-watch-colleagues-sex-suit-article-1.3554599

    What a horrible story. Some extracts from the article:
    Once, in late 2014, a boss called Powell into his office and allegedly said "How much further do you want to go (at Allied)? ... There are things you can do to get where you want to go."
    Another time, the same Allied supervisor said “Since everyone already thinks we had sex, let's bend you over the table,” the documents claim.
    When Powell tried to report the harassment — and an allegation that a female colleague was raped by two coworkers after a work event — her complaints fell on deaf ears, she contends.
    She believes she was fired in May 2016 as retaliation and is seeking unspecified damages.

    Obviously the perpetrators are responsible for what they did, and I see this as an example of another way that capitalism contributes to the problem. The accuser worked for the company for four years, and based on the allegations I know of it appears that for 18 months at least there was some heinous stuff being done around or to her. The capitalist tolerance/advocacy for labour exploitation (i.e. low wages) and the underfunding of the social safety net means that people often have to face the choice of putting up with all kinds of abuse or running out of money for essentials. If workers at the lower levels were exploited less and had a better set of supports for leaving bad jobs to look for ones with better conditions, people could just peace out at the first sign of trouble, and if enough people started doing that, then the organization would have to deal with the source of the retention problem.

    Capitalism and employment and supervisors is merely the how, which is not as important as the why. Expecting businesses to police male workers in a way reinforces the idea that men are barely sentient ambulatory penises.

    The core of all this sexism bullshit, from the Google guy to Harry Knowles to Weinstein, is the idea that women are somehow less than men. Less human, less important, less capable, less something. It's so thuddingly wrong I think it has to be taught to men in thier adolescence.

    This is too simplistic. There's evidence to suggest that all three people you've mentioned, and most abusers in general, are perfectly capable of having normal relationships with both men and women, and in fact it's a common tactic of abusers to use their clout and good reputation within a community and among women in that community as a shield against various kinds of allegations.

    I don't see how it's too simplistic. Yes abusers know they would be punished if caught, but they don't really think it's immoral for them to sexually assault people.

    It can't be as simple as that, because the patterns of behaviour that we know about include abusers treating some women decently, and some abuse (sexual and otherwise) being directed at men. There have also been well-documented instances of abusers who at least espouse the right kinds of ideas about equality and feminism (e.g. Hugo Schwyzer, Jamie Kilstein).

    Abusers have a problem with women. That's a general idea everyone can and should get behind. I don't know why you'd want to suggest that it's the only idea or the only one worth paying attention to.

    Abuse is ultimately about power. When abusers treat certain women decently, it's usually because said women are "off the menu", usually because they have societal reach that would allow them to fight back successfully. (Abusers tend to be very good at reading social power structures.) And yes, there's a long, ignoble history of abusers using belief as a smokescreen - which is why we need to be more aware about those ostensibly on our side.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Yes, and...Yes, and... Registered User regular
    Nobeard wrote: »
    Nobeard wrote: »
    darkmayo wrote: »
    More misconduct, this time at JFK airport, no celebrities just people in positions of power being accused of giving out preferential treatment and shifts in exchange for sexual favours and punishing those who refuse with absolute crappy shifts.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/jfk-airport-guard-forced-watch-colleagues-sex-suit-article-1.3554599

    What a horrible story. Some extracts from the article:
    Once, in late 2014, a boss called Powell into his office and allegedly said "How much further do you want to go (at Allied)? ... There are things you can do to get where you want to go."
    Another time, the same Allied supervisor said “Since everyone already thinks we had sex, let's bend you over the table,” the documents claim.
    When Powell tried to report the harassment — and an allegation that a female colleague was raped by two coworkers after a work event — her complaints fell on deaf ears, she contends.
    She believes she was fired in May 2016 as retaliation and is seeking unspecified damages.

    Obviously the perpetrators are responsible for what they did, and I see this as an example of another way that capitalism contributes to the problem. The accuser worked for the company for four years, and based on the allegations I know of it appears that for 18 months at least there was some heinous stuff being done around or to her. The capitalist tolerance/advocacy for labour exploitation (i.e. low wages) and the underfunding of the social safety net means that people often have to face the choice of putting up with all kinds of abuse or running out of money for essentials. If workers at the lower levels were exploited less and had a better set of supports for leaving bad jobs to look for ones with better conditions, people could just peace out at the first sign of trouble, and if enough people started doing that, then the organization would have to deal with the source of the retention problem.

    Capitalism and employment and supervisors is merely the how, which is not as important as the why. Expecting businesses to police male workers in a way reinforces the idea that men are barely sentient ambulatory penises.

    The core of all this sexism bullshit, from the Google guy to Harry Knowles to Weinstein, is the idea that women are somehow less than men. Less human, less important, less capable, less something. It's so thuddingly wrong I think it has to be taught to men in thier adolescence.

    This is too simplistic. There's evidence to suggest that all three people you've mentioned, and most abusers in general, are perfectly capable of having normal relationships with both men and women, and in fact it's a common tactic of abusers to use their clout and good reputation within a community and among women in that community as a shield against various kinds of allegations.

    I don't see how it's too simplistic. Yes abusers know they would be punished if caught, but they don't really think it's immoral for them to sexually assault people.

    It can't be as simple as that, because the patterns of behaviour that we know about include abusers treating some women decently, and some abuse (sexual and otherwise) being directed at men. There have also been well-documented instances of abusers who at least espouse the right kinds of ideas about equality and feminism (e.g. Hugo Schwyzer, Jamie Kilstein).

    Abusers have a problem with women. That's a general idea everyone can and should get behind. I don't know why you'd want to suggest that it's the only idea or the only one worth paying attention to.

    Abuse is ultimately about power. When abusers treat certain women decently, it's usually because said women are "off the menu", usually because they have societal reach that would allow them to fight back successfully. (Abusers tend to be very good at reading social power structures.) And yes, there's a long, ignoble history of abusers using belief as a smokescreen - which is why we need to be more aware about those ostensibly on our side.

    Right, abuse is about power. Doesn't it make sense to talk about the systems that allocate power (i.e. capitalism) and where power struggles are decided (i.e. the legal system) if we're talking about something that is about power?

  • bloodyroarxxbloodyroarxx Casa GrandeRegistered User regular
    edited October 2017
    TMZ says Weinstein has a sexual misconduct clause in his contract that gave him the go ahead provided he fixed the issues with money
    Harvey Weinstein may have been fired illegally by The Weinstein Company, a company that wrote a contract that said Weinstein could get sued over and over for sexual harassment and as long as he shelled out money, that was good enough for the Company.

    TMZ is privy to Weinstein's 2015 employment contract, which says if he gets sued for sexual harassment or any other "misconduct" that results in a settlement or judgment against TWC, all Weinstein has to do is pay what the company's out, along with a fine, and he's in the clear.


    According to the contract, if Weinstein "treated someone improperly in violation of the company's Code of Conduct," he must reimburse TWC for settlements or judgments. Additionally, "You [Weinstein] will pay the company liquidated damages of $250,000 for the first such instance, $500,000 for the second such instance, $750,000 for the third such instance, and $1,000,000 for each additional instance."

