That much is clear, and I don't really care enough about that question to come down on one side or the other. What I wanted to know was what you meant by "treat women equally", and I think I have a better grasp of that now, thanks.
Maybe you should reconsider, relationships in society between the sexes is a backbone for how abuse occurs and is fostered in communities. It's an important element to pay attention to when dealing with how abuse is created. The fact that's it's white noise in the background is why it's so dangerous, when society ignores it it continues the pattern and its harder to change the environment on the macro and micro scale.
I'm not interested in a debate about the precise causal relationship between sexist ideas and sexist or abusive behaviour. That's not the same as being uninterested in discussions about sexism or abuse.
That much is clear, and I don't really care enough about that question to come down on one side or the other. What I wanted to know was what you meant by "treat women equally", and I think I have a better grasp of that now, thanks.
Maybe you should reconsider, relationships in society between the sexes is a backbone for how abuse occurs and is fostered in communities. It's an important element to pay attention to when dealing with how abuse is created. The fact that's it's white noise in the background is why it's so dangerous, when society ignores it it continues the pattern and its harder to change the environment on the macro and micro scale.
I'm not interested in a debate about the precise causal relationship between sexist ideas and sexist or abusive behaviour. That's not the same as being uninterested in discussions about sexism or abuse.
The two subjects are interlinked, can't get to the root of getting rid of sexism in toxic environments without taking in all the factors. That is one of the largest issues with how cultures become toxic, and within the Hollywood sphere this runs into issues like nepotism, being friends with abusers and how their financial and/or artistic careers are on the line if they step on the toes of people who will protect the abusers. All of this merges together to create what Hollywood is.
I'm curious why you don't want to add this to the discussion, you have yet to explain why you feel like this on this subject considering the two subjects are virtually identical.
I cannot possibly believe a close friend of Weinstein's didn't know that he was a sexual harasser, at least. Smith might have been ignorant of the rapes for sure - but the fact that Weinstein pressured women into sex was well known to any with a decent acquaintance with him. They knew to advise women they valued to be cautious about being alone with him.
At the very least he had to know about or read the book about Mirimax workings, which supposedly have many bad things in it about Weinstein. That alone should have been a red flag something was wrong. And even then it would be bullshit as you said, since he's worked with and been his close friend for how many years.
edit: Down and Dirty Pictures was the title. Anyone read it?
Regarding Casey Affleck, there's also a rather noxious racial angle there as well. Remember that a lot of the stuff about him didn't come out in a vacuum - it was around that time that all the revelations about Birth of a Nation director/star Nate Parker came to light as well. And yet, who still has a career in Hollywood and got their scandal soft-pedaled? If you said "the white guy", you know how this game is played.
That much is clear, and I don't really care enough about that question to come down on one side or the other. What I wanted to know was what you meant by "treat women equally", and I think I have a better grasp of that now, thanks.
Maybe you should reconsider, relationships in society between the sexes is a backbone for how abuse occurs and is fostered in communities. It's an important element to pay attention to when dealing with how abuse is created. The fact that's it's white noise in the background is why it's so dangerous, when society ignores it it continues the pattern and its harder to change the environment on the macro and micro scale.
I'm not interested in a debate about the precise causal relationship between sexist ideas and sexist or abusive behaviour. That's not the same as being uninterested in discussions about sexism or abuse.
The two subjects are interlinked, can't get to the root of getting rid of sexism in toxic environments without taking in all the factors. That is one of the largest issues with how cultures become toxic, and within the Hollywood sphere this runs into issues like nepotism, being friends with abusers and how their financial and/or artistic careers are on the line if they step on the toes of people who will protect the abusers. All of this merges together to create what Hollywood is.
I'm curious why you don't want to add this to the discussion, you have yet to explain why you feel like this on this subject considering the two subjects are virtually identical.
Please, don't let me stop you from having any discussions that are of interest to you.
That much is clear, and I don't really care enough about that question to come down on one side or the other. What I wanted to know was what you meant by "treat women equally", and I think I have a better grasp of that now, thanks.
Maybe you should reconsider, relationships in society between the sexes is a backbone for how abuse occurs and is fostered in communities. It's an important element to pay attention to when dealing with how abuse is created. The fact that's it's white noise in the background is why it's so dangerous, when society ignores it it continues the pattern and its harder to change the environment on the macro and micro scale.
I'm not interested in a debate about the precise causal relationship between sexist ideas and sexist or abusive behaviour. That's not the same as being uninterested in discussions about sexism or abuse.
The two subjects are interlinked, can't get to the root of getting rid of sexism in toxic environments without taking in all the factors. That is one of the largest issues with how cultures become toxic, and within the Hollywood sphere this runs into issues like nepotism, being friends with abusers and how their financial and/or artistic careers are on the line if they step on the toes of people who will protect the abusers. All of this merges together to create what Hollywood is.
I'm curious why you don't want to add this to the discussion, you have yet to explain why you feel like this on this subject considering the two subjects are virtually identical.
Please, don't let me stop you from having any discussions that are of interest to you.