    The contract says as long as Weinstein pays, it constitutes a "cure" for the misconduct and no further action can be taken. Translation -- Weinstein could be sued over and over and as long as he wrote a check, he keeps his job.

    The contract has specific language as to when the Board of Directors can fire Weinstein -- if he's indicted or convicted of a crime, but that doesn't apply here.

    There's another provision ... he can be fired for "the perpetuation by you [Weinstein] of a material fraud against the company." The question ... where's the fraud? Lance Maerov, the board member who negotiated Weinstein's 2015 contract, said in an interview -- and we've confirmed -- the Board knew Weinstein had settled prior lawsuits brought by various women, but they "assumed" it was to cover up consensual affairs. The Board's assumption does not constitute fraud on Weinstein's part.

    And here's the kicker. Even if Weinstein had committed fraud by not fully informing the Board of Directors, the contract says before he can be fired he has a right to mediation and if that doesn't work, he's entitled to arbitration. He got neither. He was summarily fired, and sources connected with Weinstein tell TMZ he was never given a specific reason.

    bloodyroarxx on
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Granted the company is named after him which probably gives him huge leeway but how does anyobe not see that clause and NOPE right out?

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Well unless Razor Ramon comes in here.

    Anyone else find it a little gross how instead of people vowing to do better and not work to hide assaults, companies are now issuing "you can't be alone with women" decrees for management personnel. That just seems like more victim blaming.

    Not really. It seems more like heading things off at the pass. If you cannot be alone with members of the opposite sex in private then the company has leeway to punish people regardless of dealing with the allegations. It's formulated in this manner because they're stupid (should be gender neutral) but it has nothing to do with "people not vowing to do better"

    That is person x says it happened. Y says it didn't happen. Company says I don't care you should have refused to be in a position where this could happen.

    That is there should be no one on one meetings of any kind in non-public places. To suggest that there should be but we just need to do better at dealing with assault is stupid. Assaults happen in private spaces for a reason; there is no way to disambiguate between a coercive incident and one that isn't when it's in private.

    It's just as dumb to suggest that men are House broken chimps as it is to suggest that women cannot be sexually coercive. (As has been done in this thread) and such policies that prohibit employees from being in situations which can become sexually (or legally or whatever) coercive is good.

    It's not like you couldn't have the meeting in a public room.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Nobeard wrote: »
    Nobeard wrote: »
    darkmayo wrote: »
    More misconduct, this time at JFK airport, no celebrities just people in positions of power being accused of giving out preferential treatment and shifts in exchange for sexual favours and punishing those who refuse with absolute crappy shifts.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/jfk-airport-guard-forced-watch-colleagues-sex-suit-article-1.3554599

    What a horrible story. Some extracts from the article:
    Once, in late 2014, a boss called Powell into his office and allegedly said "How much further do you want to go (at Allied)? ... There are things you can do to get where you want to go."
    Another time, the same Allied supervisor said “Since everyone already thinks we had sex, let's bend you over the table,” the documents claim.
    When Powell tried to report the harassment — and an allegation that a female colleague was raped by two coworkers after a work event — her complaints fell on deaf ears, she contends.
    She believes she was fired in May 2016 as retaliation and is seeking unspecified damages.

    Obviously the perpetrators are responsible for what they did, and I see this as an example of another way that capitalism contributes to the problem. The accuser worked for the company for four years, and based on the allegations I know of it appears that for 18 months at least there was some heinous stuff being done around or to her. The capitalist tolerance/advocacy for labour exploitation (i.e. low wages) and the underfunding of the social safety net means that people often have to face the choice of putting up with all kinds of abuse or running out of money for essentials. If workers at the lower levels were exploited less and had a better set of supports for leaving bad jobs to look for ones with better conditions, people could just peace out at the first sign of trouble, and if enough people started doing that, then the organization would have to deal with the source of the retention problem.

    Capitalism and employment and supervisors is merely the how, which is not as important as the why. Expecting businesses to police male workers in a way reinforces the idea that men are barely sentient ambulatory penises.

    The core of all this sexism bullshit, from the Google guy to Harry Knowles to Weinstein, is the idea that women are somehow less than men. Less human, less important, less capable, less something. It's so thuddingly wrong I think it has to be taught to men in thier adolescence.

    This is too simplistic. There's evidence to suggest that all three people you've mentioned, and most abusers in general, are perfectly capable of having normal relationships with both men and women, and in fact it's a common tactic of abusers to use their clout and good reputation within a community and among women in that community as a shield against various kinds of allegations.

    I don't see how it's too simplistic. Yes abusers know they would be punished if caught, but they don't really think it's immoral for them to sexually assault people.

    It can't be as simple as that, because the patterns of behaviour that we know about include abusers treating some women decently, and some abuse (sexual and otherwise) being directed at men. There have also been well-documented instances of abusers who at least espouse the right kinds of ideas about equality and feminism (e.g. Hugo Schwyzer, Jamie Kilstein).

    Abusers have a problem with women. That's a general idea everyone can and should get behind. I don't know why you'd want to suggest that it's the only idea or the only one worth paying attention to.

    Abuse is ultimately about power. When abusers treat certain women decently, it's usually because said women are "off the menu", usually because they have societal reach that would allow them to fight back successfully. (Abusers tend to be very good at reading social power structures.) And yes, there's a long, ignoble history of abusers using belief as a smokescreen - which is why we need to be more aware about those ostensibly on our side.

    Right, abuse is about power. Doesn't it make sense to talk about the systems that allocate power (i.e. capitalism) and where power struggles are decided (i.e. the legal system) if we're talking about something that is about power?

    I’m gonna rule this a no, ending capitalism is too broad a topic for this thread. Tangent ended, thanks.

    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    kime wrote: »
    It’s a story old as time, people in power abusing that power for their own gain. For all the details that’s pretty much what it boils down to, as I see it.

    Doesn't mean we shouldn't fight to change it

    For certain. Just an observation I suppose. But I doubt it’s something fixed by education. It’s not sociopaths or people who view other humans as less than. It’s just abuse of power. Probably needs to be fought with good old oversight and consequences.

    It's actually something that can be fixed by education,just not directly targeting people like Weinstein. You aren't gonna fix Weinstein with education. What you need to do is educate the rest of the people around people like Weinstein so they don't put up with his shit and this stuff comes to light and is dealt with sooner.

  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    darkmayo wrote: »
    More misconduct, this time at JFK airport, no celebrities just people in positions of power being accused of giving out preferential treatment and shifts in exchange for sexual favours and punishing those who refuse with absolute crappy shifts.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/jfk-airport-guard-forced-watch-colleagues-sex-suit-article-1.3554599

    What a horrible story. Some extracts from the article:
    Once, in late 2014, a boss called Powell into his office and allegedly said "How much further do you want to go (at Allied)? ... There are things you can do to get where you want to go."
    Another time, the same Allied supervisor said “Since everyone already thinks we had sex, let's bend you over the table,” the documents claim.
    When Powell tried to report the harassment — and an allegation that a female colleague was raped by two coworkers after a work event — her complaints fell on deaf ears, she contends.
    She believes she was fired in May 2016 as retaliation and is seeking unspecified damages.