The point is that your statement is wrong - if you're "not interested" in how sexist ideas promulgate sexism and abuse, then you actually aren't interested in discussing sexism or abuse, because you're unwilling to deal with the root causes.
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
I did not intend this thread to be about general sexism. If y’all want to have a discussion about general sexism please feel free to start a new thread.
That much is clear, and I don't really care enough about that question to come down on one side or the other. What I wanted to know was what you meant by "treat women equally", and I think I have a better grasp of that now, thanks.
Maybe you should reconsider, relationships in society between the sexes is a backbone for how abuse occurs and is fostered in communities. It's an important element to pay attention to when dealing with how abuse is created. The fact that's it's white noise in the background is why it's so dangerous, when society ignores it it continues the pattern and its harder to change the environment on the macro and micro scale.
I'm not interested in a debate about the precise causal relationship between sexist ideas and sexist or abusive behaviour. That's not the same as being uninterested in discussions about sexism or abuse.
The two subjects are interlinked, can't get to the root of getting rid of sexism in toxic environments without taking in all the factors. That is one of the largest issues with how cultures become toxic, and within the Hollywood sphere this runs into issues like nepotism, being friends with abusers and how their financial and/or artistic careers are on the line if they step on the toes of people who will protect the abusers. All of this merges together to create what Hollywood is.
I'm curious why you don't want to add this to the discussion, you have yet to explain why you feel like this on this subject considering the two subjects are virtually identical.
Please, don't let me stop you from having any discussions that are of interest to you.
The point is that your statement is wrong - if you're "not interested" in how sexist ideas promulgate sexism and abuse, then you actually aren't interested in discussing sexism or abuse, because you're unwilling to deal with the root causes.
Why would you choose to put "not interested" in quotes and then paraphrase the important part? Putting something in quotes makes it look like you're trying to accurately represent what I wrote, but when you paraphrase "a debate about the precise causal relationship between sexist ideas and sexist or abusive behaviour" to "how sexist ideas promulgate sexism and abuse", you seem more interested in finding an easy position to argue against.
I think another reason these things happen is because nearly everyone believes that they are ultimately good, and by extension, their friends and family are good too. I think a lot of these people had heard about what was going on but convinced themselves that the rumors were overblown, or that some sleazy stuff was happening but not rapist levels of sleaze. You know, he's a good guy at heart who made some mistakes, he's under a lot of stress, he wasn't aware of what he was doing, etc. They come up with all of these external influences instead of being honest about who their friend is, because that's painful and requires a lot of humility.
Admitting that a close friend or relative is a terrible person can be as difficult as coming to terms with your own sins. People tell themselves that they are good, and good people don't hang out with rapists, so this friend/relative can't possibly be a sexual predator.
There’s separately a push by some British lawmakers to also strip Weinstein of the CBE title/honor https://t.co/3PB3m6wfcO
Well the horse it out in the pasture, better fix this gate.
Like great good job take his titles from him, but this is just pissing in the wind as far as doing anything of value for his victims. Also Roman Polanski or Woody Allen better not have similar honors or the message is even less of a thing.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I think another reason these things happen is because nearly everyone believes that they are ultimately good, and by extension, their friends and family are good too. I think a lot of these people had heard about what was going on but convinced themselves that the rumors were overblown, or that some sleazy stuff was happening but not rapist levels of sleaze. You know, he's a good guy at heart who made some mistakes, he's under a lot of stress, he wasn't aware of what he was doing, etc. They come up with all of these external influences instead of being honest about who their friend is, because that's painful and requires a lot of humility.
Admitting that a close friend or relative is a terrible person can be as difficult as coming to terms with your own sins. People tell themselves that they are good, and good people don't hang out with rapists, so this close and personal friend can't possibly be a sexual predator.
Cracked just did a piece on this sort of blindness by guys, and it really comes down to "believe women".
Like great good job take his titles from him, but this is just pissing in the wind as far as doing anything of value for his victims.
It could be worse. They could have just not done anything.
Trashing the legacy of Harvey Weinstein while he is still alive will hopefully give men who might be thinking of walking in his footsteps second thoughts. Hollywood people crave honors and glory and awards. Even Roman Polanksi and Woody Allen are honored. Taking away their honors are more powerful than you'd think. Weinstein will still be rich even if every victim sues and wins, but he can't get his honors back.
Over the weekend, Smith expressed his feelings of shock and disgust over his longtime friendship and association with Weinstein, saying on his Hollywood Babble-On podcast, “I just wanted to make some fucking movies, that’s it… And no fucking movie is worth all this. Like, my entire career, fuck it, take it. It’s wrapped up in something really fucking horrible.” Smith made it clear that he had no knowledge of Weinstein’s behavior around women, saying, “I know it’s not my fault, but I didn’t fucking help. Because I sat out there talking about this man like he was a hero, like he was my friend. I didn’t know the man that they keep talking about in the press. Clearly he exists, but that man never showed himself to me.”
Smith also said he intends to put his money where his mouth his; according to Vulture, he’s pledged to donate all future residuals from all of his Miramax films—including Chasing Amy, Jay And Silent Bob Strike Back, Jersey Girl, Zack And Miri Make A Porno, and both Clerks movies—to Women In Films, a nonprofit organization that supports female filmmakers. He also added that, if The Weinstein Company ends up folding, rendering those residuals worthless, he’ll pay $2,000 a month to the group for the rest of his life.
Good on Smith for doing this, I'm skeptical he was totally in the dark about Harvey. He may not necessarily have known the extent of Harvey's abuses (I certainly hope the fuck he didn't), what he would have to be is a completely ignorant of what Harvey's done or the rumors circling and he was completely silent over it. There may have been pragmatic reasons (RE: it'd be career and financial suicide), or thinks he owes a debt (without Harvey he wouldn't have a career) - that would remain a poor defense though a more convincing one that he was completely in the dark about this. And that's giving them a benefit of a doubt. Same for Tarantino. Those two have been close business partners and friends for years on end with him.
edit: Now I'm wondering what Smith's opinion is of Casey Affleck, and his abusive behavior.
I think there's a really big case of bystander effect going on in hollywood.
Over the weekend, Smith expressed his feelings of shock and disgust over his longtime friendship and association with Weinstein, saying on his Hollywood Babble-On podcast, “I just wanted to make some fucking movies, that’s it… And no fucking movie is worth all this. Like, my entire career, fuck it, take it. It’s wrapped up in something really fucking horrible.” Smith made it clear that he had no knowledge of Weinstein’s behavior around women, saying, “I know it’s not my fault, but I didn’t fucking help. Because I sat out there talking about this man like he was a hero, like he was my friend. I didn’t know the man that they keep talking about in the press. Clearly he exists, but that man never showed himself to me.”
Smith also said he intends to put his money where his mouth his; according to Vulture, he’s pledged to donate all future residuals from all of his Miramax films—including Chasing Amy, Jay And Silent Bob Strike Back, Jersey Girl, Zack And Miri Make A Porno, and both Clerks movies—to Women In Films, a nonprofit organization that supports female filmmakers. He also added that, if The Weinstein Company ends up folding, rendering those residuals worthless, he’ll pay $2,000 a month to the group for the rest of his life.
Good on Smith for doing this, I'm skeptical he was totally in the dark about Harvey. He may not necessarily have known the extent of Harvey's abuses (I certainly hope the fuck he didn't), what he would have to be is a completely ignorant of what Harvey's done or the rumors circling and he was completely silent over it. There may have been pragmatic reasons (RE: it'd be career and financial suicide), or thinks he owes a debt (without Harvey he wouldn't have a career) - that would remain a poor defense though a more convincing one that he was completely in the dark about this. And that's giving them a benefit of a doubt. Same for Tarantino. Those two have been close business partners and friends for years on end with him.
edit: Now I'm wondering what Smith's opinion is of Casey Affleck, and his abusive behavior.
I think there's a really big case of bystander effect going on in hollywood.
It was more that at his peak, Weinstein was the sort of vindictive goose who would happily end your career if you got on his wrong side, and he had reach. As has been pointed out, part of what's fueling this is that he is the proverbial "lion in winter", and thus cannot harm people like he could before.
Over the weekend, Smith expressed his feelings of shock and disgust over his longtime friendship and association with Weinstein, saying on his Hollywood Babble-On podcast, “I just wanted to make some fucking movies, that’s it… And no fucking movie is worth all this. Like, my entire career, fuck it, take it. It’s wrapped up in something really fucking horrible.” Smith made it clear that he had no knowledge of Weinstein’s behavior around women, saying, “I know it’s not my fault, but I didn’t fucking help. Because I sat out there talking about this man like he was a hero, like he was my friend. I didn’t know the man that they keep talking about in the press. Clearly he exists, but that man never showed himself to me.”
Smith also said he intends to put his money where his mouth his; according to Vulture, he’s pledged to donate all future residuals from all of his Miramax films—including Chasing Amy, Jay And Silent Bob Strike Back, Jersey Girl, Zack And Miri Make A Porno, and both Clerks movies—to Women In Films, a nonprofit organization that supports female filmmakers. He also added that, if The Weinstein Company ends up folding, rendering those residuals worthless, he’ll pay $2,000 a month to the group for the rest of his life.
Good on Smith for doing this, I'm skeptical he was totally in the dark about Harvey. He may not necessarily have known the extent of Harvey's abuses (I certainly hope the fuck he didn't), what he would have to be is a completely ignorant of what Harvey's done or the rumors circling and he was completely silent over it. There may have been pragmatic reasons (RE: it'd be career and financial suicide), or thinks he owes a debt (without Harvey he wouldn't have a career) - that would remain a poor defense though a more convincing one that he was completely in the dark about this. And that's giving them a benefit of a doubt. Same for Tarantino. Those two have been close business partners and friends for years on end with him.
edit: Now I'm wondering what Smith's opinion is of Casey Affleck, and his abusive behavior.