    Obviously the perpetrators are responsible for what they did, and I see this as an example of another way that capitalism contributes to the problem. The accuser worked for the company for four years, and based on the allegations I know of it appears that for 18 months at least there was some heinous stuff being done around or to her. The capitalist tolerance/advocacy for labour exploitation (i.e. low wages) and the underfunding of the social safety net means that people often have to face the choice of putting up with all kinds of abuse or running out of money for essentials. If workers at the lower levels were exploited less and had a better set of supports for leaving bad jobs to look for ones with better conditions, people could just peace out at the first sign of trouble, and if enough people started doing that, then the organization would have to deal with the source of the retention problem.

    Counterpoint: this thread started with examples of people who make quite a lot more than that and yet same issues. Easier to leave is one way to help but it doesn't really fix the problem.

    There is no one thing that will by itself "really fix the problem". Really fixing the problem requires massive, sweeping changes to our culture, economic system, and legal system.

    I'm not sure the legal system is really of any help here. Assault is already illegal, the issue is that is it is very hard to prosecute cases that mostly rely on "he said, she said" type evidence. In a way it's a similar issue that bystanders have when confronted with issues they didn't personally witness. You may be totally sympathetic to the plight of the imaginary victim but when an actual coworker says they were harassed, there is always the possibility that they are lying or misstating the actual events. Now it becomes a real question about if your willing to risk your reputation and the reputation of someone you accuse with no evidence besides hearsay. How far are you willing to go on trust?

    I also think it highlights another issue in that secrecy makes these things much harder to track. It's one thing if you hear from a single person about misconduct, but everyone else seems ok, than if you hear from multiple people very similar stories. I know most people are very against things like the sex offender registry, but I wonder if there isn't a way to make it mandatory to have a public record of any accusations of misconduct, without that just turning into a way to dick over someone you don't like, or another way to single out and attack people who make accusations.

    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    It would make it super easy to fuck people over especially if people were willing to coordinate. There is no good way to policy around it except well "don't be in these situations"

    wbBv3fj.png
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited October 2017

    http://people.com/movies/kate-beckinsale-harvey-weinstein-sexual-harassment/
    Kate Beckinsale is the latest actress to accuse Harvey Weinstein of sexual harassment. On Thursday, the Underworld star claimed her career suffered after rejecting the movie mogul’s sexual advances starting at the age of 17.

    In a statement released to her Instagram, Beckinsale, 44, detailed her alleged experiences with the producer, saying he showed up to a meeting in a bathrobe and offered her alcohol when she was just a teenager.

    “I was called to meet Harvey Weinstein at the Savoy Hotel when I was 17. I assumed it would be in a conference room which was very common. When I arrived, reception told me to go to his room . He opened the door in his bathrobe,” she wrote. “I was incredibly naive and young and it did not cross my mind that this older ,unattractive man would expect me to have any sexual interest in him. After declining alcohol and announcing that I had school in the morning I left ,uneasy but unscathed.”

    Beckinsale claims that years later, Weinstein asked the actress if anything had happened between the two of them during their first meeting.

    “I realized he couldn’t remember if he had assaulted me or not,” she wrote.

    Over the years, Beckinsale said she rejected his sexual advances numerous times — which she alleges often led to angry outbursts.

    I said no to him professionally many times over the years-some of which ended up with him screaming at me calling me a c— and making threats, some of which made him laughingly tell people oh ‘Kate lives to say no to me,’ ” she recalled.

    Beckinsale said her alleged experiences with Weinstein “undoubtedly harmed” her career.

    “It speaks to the status quo in this business that I was aware that standing up for myself and saying no to things,” she wrote. “While it did allow me to feel uncompromised in myself, undoubtedly harmed my career and was never something I felt supported by anyone other than my family.”

    The actress praised the women who have spoken out about Weinstein’s alleged sexual misconduct. She said in speaking out, she hopes to inspire more women to come forward.

    “For every moment like this there have been thousands where a vulnerable person has confided outrageous unprofessional behavior and found they have no recourse, due to an atmosphere of fear that it seems almost everyone has been living in,” she said.

    “I had a male friend who, based on my experience,warned a young actress who said she was going to dinner with Harvey to be careful. He received a phone call the next day saying he would never work in another Miramax film.”

    She concluded: “Let’s stop allowing our young women to be sexual cannon fodder,and let’s remember that Harvey is an emblem of a system that is sick,and that we have work to do.”

    Beckinsale joins a chorus of women who have detailed similar accounts with the movie executive, including Ashley Judd, Angelina Jolie, Gwyneth Paltrow and Cara Delevingne.


    https://www.businessinsider.com.au/rose-mcgowan-says-she-told-amazon-studios-head-about-rape-was-ignored-2017-10?r=US&IR=T
    Actress Rose McGowan has been very active on social media over the past week, following the multitude of sexual harassment and assault allegations against film producer Harvey Weinstein.

    And on Thursday, McGowan tweeted that the head of Amazon’s studio knew that “HW” assaulted her, and ignored it. “HW” most certainly refers to Harvey Weinstein.

    McGowan tweeted at Jeff Bezos, the founder and CEO of Amazon, that she “told the head of your studio that HW raped me.” McGowan is likely referring to Amazon Studios chief Roy Price.

    “Over and over I said it,” she continued. “He said it hadn’t been proven. I said I was the proof.” (Last week, The New York Times reported that the “Scream” actress reached a $US100,000 settlement with Weinstein in 1997, according to a legal document.)

    Last September, McGowan said she had “just sold my show to Amazon,” and indicated that she would write and direct it. But on Thursday, McGowan tweeted that when she heard that a “Weinstein bailout” was in the works at Amazon, she asked the company to “do the right thing.”

    “I was ignored,” McGowan tweeted. “Amazon won a dirty Oscar. I called my attorney and said I want to get my script back, but before I could, Amazon Studios called to say my show was dead.”

    In August, Amazon Studios boss Roy Price was investigated for allegedly making inappropriate sexual remarks to Isa Hackett, a producer on its series “The Man in the High Castle.” His attorney at the time was Lisa Bloom, who was part of Weinstein’s team before she dropped Weinstein in dramatic fashion over the weekend, as allegations of sexual assault broke.

    Amazon was not immediately available for comment.

    “I am calling on you [Jeff Bezos] to stop funding rapists, alleged pedos and sexual harassers,” McGowan tweeted Thursday. “I love Amazon but there is rot in Hollywood.”

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/amazon-tv-producer-goes-public-harassment-claim-top-exec-roy-price-1048060
    "You will love my dick," Price allegedly said to Isa Hackett, a producer on 'The Man in the High Castle,' who details a July 2015 incident at Comic-Con in San Diego.

    In the wake of revelations about Harvey Weinstein’s alleged years-long sexual harassment and assault, a producer of one of Amazon Studios’ highest-profile TV shows is ready to talk about her “shocking and surreal” experience with Amazon’s programming chief Roy Price.