I think there's a really big case of bystander effect going on in hollywood.
It was more that at his peak, Weinstein was the sort of vindictive goose who would happily end your career if you got on his wrong side, and he had reach. As has been pointed out, part of what's fueling this is that he is the proverbial "lion in winter", and thus cannot harm people like he could before.
That too, i already pointed the cycle of abuse going on in Hollywood earlier.
I think another reason these things happen is because nearly everyone believes that they are ultimately good, and by extension, their friends and family are good too. I think a lot of these people had heard about what was going on but convinced themselves that the rumors were overblown, or that some sleazy stuff was happening but not rapist levels of sleaze. You know, he's a good guy at heart who made some mistakes, he's under a lot of stress, he wasn't aware of what he was doing, etc. They come up with all of these external influences instead of being honest about who their friend is, because that's painful and requires a lot of humility.
Admitting that a close friend or relative is a terrible person can be as difficult as coming to terms with your own sins. People tell themselves that they are good, and good people don't hang out with rapists, so this close and personal friend can't possibly be a sexual predator.
Cracked just did a piece on this sort of blindness by guys, and it really comes down to "believe women".
It doesn't always come down to that really because it's not like you hear it directly from the women in question all the time. You hear a rumour second hand or fourth hand, you hear a joke, etc, etc. And so your reaction is basically "That doesn't match the guy I know".
I think another reason these things happen is because nearly everyone believes that they are ultimately good, and by extension, their friends and family are good too. I think a lot of these people had heard about what was going on but convinced themselves that the rumors were overblown, or that some sleazy stuff was happening but not rapist levels of sleaze. You know, he's a good guy at heart who made some mistakes, he's under a lot of stress, he wasn't aware of what he was doing, etc. They come up with all of these external influences instead of being honest about who their friend is, because that's painful and requires a lot of humility.
Admitting that a close friend or relative is a terrible person can be as difficult as coming to terms with your own sins. People tell themselves that they are good, and good people don't hang out with rapists, so this close and personal friend can't possibly be a sexual predator.
Cracked just did a piece on this sort of blindness by guys, and it really comes down to "believe women".
It doesn't always come down to that really because it's not like you hear it directly from the women in question all the time. You hear a rumour second hand or fourth hand, you hear a joke, etc, etc. And so your reaction is basically "That doesn't match the guy I know".
Because as we all know, rapists are like undercover cops.
If you are one, you have to tell us.
I'd say a lot of male abusers probably keep up the facade around their male friends specifically for the protection it affords.
And/or find friends who don't really consider anything short of whacking a woman over the head with a tire iron to be "too forceful" flirting.
There's a huge issue in people not really understanding where limits are.
Those "don't rape" campaigns? Totally necessary, because lot of men (and women (and, unfortunately, police)) don't really understand what is and is not rape.
I think another reason these things happen is because nearly everyone believes that they are ultimately good, and by extension, their friends and family are good too. I think a lot of these people had heard about what was going on but convinced themselves that the rumors were overblown, or that some sleazy stuff was happening but not rapist levels of sleaze. You know, he's a good guy at heart who made some mistakes, he's under a lot of stress, he wasn't aware of what he was doing, etc. They come up with all of these external influences instead of being honest about who their friend is, because that's painful and requires a lot of humility.
Admitting that a close friend or relative is a terrible person can be as difficult as coming to terms with your own sins. People tell themselves that they are good, and good people don't hang out with rapists, so this close and personal friend can't possibly be a sexual predator.
Cracked just did a piece on this sort of blindness by guys, and it really comes down to "believe women".
It doesn't always come down to that really because it's not like you hear it directly from the women in question all the time. You hear a rumour second hand or fourth hand, you hear a joke, etc, etc. And so your reaction is basically "That doesn't match the guy I know".
Don't let that glib and misleading summary turn you off of the article. It makes 5 numbered suggestions, which seem pretty worthy to me:
Pay Attention
Don't Judge Victims For "Leading Him On"
Notice How Others React To His "Jokes"
Don't Ever Leave Someone Alone With Somebody Who Makes Them Uncomfortable
I cannot possibly believe a close friend of Weinstein's didn't know that he was a sexual harasser, at least. Smith might have been ignorant of the rapes for sure - but the fact that Weinstein pressured women into sex was well known to any with a decent acquaintance with him. They knew to advise women they valued to be cautious about being alone with him.
I'm not comfortable making assumptions like this.
Rumor and caution do not necessarily impart or require knowledge, and it seems feasible that those closest to an abuser would have the largest blind spot. One who would be offended by their friend's behavior would not be sought out as an audience for boasting, and may not want to accept that they were capable; because they think they would know, and would never be friends with such a person in the first place.
There's also the element of various bad actors (not the stage and screen kind, the other definition) wielding false claims and examples of exposed false claims as a means to suppress a real claim of harassment for the latter or as a tool to obtain advantage with the former. Hell, we've seen that Lisa Bloom was gearing up to use this tactic to smear Weinstein's accusers if bribery didn't shut them up. And while it was well-meaning, the Dear Colleague letter failed because as it was implemented it had effectively no protections against abuse by an accuser making a false claim against a student or faculty member. Fortunately the justice system is getting better at dealing with such cases, because they're probably just as damaging to actual victims as they can be used to keep them from coming forward and allow real abuse and harassment to continue.
Oh hey, it's the bad penny of every discussion of sexual harassment and assault, the specter of "false accusations", as if that is the problem, and not that a) we don't believe women with regards to sexual harassment and assault; b) society has an unrealistic image of how a victim is "supposed" to behave, which is then weaponized against victims to depict them as willing; and c) that false accusations are incredibly rare, especially compared to the number of women who have their stories dismissed because of a) and b) above. Bloom's planned strategy works because we as a society only see victims as legitimate if they are "perfect", which is why we need to push back on both that train of thought as well as condemn Bloom for using it.
if false accusations are a concern why, casting directors will just have to meet with young women in the presence of other people in a professional setting, or record their interviews
oh hey look it's much harder to commit sexual assault as well imagine that
Bloom's planned strategy works because we as a society only see victims as legitimate if they are "perfect", which is why we need to push back on both that train of thought as well as condemn Bloom for using it.
The guy who accused Bryan Singer of raping him as a teenager is a person whose moral character is far from perfect (to say the least, he got sent to prison for something unrelated), and I'm still not sure that that means he wasn't a victim, though he is always portrayed that way....
if false accusations are a concern why, casting directors will just have to meet with young women in the presence of other people in a professional setting, or record their interviews
oh hey look it's much harder to commit sexual assault as well imagine that
If we're going that, you have to include meetings with young men! Both because men can also suffer abuse/harassment, and because otherwise you make meetings with women more of a burden than meetings with men, which will unfairly impact their careers
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
I don’t think false accusations are a significant problem in these situations. Imagine for a minute that Harvey was totally innocent and 20 years ago somebody falsely accused him of sexual assault. His position of power, his media influence, and his cohort would have banded together equally effectively to protect him from a false accusation as it turns out they did from the real ones.
There’s a lot more than “giving the victim the benefit of the doubt” between these rich, powerful people and consequences, whether those consequences are for their actual actions or for unfounded attacks. They don’t lack for defense, even against spurious claims, so let’s swing the pendulum back toward victim empowerment, please.
Oh hey, it's the bad penny of every discussion of sexual harassment and assault, the specter of "false accusations", as if that is the problem, and not that a) we don't believe women with regards to sexual harassment and assault; b) society has an unrealistic image of how a victim is "supposed" to behave, which is then weaponized against victims to depict them as willing; and c) that false accusations are incredibly rare, especially compared to the number of women who have their stories dismissed because of a) and b) above. Bloom's planned strategy works because we as a society only see victims as legitimate if they are "perfect", which is why we need to push back on both that train of thought as well as condemn Bloom for using it.
Thanks for assuming a lot about what I was saying that isn't even remotely the case. I raised the point because even if the real problem is relatively small, the impression of the problem is very large. At the same time, when it does happen (clearly not the case here) it's still wrong, and only makes things worse by adding to the public impression. Understanding how to get around this impression while not allowing an avenue for a small problem to grow is very important for victims of sexual harassment.
Oh hey, it's the bad penny of every discussion of sexual harassment and assault, the specter of "false accusations", as if that is the problem, and not that a) we don't believe women with regards to sexual harassment and assault; b) society has an unrealistic image of how a victim is "supposed" to behave, which is then weaponized against victims to depict them as willing; and c) that false accusations are incredibly rare, especially compared to the number of women who have their stories dismissed because of a) and b) above. Bloom's planned strategy works because we as a society only see victims as legitimate if they are "perfect", which is why we need to push back on both that train of thought as well as condemn Bloom for using it.
Thanks for assuming a lot about what I was saying that isn't even remotely the case. I raised the point because even if the real problem is relatively small, the impression of the problem is very large. At the same time, when it does happen (clearly not the case here) it's still wrong, and only makes things worse by adding to the public impression. Understanding how to get around this impression while not allowing an avenue for a small problem to grow is very important for victims of sexual harassment.
This "impression" exists because every time we have a discussion about sexual harassment and assault, someone has to "just ask questions" about this specific topic, and it always manages to derail the conversation, because for some reason, the idea that men could be falsely accused - something that happens extremely rarely - seizes the imagination of the public than the large number of women afraid to come forward about the abuse they suffered. Which is why I called it a bad penny - it always shows up, and it's always a distraction.
Oh hey, it's the bad penny of every discussion of sexual harassment and assault, the specter of "false accusations", as if that is the problem, and not that a) we don't believe women with regards to sexual harassment and assault; b) society has an unrealistic image of how a victim is "supposed" to behave, which is then weaponized against victims to depict them as willing; and c) that false accusations are incredibly rare, especially compared to the number of women who have their stories dismissed because of a) and b) above. Bloom's planned strategy works because we as a society only see victims as legitimate if they are "perfect", which is why we need to push back on both that train of thought as well as condemn Bloom for using it.