    Isa Hackett is the daughter of author Philip K. Dick, whose work is the basis for Amazon’s The Man in the High Castle, as well as the upcoming anthology series, Philip K. Dick’s Electric Dreams. Hackett, 50, is an executive producer on both series. Price, 51, is head of Amazon Studios and has presided over its growth into a major streaming service with such series as Transparent and movies such as Manchester by the Sea. His family has deep connections in the entertainment world: His father, Frank, ran Columbia Pictures and Universal Studios. (The existence of the alleged incident detailed below and the subsequent Amazon investigation were previously reported by the website The Information.)

    On the evening of July 10, 2015, after a long day of promoting Man in the High Castle at Comic-Con in San Diego, Hackett attended a dinner with the show's cast and Amazon staff at the U.S. Grant Hotel. There she says she met Price for the first time. He asked her to attend an Amazon staff party later that night at the W Hotel (now the Renaissance) and she ended up in a taxi with Price and Michael Paull, then another top Amazon executive and now CEO of the digital media company BAMTech.

    Once in the cab, Hackett says Price repeatedly and insistently propositioned her. “You will love my dick,” he said, according to Hackett, who relayed her account to multiple individuals in the hours after the alleged episode. (The Hollywood Reporter has confirmed Hackett told at least two people about the alleged incident in the immediate aftermath.) Hackett says she made clear to Price she was not interested and told him that she is a lesbian with a wife and children.

    Hackett says Price did not relent in the cab or once they arrived at the Amazon party. As she talked with other executives, she says that Price stepped close to her and loudly said, “Anal sex!” in her ear.

    Harry Dresden on
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited October 2017
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    As a more recent development, it seems the FBI has opened an investigation into the allegations around Weinstein, particularly those by Lucia Evans in 2004. A key part of this is because the alleged assault happened in New York there is no statute of limitations on crimes of this nature: if it can be proved to have happened, criminal charges can be brought against him. NYPD's Special Victims Division has joined in the investigation, while parallel work seems to be starting in France and the UK for alleged assaults by Weinstein in those countries.

    Taking one step out, if the FBI's investigation starts to turn up allegations and evidence like one of those unending paper streamer magic tricks (a distinct possibility) I could see this turning into a full-blown probe of production companies across all of film and television, maybe music too. Not even Disney is isolated from this, especially with the rumors around ex-mouseketeers and other former child stars.

    Goodness no. Not again.

    Criminal courts have repeatedly demonstrated that they are ultimately a boon for the predator, not the victim, in these cases; the woman is slut-shamed, the perpetrator is pardoned, the MRAs who insist that all rape victims are liars are vindicated.


    Civil courts, so I'm told, are the only way forward for rape victims. Criminal courts are where you go if you want a bunch of lawyers to expose your sex life to the public & a judge to tell everyone you're obviously just a crazed liar.

    I hope this does not go to trial, and instead people follow in the footsteps of Taylor Swift's success story (...though, I kind of also hope that future civil suits will ask for more than a dollar. I understand the symbolic nature of that gesture, but fuck it; extract blood from the bank accounts of those motherfuckers. Nothing keeps a creep like that up a night like knowing that a woman took away a bunch of his money).

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited October 2017
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Well unless Razor Ramon comes in here.

    Anyone else find it a little gross how instead of people vowing to do better and not work to hide assaults, companies are now issuing "you can't be alone with women" decrees for management personnel. That just seems like more victim blaming.

    Not really. It seems more like heading things off at the pass. If you cannot be alone with members of the opposite sex in private then the company has leeway to punish people regardless of dealing with the allegations. It's formulated in this manner because they're stupid (should be gender neutral) but it has nothing to do with "people not vowing to do better"

    That is person x says it happened. Y says it didn't happen. Company says I don't care you should have refused to be in a position where this could happen.

    That is there should be no one on one meetings of any kind in non-public places. To suggest that there should be but we just need to do better at dealing with assault is stupid. Assaults happen in private spaces for a reason; there is no way to disambiguate between a coercive incident and one that isn't when it's in private.

    It's just as dumb to suggest that men are House broken chimps as it is to suggest that women cannot be sexually coercive. (As has been done in this thread) and such policies that prohibit employees from being in situations which can become sexually (or legally or whatever) coercive is good.

    It's not like you couldn't have the meeting in a public room.

    Sorry, but no, the "Billy Graham Rule" is gooseshit. It doesn't actually solve the problem of sexual assault. It actively impedes the careers of women, by cutting them off from opportunities, since they are treated as "dangerous" by the very people they need the support of to advance their careers. It also creates the absolutely goosey idea that men and women cannot work together without sex being involved (remember, Graham didn't institute it to head off claims of sexual assault, but to stymie rumors of infidelity.)

    So no, these policies are decidedly a bad idea, and continue to push harmful societal ideas.
    Goumindong wrote: »
    It would make it super easy to fuck people over especially if people were willing to coordinate. There is no good way to policy around it except well "don't be in these situations"

    Do you realize you are buying into some incredibly toxic myths here? Like this is borderline MRA gooseshit. Women are not a shadowy cabal out to take down the wealthy with coordinated attacks of false accusations, and we should not be forwarding that belief.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Emissary42Emissary42 Registered User regular
    edited October 2017
    The Ender wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    As a more recent development, it seems the FBI has opened an investigation into the allegations around Weinstein, particularly those by Lucia Evans in 2004. A key part of this is because the alleged assault happened in New York there is no statute of limitations on crimes of this nature: if it can be proved to have happened, criminal charges can be brought against him. NYPD's Special Victims Division has joined in the investigation, while parallel work seems to be starting in France and the UK for alleged assaults by Weinstein in those countries.

    Taking one step out, if the FBI's investigation starts to turn up allegations and evidence like one of those unending paper streamer magic tricks (a distinct possibility) I could see this turning into a full-blown probe of production companies across all of film and television, maybe music too. Not even Disney is isolated from this, especially with the rumors around ex-mouseketeers and other former child stars.

    Goodness no. Not again.

    Criminal courts have repeatedly demonstrated that they are ultimately a boon for the predator, not the victim, in these cases; the woman is slut-shamed, the perpetrator is pardoned, the MRAs who insist that all rape victims are liars are vindicated.


    Civil courts, so I'm told, are the only way forward for rape victims. Criminal courts are where you go if you want a bunch of lawyers to expose your sex life to the public & a judge to tell everyone you're obviously just a crazed liar.

    I hope this does not go to trial, and instead people follow in the footsteps of Taylor Swift's success story (...though, I kind of also hope that future civil suits will ask for more than a dollar. I understand the symbolic nature of that gesture, but fuck it; extract blood from the bank accounts of those motherfuckers. Nothing keeps a creep like that up a night like knowing that a woman took away a bunch of his money).

    Do you want the problem to go away, or not? Because it looks like only way get it out of an industry this filled with it is to first have a giant smoking crater to point to demonstrating why you don't cross that line. Then, when it's torn out root and stem, you establish proper oversight systems and procedures.

    Second, did I say that the rape cases would be the real goal aside from Weinstein or similar perpetrators? No, you go after the corporations. If you can prove that they are tied to criminal activity, then the smoking crater isn't limited to a handful of Hollywood producers, it's an entire production company (if not several). When the stakes are that high, you'll see some big changes in how things work in Hollywood.