Thanks for assuming a lot about what I was saying that isn't even remotely the case. I raised the point because even if the real problem is relatively small, the impression of the problem is very large. At the same time, when it does happen (clearly not the case here) it's still wrong, and only makes things worse by adding to the public impression. Understanding how to get around this impression while not allowing an avenue for a small problem to grow is very important for victims of sexual harassment.
This "impression" exists because every time we have a discussion about sexual harassment and assault, someone has to "just ask questions" about this specific topic, and it always manages to derail the conversation, because for some reason, the idea that men could be falsely accused - something that happens extremely rarely - seizes the imagination of the public than the large number of women afraid to come forward about the abuse they suffered. Which is why I called it a bad penny - it always shows up, and it's always a distraction.
The false accusations argument is sort of a weird one for me. You're right in that it is a rare occurrence, but I think it is wrong to dismiss it out of hand. I believe in innocent until proven guilty, and I think as a nation that is how we have setup our laws and social norms. To that end, I think most people would say that an accusation alone should not be enough to get somebody fired, ostracized, or arrested.
HOWEVER, that does not mean that every accusation should be ignored, and in fact I would argue they should never be ignored. Ideally accusations are always the beginning of a thorough investigation.
Unfortunately, because there is such a strong reaction to certain classes of assault/wrong doing it sets up this weird dichotomy where simply being investigated has severe repercussions. Accusations are not supposed to be convictions/punishments. This then leads people to try and quash any investigation they believe to be unfounded because even if the person is found innocent they will still suffer consequences, which goes against the ideal of innocent until proven guilty.
I don't think you can fix one problem by suggesting we create another. But I also believe that there has to be a middle ground where reports are not ignored or actively dissuaded, but simply accusing someone of impropriety is not some trump card that can be used to destroy someone's career.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
An innocent person having to deal with a false accusation and ensuing investigation, or
An actual victim not reporting a crime because they won't be believed.
Even better, sometimes actual victims report the crime only to be accused of making stuff up! Which happens quite often unless a TON of victims do it all at the same time, and even then a lot of people don't believe it, see Bill Cosby.
The status quo is already worse than any imagined world of false accusations running rampant in society.
An innocent person having to deal with a false accusation and ensuing investigation, or
An actual victim not reporting a crime because they won't be believed.
Even better, sometimes actual victims report the crime only to be accused of making stuff up! Which happens quite often unless a TON of victims do it all at the same time, and even then a lot of people don't believe it, see Bill Cosby.
The status quo is already worse than any imagined world of false accusations running rampant in society.
This is a pattern that happens over and over and over with this sort of discussion. What could happen to men potentially is more important than what is happening to women.
An innocent person having to deal with a false accusation and ensuing investigation, or
An actual victim not reporting a crime because they won't be believed.
Even better, sometimes actual victims report the crime only to be accused of making stuff up! Which happens quite often unless a TON of victims do it all at the same time, and even then a lot of people don't believe it, see Bill Cosby.
The status quo is already worse than any imagined world of false accusations running rampant in society.
This is a pattern that happens over and over and over with this sort of discussion. What could happen to men potentially is more important than what is happening to women.
Literally no one here has made any such implication.
+10
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Sexual assault takes up this weird headspace unlike any other crime where the victim's behavior is more important than the perpetrator.
Like, if someone's car is stolen, if they left the window down, or the car unlocked, or the engine running, doesn't mean the thief is suddenly no longer guilty of stealing a car. We don't ask if they've given away cars in the past, or trade cars with people, or how many people they've given rides to. Like, none of that matters.
But when someone is raped, all of a sudden whether or not they've ever willingly had sex before is paramount. Like......
what?
False accusations of rape can happen.
But so can false accusations of any other crime. Why it's so much more important when it comes to sexual assault....well...I can only guess.
An innocent person having to deal with a false accusation and ensuing investigation, or
An actual victim not reporting a crime because they won't be believed.
Even better, sometimes actual victims report the crime only to be accused of making stuff up! Which happens quite often unless a TON of victims do it all at the same time, and even then a lot of people don't believe it, see Bill Cosby.
The status quo is already worse than any imagined world of false accusations running rampant in society.
This is a pattern that happens over and over and over with this sort of discussion. What could happen to men potentially is more important than what is happening to women.
You are the one assigning priorities. I believe we can do a much better job of addressing the problems of sexual assault without ignoring the concerns of false accusations. Part of that starts with the idea that we should not ignore accusations, but that we shouldn't condemn someone because of them either.
When it comes up in conversations like this why not argue that it doesn't apply here? Why jump to "it doesn't matter ever"? Is there no conversation that is acceptable about how a bystander might decide what to do with incomplete information?
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Sexual assault takes up this weird headspace unlike any other crime where the victim's behavior is more important than the perpetrator.
Like, if someone's car is stolen, if they left the window down, or the car unlocked, or the engine running, doesn't mean the thief is suddenly no longer guilty of stealing a car. We don't ask if they've given away cars in the past, or trade cars with people, or how many people they've given rides to. Like, none of that matters.
But when someone is raped, all of a sudden whether or not they've ever willingly had sex before is paramount. Like......
what?
False accusations of rape can happen.
But so can false accusations of any other crime. Why it's so much more important when it comes to sexual assault....well...I can only guess.
It goes to intent. If every day I give 5 dollars voluntarily to the homeless guy on the corner, it's going to be harder for me to argue that today I didn't give it to him and instead he stole it out of my hand.
The problem is that sexual assault is unlike other crimes because the act of sex/flirting is something that we do quite often voluntarily. Therefore it's not enough to prove that sex/flirting happened, you also have to prove that it was not voluntary. That's a burden not necessary for stealing a car, because nobody ever gives their car to stranger voluntarily.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
“I couldn’t believe he would do that so openly. I was like: ‘Really? Really?’ But the thing I thought then, at the time, was that he was particularly hung up on Mira,” said Tarantino. “I thought Harvey was hung up on her in this Svengali kind of way. Because he was infatuated with her, he horribly crossed the line.”
Weinstein distributed Tarantino’s films from his debut Reservoir Dogs to his most recent, The Hateful Eight, and the director said his attitude to the rumours was initially dismissive. “I chalked it up to a 50s-60s era image of a boss chasing a secretary around the desk,” he said. “As if that’s OK. That’s the egg on my face right now.”
False sexual assault claims are very rare against powerful people, to the point of almost nonexistence
+8
Options
Lord Palingtonhe.him.hisHistory-loving pal!Registered Userregular
This isn't academic or hypothetical. Real people refuse to report sexual assault or rape because they don't think people will believe them.
I guess I don't know what else to say except that the $5 hypothetical rubbed me the wrong way, because it's really close to the "are you sure you weren't leading them on?" defense.
Posts
I'm not interested in a debate about the precise causal relationship between sexist ideas and sexist or abusive behaviour. That's not the same as being uninterested in discussions about sexism or abuse.
The two subjects are interlinked, can't get to the root of getting rid of sexism in toxic environments without taking in all the factors. That is one of the largest issues with how cultures become toxic, and within the Hollywood sphere this runs into issues like nepotism, being friends with abusers and how their financial and/or artistic careers are on the line if they step on the toes of people who will protect the abusers. All of this merges together to create what Hollywood is.
I'm curious why you don't want to add this to the discussion, you have yet to explain why you feel like this on this subject considering the two subjects are virtually identical.
At the very least he had to know about or read the book about Mirimax workings, which supposedly have many bad things in it about Weinstein. That alone should have been a red flag something was wrong. And even then it would be bullshit as you said, since he's worked with and been his close friend for how many years.
edit: Down and Dirty Pictures was the title. Anyone read it?
Please, don't let me stop you from having any discussions that are of interest to you.
The point is that your statement is wrong - if you're "not interested" in how sexist ideas promulgate sexism and abuse, then you actually aren't interested in discussing sexism or abuse, because you're unwilling to deal with the root causes.
Why would you choose to put "not interested" in quotes and then paraphrase the important part? Putting something in quotes makes it look like you're trying to accurately represent what I wrote, but when you paraphrase "a debate about the precise causal relationship between sexist ideas and sexist or abusive behaviour" to "how sexist ideas promulgate sexism and abuse", you seem more interested in finding an easy position to argue against.
Also
Admitting that a close friend or relative is a terrible person can be as difficult as coming to terms with your own sins. People tell themselves that they are good, and good people don't hang out with rapists, so this friend/relative can't possibly be a sexual predator.
Well the horse it out in the pasture, better fix this gate.
Like great good job take his titles from him, but this is just pissing in the wind as far as doing anything of value for his victims. Also Roman Polanski or Woody Allen better not have similar honors or the message is even less of a thing.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Cracked just did a piece on this sort of blindness by guys, and it really comes down to "believe women".
It could be worse. They could have just not done anything.
Trashing the legacy of Harvey Weinstein while he is still alive will hopefully give men who might be thinking of walking in his footsteps second thoughts. Hollywood people crave honors and glory and awards. Even Roman Polanksi and Woody Allen are honored. Taking away their honors are more powerful than you'd think. Weinstein will still be rich even if every victim sues and wins, but he can't get his honors back.
It was more that at his peak, Weinstein was the sort of vindictive goose who would happily end your career if you got on his wrong side, and he had reach. As has been pointed out, part of what's fueling this is that he is the proverbial "lion in winter", and thus cannot harm people like he could before.
It doesn't always come down to that really because it's not like you hear it directly from the women in question all the time. You hear a rumour second hand or fourth hand, you hear a joke, etc, etc. And so your reaction is basically "That doesn't match the guy I know".
Because as we all know, rapists are like undercover cops.
If you are one, you have to tell us.
pleasepaypreacher.net
There's a huge issue in people not really understanding where limits are.
Those "don't rape" campaigns? Totally necessary, because lot of men (and women (and, unfortunately, police)) don't really understand what is and is not rape.