    Emissary42 on
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    As a more recent development, it seems the FBI has opened an investigation into the allegations around Weinstein, particularly those by Lucia Evans in 2004. A key part of this is because the alleged assault happened in New York there is no statute of limitations on crimes of this nature: if it can be proved to have happened, criminal charges can be brought against him. NYPD's Special Victims Division has joined in the investigation, while parallel work seems to be starting in France and the UK for alleged assaults by Weinstein in those countries.

    Taking one step out, if the FBI's investigation starts to turn up allegations and evidence like one of those unending paper streamer magic tricks (a distinct possibility) I could see this turning into a full-blown probe of production companies across all of film and television, maybe music too. Not even Disney is isolated from this, especially with the rumors around ex-mouseketeers and other former child stars.

    Goodness no. Not again.

    Criminal courts have repeatedly demonstrated that they are ultimately a boon for the predator, not the victim, in these cases; the woman is slut-shamed, the perpetrator is pardoned, the MRAs who insist that all rape victims are liars are vindicated.


    Civil courts, so I'm told, are the only way forward for rape victims. Criminal courts are where you go if you want a bunch of lawyers to expose your sex life to the public & a judge to tell everyone you're obviously just a crazed liar.

    I hope this does not go to trial, and instead people follow in the footsteps of Taylor Swift's success story (...though, I kind of also hope that future civil suits will ask for more than a dollar. I understand the symbolic nature of that gesture, but fuck it; extract blood from the bank accounts of those motherfuckers. Nothing keeps a creep like that up a night like knowing that a woman took away a bunch of his money).

    Do you want the problem to go away, or not? Because it looks like only way get it out of an industry this filled with it is to first have a giant smoking crater to point to demonstrating why you don't cross that line. Then, when it's torn out root and stem, you establish proper oversight systems and procedures.

    Second, did I say that the rape cases would be the real goal aside from Weinstein or similar perpetrators? No, you go after the corporations. If you can prove that they are tied to criminal activity, then the smoking crater isn't limited to a handful of Hollywood producers, it's an entire production company (if not several). When the stakes are that high, you'll see some big changes in how things work in Hollywood.

    Here's the thing - what winds up actually happening is that the corporation hires investigators who immediately go through the victims personal life with a fine toothed comb, and prepare to put her entire sexual history up on trial as part of a "not guilty on account of the victim is a slut" defense.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    The old guard are speaking out now.

    http://deadline.com/2017/10/rita-moreno-claims-20th-century-fox-head-harassed-her-1202187686/
    Speaking at the Paley Honors in Hollywood: A Gala Celebrating Women in Television at the Beverly Wilshire Hotel, Moreno got a standing ovation for her presentation confession.

    “This is not what I’m supposed to talk about tonight,” said Moreno. “When I was 19 years old, I was signed to a contract at 20th Century Fox, and you can imagine that this little Latina girl was out of her mind with pride at having this. At one point, I met the fellow who was running this place. He took one look at me and just said, ‘Oooh.’ And he began to – this is not what I’m supposed to talk about- he found my phone number and he began to call my home.”

    Moreno lived with three other girls in Los Angeles, but Adler kept calling. “He kept asking for me and I just kind of knew this was not the person I wanted to mess around with, and whenever he found me in the commissary, I made it a point to be with somebody at the table. And by the way, this guy already had a mistress, so that’s what I, at the age of 18 or 19, was dealing with.”

    She added: “I wanted to be a movie star so badly, and the man would not leave me alone. It took a year. He kept calling and calling and calling and talking to my roommates, and whenever he had a chance to see me alone – he’d literally look for me – he’d come and get me and we’d have to meet and I’d say something kind of stupid like, ‘Oh my goodness,’ being innocent and untouched – and I was.”

    Finally, after a year, Adler made his last phone call, Moreno related. “(He) talked to one of my roommates and said, ‘Tell her I give up.’ That fellow was a man named Buddy Adler. Finally my nightmare was over. Let me tell you, this week has really put me away. You might think, ‘Jesus, you’re 85, get over it, woman!’ But you don’t because you have ambition and …You never get over something like that. I can’t. And you know what I’m referring to and I just want to say, you know what? I’m still fucking here!

    Burn it to the ground.

    http://deadline.com/2017/10/the-weinstein-co-nears-the-brink-as-agencies-cut-off-talent-supply-1202187269/
    Late last week, the town seemed willing to hang in with the production company if Weinstein was fired, giving co-chairman Bob Weinstein and COO David Glasser the chance to keep the company moving forward on its TV and movie projects, and keep the 190 staffers from heading to the exits. This was after the first New York Times article. But there has been one devastating blow after the other in the days following that have eroded much of that good will for a post-Weinstein rebound. The first serious wound came with Ronan Farrow’s The New Yorker article, with descriptions of rapes that were more than sickening; they were terrifying. Two days after the board of directors issued a statement that its members had no idea of the allegations of abuse by Weinstein, TNY today quoted board member Lance Maerov admitting he had heard of multiple settlements. Even though he added he believed they were for consensual affairs and the desire to eliminate legal liability (and some believe his admission got mangled in translation, because at least two of the matters were investigated by TWC’s HR department, several major agents today said they had lost faith in the company’s mixed messaging).

    Agents did not want to be on record, but reactions ranged from not wanting to risk the wrath of clients in the event of more fallout by putting them into TWC projects, and others said that if there was evidence of Weinstein benefiting directly or indirectly in projects, the agencies wanted no part of it. They felt even a re-branded company will carry a tarnish, and hoped that projects would be sold off. This wasn’t unanimous; at least one said that if Bob Weinstein and Glasser could change the messaging, and make it clear that Harvey Weinstein’s indiscretions were not in fact covered up, forgiveness could come over time.

    But with a splintered board of directors and financiers that were already upset that a TV sale to ITV got derailed in the wake of that NYPD investigation that focused on Harvey Weinstein but didn’t yield charges, with another live sale prospectus possibly harmed by these latest allegations, does TWC have that time? We have heard that some financiers are already poring over the list of plum projects they might pry loose. And agents are looking for outs for their clients on projects that are percolating.

    Really, Oliver?

    http://deadline.com/2017/10/director-oliver-stone-on-harvey-weinstein-its-not-easy-what-hes-going-through-1202187651/
    Director Oliver Stone has condemned a rush to judgment on producer Harvey Weinstein and the allegations by many women of sexual harassment, charges that led to Weinstein being fired from the company that bears his name.

    Speaking at the Busan International Film Festival, held in the large port city in South Korea, Stone responded to a question on Weinstein by stating, “I’m a believer that you wait until this thing gets to trial. I believe a man shouldn’t be condemned by a vigilante system. It’s not easy what he’s going through, either. He was a rival and I never did business with him. I’ve heard horror stories on everyone in the business. So I’m not going to comment on that. I’ll wait and see, which is the right thing to do.”

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    As a more recent development, it seems the FBI has opened an investigation into the allegations around Weinstein, particularly those by Lucia Evans in 2004. A key part of this is because the alleged assault happened in New York there is no statute of limitations on crimes of this nature: if it can be proved to have happened, criminal charges can be brought against him. NYPD's Special Victims Division has joined in the investigation, while parallel work seems to be starting in France and the UK for alleged assaults by Weinstein in those countries.

    Taking one step out, if the FBI's investigation starts to turn up allegations and evidence like one of those unending paper streamer magic tricks (a distinct possibility) I could see this turning into a full-blown probe of production companies across all of film and television, maybe music too. Not even Disney is isolated from this, especially with the rumors around ex-mouseketeers and other former child stars.

    Goodness no. Not again.

    Criminal courts have repeatedly demonstrated that they are ultimately a boon for the predator, not the victim, in these cases; the woman is slut-shamed, the perpetrator is pardoned, the MRAs who insist that all rape victims are liars are vindicated.


    Civil courts, so I'm told, are the only way forward for rape victims. Criminal courts are where you go if you want a bunch of lawyers to expose your sex life to the public & a judge to tell everyone you're obviously just a crazed liar.

    I hope this does not go to trial, and instead people follow in the footsteps of Taylor Swift's success story (...though, I kind of also hope that future civil suits will ask for more than a dollar. I understand the symbolic nature of that gesture, but fuck it; extract blood from the bank accounts of those motherfuckers. Nothing keeps a creep like that up a night like knowing that a woman took away a bunch of his money).

    Do you want the problem to go away, or not? Because it looks like only way get it out of an industry this filled with it is to first have a giant smoking crater to point to demonstrating why you don't cross that line. Then, when it's torn out root and stem, you establish proper oversight systems and procedures.

    Second, did I say that the rape cases would be the real goal aside from Weinstein or similar perpetrators? No, you go after the corporations. If you can prove that they are tied to criminal activity, then the smoking crater isn't limited to a handful of Hollywood producers, it's an entire production company (if not several). When the stakes are that high, you'll see some big changes in how things work in Hollywood.

    Here's the thing - what winds up actually happening is that the corporation hires investigators who immediately go through the victims personal life with a fine toothed comb, and prepare to put her entire sexual history up on trial as part of a "not guilty on account of the victim is a slut" defense.

    Unfortunately there is no easy way to scorch the Earth with these assholes. What you say is true, but how else is society and Hollywood going to get burnt enough to learn not to do this? With civil suits all they need to do is throw away some cash which is essentially pocket money to them, and it goes away - and they can get victims to be silent via NDA's etc. That hasn't worked so far.

    That said, there are no easy solutions for this.

  • Emissary42Emissary42 Registered User regular
    edited October 2017
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    As a more recent development, it seems the FBI has opened an investigation into the allegations around Weinstein, particularly those by Lucia Evans in 2004. A key part of this is because the alleged assault happened in New York there is no statute of limitations on crimes of this nature: if it can be proved to have happened, criminal charges can be brought against him. NYPD's Special Victims Division has joined in the investigation, while parallel work seems to be starting in France and the UK for alleged assaults by Weinstein in those countries.

    Taking one step out, if the FBI's investigation starts to turn up allegations and evidence like one of those unending paper streamer magic tricks (a distinct possibility) I could see this turning into a full-blown probe of production companies across all of film and television, maybe music too. Not even Disney is isolated from this, especially with the rumors around ex-mouseketeers and other former child stars.

    Goodness no. Not again.

    Criminal courts have repeatedly demonstrated that they are ultimately a boon for the predator, not the victim, in these cases; the woman is slut-shamed, the perpetrator is pardoned, the MRAs who insist that all rape victims are liars are vindicated.


    Civil courts, so I'm told, are the only way forward for rape victims. Criminal courts are where you go if you want a bunch of lawyers to expose your sex life to the public & a judge to tell everyone you're obviously just a crazed liar.

    I hope this does not go to trial, and instead people follow in the footsteps of Taylor Swift's success story (...though, I kind of also hope that future civil suits will ask for more than a dollar. I understand the symbolic nature of that gesture, but fuck it; extract blood from the bank accounts of those motherfuckers. Nothing keeps a creep like that up a night like knowing that a woman took away a bunch of his money).

    Do you want the problem to go away, or not? Because it looks like only way get it out of an industry this filled with it is to first have a giant smoking crater to point to demonstrating why you don't cross that line. Then, when it's torn out root and stem, you establish proper oversight systems and procedures.

    Second, did I say that the rape cases would be the real goal aside from Weinstein or similar perpetrators? No, you go after the corporations. If you can prove that they are tied to criminal activity, then the smoking crater isn't limited to a handful of Hollywood producers, it's an entire production company (if not several). When the stakes are that high, you'll see some big changes in how things work in Hollywood.

    Here's the thing - what winds up actually happening is that the corporation hires investigators who immediately go through the victims personal life with a fine toothed comb, and prepare to put her entire sexual history up on trial as part of a "not guilty on account of the victim is a slut" defense.

    You may have read my second bit there a little differently than what I meant. Weinstein is going to get nailed with criminal charges at this point, and while it's possible more people may face criminal trial it's not going to be soon (in relative terms). Most will be civil trials.

    However, in the case of Weinstein (and possibly others), the company was so aware of his activities that they wrote a special clause into his contract explicitly to cover them. While that clause was intended to deal with civil cases, the two incidents in New York may result in both civil and criminal cases. If the company in any way assisted in the cover-up of a crime surrounding those incidents or others like them, they're screwed.

    edit: And I would bet that more than a few of them [companies] have done just that.

    Emissary42 on
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    As a more recent development, it seems the FBI has opened an investigation into the allegations around Weinstein, particularly those by Lucia Evans in 2004. A key part of this is because the alleged assault happened in New York there is no statute of limitations on crimes of this nature: if it can be proved to have happened, criminal charges can be brought against him. NYPD's Special Victims Division has joined in the investigation, while parallel work seems to be starting in France and the UK for alleged assaults by Weinstein in those countries.

    Taking one step out, if the FBI's investigation starts to turn up allegations and evidence like one of those unending paper streamer magic tricks (a distinct possibility) I could see this turning into a full-blown probe of production companies across all of film and television, maybe music too. Not even Disney is isolated from this, especially with the rumors around ex-mouseketeers and other former child stars.

    Goodness no. Not again.

    Criminal courts have repeatedly demonstrated that they are ultimately a boon for the predator, not the victim, in these cases; the woman is slut-shamed, the perpetrator is pardoned, the MRAs who insist that all rape victims are liars are vindicated.


    Civil courts, so I'm told, are the only way forward for rape victims. Criminal courts are where you go if you want a bunch of lawyers to expose your sex life to the public & a judge to tell everyone you're obviously just a crazed liar.

    I hope this does not go to trial, and instead people follow in the footsteps of Taylor Swift's success story (...though, I kind of also hope that future civil suits will ask for more than a dollar. I understand the symbolic nature of that gesture, but fuck it; extract blood from the bank accounts of those motherfuckers. Nothing keeps a creep like that up a night like knowing that a woman took away a bunch of his money).

    Do you want the problem to go away, or not? Because it looks like only way get it out of an industry this filled with it is to first have a giant smoking crater to point to demonstrating why you don't cross that line. Then, when it's torn out root and stem, you establish proper oversight systems and procedures.