Don't let that glib and misleading summary turn you off of the article. It makes 5 numbered suggestions, which seem pretty worthy to me:
I'm not comfortable making assumptions like this.
Rumor and caution do not necessarily impart or require knowledge, and it seems feasible that those closest to an abuser would have the largest blind spot. One who would be offended by their friend's behavior would not be sought out as an audience for boasting, and may not want to accept that they were capable; because they think they would know, and would never be friends with such a person in the first place.
oh hey look it's much harder to commit sexual assault as well imagine that
The guy who accused Bryan Singer of raping him as a teenager is a person whose moral character is far from perfect (to say the least, he got sent to prison for something unrelated), and I'm still not sure that that means he wasn't a victim, though he is always portrayed that way....
If we're going that, you have to include meetings with young men! Both because men can also suffer abuse/harassment, and because otherwise you make meetings with women more of a burden than meetings with men, which will unfairly impact their careers
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
There’s a lot more than “giving the victim the benefit of the doubt” between these rich, powerful people and consequences, whether those consequences are for their actual actions or for unfounded attacks. They don’t lack for defense, even against spurious claims, so let’s swing the pendulum back toward victim empowerment, please.
Thanks for assuming a lot about what I was saying that isn't even remotely the case. I raised the point because even if the real problem is relatively small, the impression of the problem is very large. At the same time, when it does happen (clearly not the case here) it's still wrong, and only makes things worse by adding to the public impression. Understanding how to get around this impression while not allowing an avenue for a small problem to grow is very important for victims of sexual harassment.
This "impression" exists because every time we have a discussion about sexual harassment and assault, someone has to "just ask questions" about this specific topic, and it always manages to derail the conversation, because for some reason, the idea that men could be falsely accused - something that happens extremely rarely - seizes the imagination of the public than the large number of women afraid to come forward about the abuse they suffered. Which is why I called it a bad penny - it always shows up, and it's always a distraction.
The false accusations argument is sort of a weird one for me. You're right in that it is a rare occurrence, but I think it is wrong to dismiss it out of hand. I believe in innocent until proven guilty, and I think as a nation that is how we have setup our laws and social norms. To that end, I think most people would say that an accusation alone should not be enough to get somebody fired, ostracized, or arrested.
HOWEVER, that does not mean that every accusation should be ignored, and in fact I would argue they should never be ignored. Ideally accusations are always the beginning of a thorough investigation.
Unfortunately, because there is such a strong reaction to certain classes of assault/wrong doing it sets up this weird dichotomy where simply being investigated has severe repercussions. Accusations are not supposed to be convictions/punishments. This then leads people to try and quash any investigation they believe to be unfounded because even if the person is found innocent they will still suffer consequences, which goes against the ideal of innocent until proven guilty.
I don't think you can fix one problem by suggesting we create another. But I also believe that there has to be a middle ground where reports are not ignored or actively dissuaded, but simply accusing someone of impropriety is not some trump card that can be used to destroy someone's career.
Even better, sometimes actual victims report the crime only to be accused of making stuff up! Which happens quite often unless a TON of victims do it all at the same time, and even then a lot of people don't believe it, see Bill Cosby.
The status quo is already worse than any imagined world of false accusations running rampant in society.
This is a pattern that happens over and over and over with this sort of discussion. What could happen to men potentially is more important than what is happening to women.
Literally no one here has made any such implication.
Like, if someone's car is stolen, if they left the window down, or the car unlocked, or the engine running, doesn't mean the thief is suddenly no longer guilty of stealing a car. We don't ask if they've given away cars in the past, or trade cars with people, or how many people they've given rides to. Like, none of that matters.
But when someone is raped, all of a sudden whether or not they've ever willingly had sex before is paramount. Like......
what?
False accusations of rape can happen.
But so can false accusations of any other crime. Why it's so much more important when it comes to sexual assault....well...I can only guess.
You are the one assigning priorities. I believe we can do a much better job of addressing the problems of sexual assault without ignoring the concerns of false accusations. Part of that starts with the idea that we should not ignore accusations, but that we shouldn't condemn someone because of them either.
When it comes up in conversations like this why not argue that it doesn't apply here? Why jump to "it doesn't matter ever"? Is there no conversation that is acceptable about how a bystander might decide what to do with incomplete information?
It goes to intent. If every day I give 5 dollars voluntarily to the homeless guy on the corner, it's going to be harder for me to argue that today I didn't give it to him and instead he stole it out of my hand.
The problem is that sexual assault is unlike other crimes because the act of sex/flirting is something that we do quite often voluntarily. Therefore it's not enough to prove that sex/flirting happened, you also have to prove that it was not voluntary. That's a burden not necessary for stealing a car, because nobody ever gives their car to stranger voluntarily.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/oct/19/quentin-tarantino-on-weinstein-i-knew-enough-to-do-more-than-i-did
I guess I don't know what else to say except that the $5 hypothetical rubbed me the wrong way, because it's really close to the "are you sure you weren't leading them on?" defense.