    Second, did I say that the rape cases would be the real goal aside from Weinstein or similar perpetrators? No, you go after the corporations. If you can prove that they are tied to criminal activity, then the smoking crater isn't limited to a handful of Hollywood producers, it's an entire production company (if not several). When the stakes are that high, you'll see some big changes in how things work in Hollywood.

    I'd love to replace the current industry apparatus with a smoking crater - but an FBI investigation won't do that. If anything, it will strengthen said apparatus by lending it institutional credibility when they ultimately find the predators not guilty of any wrongdoing, as they have in the past.

    If, instead of criminal investigations, there were a tidal wave of civil suits that scorched the pocket books of the rapists then I'd argue we'd be much closer to toppling the existing toxic power structures. The reality of it is that someone like Weinstein is never going to be jailed - but he sure as heck can be given a steep bill to pay for what he did.


    You have to work with what you have, not with what you wish you had.

    With Love and Courage
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Huh. Maybe I just won't watch movies anymore

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    As a more recent development, it seems the FBI has opened an investigation into the allegations around Weinstein, particularly those by Lucia Evans in 2004. A key part of this is because the alleged assault happened in New York there is no statute of limitations on crimes of this nature: if it can be proved to have happened, criminal charges can be brought against him. NYPD's Special Victims Division has joined in the investigation, while parallel work seems to be starting in France and the UK for alleged assaults by Weinstein in those countries.

    Taking one step out, if the FBI's investigation starts to turn up allegations and evidence like one of those unending paper streamer magic tricks (a distinct possibility) I could see this turning into a full-blown probe of production companies across all of film and television, maybe music too. Not even Disney is isolated from this, especially with the rumors around ex-mouseketeers and other former child stars.

    Goodness no. Not again.

    Criminal courts have repeatedly demonstrated that they are ultimately a boon for the predator, not the victim, in these cases; the woman is slut-shamed, the perpetrator is pardoned, the MRAs who insist that all rape victims are liars are vindicated.


    Civil courts, so I'm told, are the only way forward for rape victims. Criminal courts are where you go if you want a bunch of lawyers to expose your sex life to the public & a judge to tell everyone you're obviously just a crazed liar.

    I hope this does not go to trial, and instead people follow in the footsteps of Taylor Swift's success story (...though, I kind of also hope that future civil suits will ask for more than a dollar. I understand the symbolic nature of that gesture, but fuck it; extract blood from the bank accounts of those motherfuckers. Nothing keeps a creep like that up a night like knowing that a woman took away a bunch of his money).

    Do you want the problem to go away, or not? Because it looks like only way get it out of an industry this filled with it is to first have a giant smoking crater to point to demonstrating why you don't cross that line. Then, when it's torn out root and stem, you establish proper oversight systems and procedures.

    Second, did I say that the rape cases would be the real goal aside from Weinstein or similar perpetrators? No, you go after the corporations. If you can prove that they are tied to criminal activity, then the smoking crater isn't limited to a handful of Hollywood producers, it's an entire production company (if not several). When the stakes are that high, you'll see some big changes in how things work in Hollywood.

    Here's the thing - what winds up actually happening is that the corporation hires investigators who immediately go through the victims personal life with a fine toothed comb, and prepare to put her entire sexual history up on trial as part of a "not guilty on account of the victim is a slut" defense.

    You may have read my second bit there a little differently than what I meant. Weinstein is going to get nailed with criminal charges at this point, and while it's possible more people may face criminal trial it's not going to be soon (in relative terms). Most will be civil trials.

    However, in the case of Weinstein (and possibly others), the company was so aware of his activities that they wrote a special clause into his contract explicitly to cover them. While that clause was intended to deal with civil cases, the two incidents in New York may result in both civil and criminal cases. If the company in any way assisted in the cover-up of a crime surrounding those incidents or others like them, they're screwed.

    edit: And I would bet that more than a few of them [companies] have done just that.

    You're missing my point, which is that we have a culture in which slut shaming is considered a legitimate line of defense for these sorts of charges. We've decided that "vigorous defense" in a court of law means that the defense can drag the victim through the mud, which means they will.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Emissary42Emissary42 Registered User regular
    edited October 2017
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Emissary42 wrote: »
    As a more recent development, it seems the FBI has opened an investigation into the allegations around Weinstein, particularly those by Lucia Evans in 2004. A key part of this is because the alleged assault happened in New York there is no statute of limitations on crimes of this nature: if it can be proved to have happened, criminal charges can be brought against him. NYPD's Special Victims Division has joined in the investigation, while parallel work seems to be starting in France and the UK for alleged assaults by Weinstein in those countries.

    Taking one step out, if the FBI's investigation starts to turn up allegations and evidence like one of those unending paper streamer magic tricks (a distinct possibility) I could see this turning into a full-blown probe of production companies across all of film and television, maybe music too. Not even Disney is isolated from this, especially with the rumors around ex-mouseketeers and other former child stars.

    Goodness no. Not again.

    Criminal courts have repeatedly demonstrated that they are ultimately a boon for the predator, not the victim, in these cases; the woman is slut-shamed, the perpetrator is pardoned, the MRAs who insist that all rape victims are liars are vindicated.


    Civil courts, so I'm told, are the only way forward for rape victims. Criminal courts are where you go if you want a bunch of lawyers to expose your sex life to the public & a judge to tell everyone you're obviously just a crazed liar.

    I hope this does not go to trial, and instead people follow in the footsteps of Taylor Swift's success story (...though, I kind of also hope that future civil suits will ask for more than a dollar. I understand the symbolic nature of that gesture, but fuck it; extract blood from the bank accounts of those motherfuckers. Nothing keeps a creep like that up a night like knowing that a woman took away a bunch of his money).

    Do you want the problem to go away, or not? Because it looks like only way get it out of an industry this filled with it is to first have a giant smoking crater to point to demonstrating why you don't cross that line. Then, when it's torn out root and stem, you establish proper oversight systems and procedures.

    Second, did I say that the rape cases would be the real goal aside from Weinstein or similar perpetrators? No, you go after the corporations. If you can prove that they are tied to criminal activity, then the smoking crater isn't limited to a handful of Hollywood producers, it's an entire production company (if not several). When the stakes are that high, you'll see some big changes in how things work in Hollywood.

    Here's the thing - what winds up actually happening is that the corporation hires investigators who immediately go through the victims personal life with a fine toothed comb, and prepare to put her entire sexual history up on trial as part of a "not guilty on account of the victim is a slut" defense.

    You may have read my second bit there a little differently than what I meant. Weinstein is going to get nailed with criminal charges at this point, and while it's possible more people may face criminal trial it's not going to be soon (in relative terms). Most will be civil trials.

    However, in the case of Weinstein (and possibly others), the company was so aware of his activities that they wrote a special clause into his contract explicitly to cover them. While that clause was intended to deal with civil cases, the two incidents in New York may result in both civil and criminal cases. If the company in any way assisted in the cover-up of a crime surrounding those incidents or others like them, they're screwed.

    edit: And I would bet that more than a few of them [companies] have done just that.

    You're missing my point, which is that we have a culture in which slut shaming is considered a legitimate line of defense for these sorts of charges. We've decided that "vigorous defense" in a court of law means that the defense can drag the victim through the mud, which means they will.

    Why would the rape victim be in a trial about whether or not a corporate board is part of a criminal conspiracy? Those are two separate cases.

    edit: hell, the rape case could even resolve not guilty and you might still be able to get a conviction on the conspiracy trial.

    Emissary42 on
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Well unless Razor Ramon comes in here.

    Anyone else find it a little gross how instead of people vowing to do better and not work to hide assaults, companies are now issuing "you can't be alone with women" decrees for management personnel. That just seems like more victim blaming.

    Not really. It seems more like heading things off at the pass. If you cannot be alone with members of the opposite sex in private then the company has leeway to punish people regardless of dealing with the allegations. It's formulated in this manner because they're stupid (should be gender neutral) but it has nothing to do with "people not vowing to do better"

    That is person x says it happened. Y says it didn't happen. Company says I don't care you should have refused to be in a position where this could happen.

    That is there should be no one on one meetings of any kind in non-public places. To suggest that there should be but we just need to do better at dealing with assault is stupid. Assaults happen in private spaces for a reason; there is no way to disambiguate between a coercive incident and one that isn't when it's in private.

    It's just as dumb to suggest that men are House broken chimps as it is to suggest that women cannot be sexually coercive. (As has been done in this thread) and such policies that prohibit employees from being in situations which can become sexually (or legally or whatever) coercive is good.

    It's not like you couldn't have the meeting in a public room.

    Sorry, but no, the "Billy Graham Rule" is gooseshit. It doesn't actually solve the problem of sexual assault. It actively impedes the careers of women, by cutting them off from opportunities, since they are treated as "dangerous" by the very people they need the support of to advance their careers. It also creates the absolutely goosey idea that men and women cannot work together without sex being involved (remember, Graham didn't institute it to head off claims of sexual assault, but to stymie rumors of infidelity.)

    So no, these policies are decidedly a bad idea, and continue to push harmful societal ideas.
    Goumindong wrote: »
    It would make it super easy to fuck people over especially if people were willing to coordinate. There is no good way to policy around it except well "don't be in these situations"

    Do you realize you are buying into some incredibly toxic myths here? Like this is borderline MRA gooseshit. Women are not a shadowy cabal out to take down the wealthy with coordinated attacks of false accusations, and we should not be forwarding that belief.

    No. I am doing nothing of the sort. The only problem with the policy is that it's gendered... and I said that. A man and woman should not have meetings in private. Two women should not have meetings in private. Two men should not have meetings in non-public places either.

    Professional standards should put no person in potentially compromising situations. This is both to prevent people from being compromised, to prevent people from feeling like they are, and to protect the company from having to deal with any resulting complaints. It would be a lot easier to deal with people like Weinstein if "we had a meeting in his room" was immediate grounds for termination regardless of whatever went on in there. Terminated for cause; "violated standards of professional ethics".

    Or maybe I could phrase my objections to your post in a more accusatory fashion. Do you realize that you're promoting sexual assault? You goose.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited October 2017
    Goumindong wrote:
    No. I am doing nothing of the sort. The only problem with the policy is that it's gendered... and I said that. A man and woman should not have meetings in private. Two women should not have meetings in private. Two men should not have meetings in non-public places either.

    Professional standards should put no person in potentially compromising situations. This is both to prevent people from being compromised, to prevent people from feeling like they are, and to protect the company from having to deal with any resulting complaints. It would be a lot easier to deal with people like Weinstein if "we had a meeting in his room" was immediate grounds for termination regardless of whatever went on in there. Terminated for cause; "violated standards of professional ethics".

    But this isn't a realistic goal? Like, you can never have a private meeting, ever, is going to flat-out not work & almost certainly lead to people just having their private discussions offsite instead. You'd just be shifting the location where the assaults take place while creating an incredible obstacle for productive / necessary talks between professionals.

    Also, a significant chunk of assaults happen in places with multiple people either present in the same room or right next door, or in spaces with plenty of traffic. Like, Weintein masturbated in front of one of his victims in a hallway.


    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • CalicaCalica Registered User regular
    Apparently you can't swing a cat in Hollywood without hitting a rapist. Jesus.

  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Well unless Razor Ramon comes in here.

    Anyone else find it a little gross how instead of people vowing to do better and not work to hide assaults, companies are now issuing "you can't be alone with women" decrees for management personnel. That just seems like more victim blaming.

    Not really. It seems more like heading things off at the pass. If you cannot be alone with members of the opposite sex in private then the company has leeway to punish people regardless of dealing with the allegations. It's formulated in this manner because they're stupid (should be gender neutral) but it has nothing to do with "people not vowing to do better"

    That is person x says it happened. Y says it didn't happen. Company says I don't care you should have refused to be in a position where this could happen.

    That is there should be no one on one meetings of any kind in non-public places. To suggest that there should be but we just need to do better at dealing with assault is stupid. Assaults happen in private spaces for a reason; there is no way to disambiguate between a coercive incident and one that isn't when it's in private.

    It's just as dumb to suggest that men are House broken chimps as it is to suggest that women cannot be sexually coercive. (As has been done in this thread) and such policies that prohibit employees from being in situations which can become sexually (or legally or whatever) coercive is good.

    It's not like you couldn't have the meeting in a public room.

    Sorry, but no, the "Billy Graham Rule" is gooseshit. It doesn't actually solve the problem of sexual assault. It actively impedes the careers of women, by cutting them off from opportunities, since they are treated as "dangerous" by the very people they need the support of to advance their careers. It also creates the absolutely goosey idea that men and women cannot work together without sex being involved (remember, Graham didn't institute it to head off claims of sexual assault, but to stymie rumors of infidelity.)

    So no, these policies are decidedly a bad idea, and continue to push harmful societal ideas.
    Goumindong wrote: »
    It would make it super easy to fuck people over especially if people were willing to coordinate. There is no good way to policy around it except well "don't be in these situations"

    Do you realize you are buying into some incredibly toxic myths here? Like this is borderline MRA gooseshit. Women are not a shadowy cabal out to take down the wealthy with coordinated attacks of false accusations, and we should not be forwarding that belief.

    No. I am doing nothing of the sort. The only problem with the policy is that it's gendered... and I said that. A man and woman should not have meetings in private. Two women should not have meetings in private. Two men should not have meetings in non-public places either.

    Professional standards should put no person in potentially compromising situations. This is both to prevent people from being compromised, to prevent people from feeling like they are, and to protect the company from having to deal with any resulting complaints. It would be a lot easier to deal with people like Weinstein if "we had a meeting in his room" was immediate grounds for termination regardless of whatever went on in there. Terminated for cause; "violated standards of professional ethics".

    Or maybe I could phrase my objections to your post in a more accusatory fashion. Do you realize that you're promoting sexual assault? You goose.

    Or maybe both of you can give the accusatory tone a rest or face a thread kick.

    Take it down a notch.

This discussion has been closed.