Author Topic: Weinstein mess  (Read 827 times)

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Weinstein mess
« on: October 11, 2017, 01:57:22 PM »
What do you guys make of this whole mess with Weinstein?  I'm kind of appalled by the number of people who've stated some version of the idea that they "heard" of it, but hadn't seen it, and they "wish" they'd done something.  The part of it that really appalls me is that I'd be willing to bet they've "heard" stuff about other people than Weinstein and they have an opportunity to do something about it now.  If they want to do something, how about bringing those rumors to the proper authorities and making a clean sweep of the casting couch culture.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #1 on: October 11, 2017, 02:24:55 PM »
I am passingly acquainted with some people who walk in those circles, and what I hear is that more or less everyone knew what was going on and that it was hushed up all around. No one would come forward, he held people's entire careers in his hands, danced with the likes of the Clintons and Obamas, made or broke productions (films, plays, etc), and was someone you Could Not Cross. Now McGowan and Judd are leading the charge to burn the bridges and it's all coming out. They are naming names. I can't confirm first-hand obviously, and what I hear is probably third hand (e.g. someone I know heard it happened to someone they know) so I'm keeping that in mind as I read about this. This subject is making me very sad. I know this goes on all the time, and that it's especially bad both in Hollywood and on Broadway. But it's another thing to hear people talk about it point blank and to watch celebrities flaming each other on Twitter about those who not only knew but covered for Weinstein. CNN even featured a piece flaming the Clintons for failing to comment on the situation, which I found interesting in its own right. When you have the Obamas calling him a 'wonderful human being'  and 'a good friend' it just can't come out looking like roses once this kind of thing comes out. The only recourse is for people who knew him to either denounce him instantly, jumping on the bandwagon, or else to scramble and plead ignorance. From what I hear that's not going to be a very believable position to take since it was basically common knowledge in certain circles.

I don't hold with the kind of rhetoric sometimes levied around 'rape culture' as it applies to society at large, but certain niche areas of society, including Hollywood, most certainly are a literal rape culture. Even though I knew of this kind of thing before (not in regards to him in particular) hearing about it now makes me hesitant to even enter a cinema for fear I'll be supporting the product of someone like this. I won't take it that far, but I'll feel it when I do go, no question. There are more like him out there for sure. This kind of thing isn't just exclusive to the UK.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #2 on: October 11, 2017, 05:02:32 PM »
Just rejecting him was allegedly enough to limit a person's opportunity. Actually outing him would have been even more risky. We probably know people on this spectrum. Maybe not guys trying to lure an assistant into a bathtub on their second day, but certainly inappropriate behavior.

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #3 on: October 11, 2017, 05:50:37 PM »
These types of things are hard to police. Rape alone, despite the seriousness, can often not be investigated properly due to police biases and the he said/she said dynamic. But the sexual harassment? Most workplaces have rules against superiors being in relationships with those working under them, but it's hard to bring those workplace rules into force against the boss.

It reminds me of when I was younger. I have a disease and sometimes I'm sick. But when you're working hourly with no contract or salary guarantee you end up going into work anyway despite it impacting majorly on your health. Because if you get a reputation for being unreliable you end up suffering.

I always suspected and acted on this, but when I entered management myself it was confirmed. When employees pissed managers off enough the unofficial policy wasn't to fire them. You had to adhere to laws and fill out paperwork for thst.  The policy was to give them four hours a week until they got the message.

It sucks for the actresses but it's a Cosby situation. With that many people accusing, we can be reasonably sure he did what they said, but he won't be punished because it will never hold up in a court of law.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #4 on: October 12, 2017, 09:43:36 AM »
This is interesting on a number of levels. It was a well known “open secret” for decades. So who’d Harvey finally alienate that allowed the story to come out? He’d successfully spiked it several times over the years as well as other stories about him. So what broke the power base? Who was sufficiently powerful that risking going after Harvey was the better choice? Not for nothing, Malia Obama was working at Weinstein’s company earlier this year ...

Remember all those people so worked up over Trumps’s “grab them by the pussy” comment? How many of them covered for Harvey or kept silent? Same for all those girls in the pink pussy hats. And same for all those targeting Roger Ailes.

What about Donna Karan’s defense of Harvey’s actions around the way women present themselves? I saw a photo of Rose McGowan (who is blowing up Twitter and other celebrities) wearing almost literally nothing, and I mean just short of nothing, Rose is kind of known for going around almost  naked.  Does Donna Karan have a point here that this invites a certain type of behavior? Nothing justifies assaulting another person but if you’re dressing in a way that is overtly and aggressively sexual, does it help create the environment for unsavory behavior?

Along those lines, going up to some dude’s hotel room, what’s the message there? I’ve traveled a lot for business and never once have I invited a woman to my room to “discuss work”. If your wife or girlfriend went to a guy’s hotel room and spent an hour or two there, would you be cool with that?

What about all of Harvey’s assistants? They knew, some even helped stage the scene and lure actresses into it. Aren’t they complicit and should be treated just like Harvey? If there are criminal acts, and it seems there were, shouldn’t these assistants be held criminally responsible as well?

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #5 on: October 12, 2017, 10:10:24 AM »
Not sure if Hollywood is reality. How many powerful people (man and woman) are hit on and flattered in a day. How would you navigate such waters?   Like Trump said, “when you're a star, they let you do it, you can do anything... grab them by the pussy". It all part of the game and the game is not going to change.

Should there be protests about shows like the bachelor or bachelorette? How consenting is all that ‘action’? What message do shows like that send.
We can all pretend to be outraged but are we surprised. You get away with *censored* like grabbing pussy until you don’t and then you pay… or you don’t….

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #6 on: October 12, 2017, 12:04:55 PM »
Quote
Remember all those people so worked up over Trumps’s “grab them by the pussy” comment? How many of them covered for Harvey or kept silent? Same for all those girls in the pink pussy hats. And same for all those targeting Roger Ailes.

I'm pretty sure, out of the millions of people who were disgusted by Trump's and Ailes' behavior, only a couple of handful actually knew about Weinstein’s behavior and "covered for Harvey or kept silent."  And a majority of those who did faced the choice of being blackballed in their career if they made a public fuss.

It's the problem of power.  Powerful people can prevent you from reaching your goal, or can even destroy your life, if you upset them.  So you have to treat them with deference.  And some use this deference to get away with things most people couldn't, up to and including criminal behavior.

It's a tough problem.  Millions knew nothing of Weinstein’s behavior.  Most just heard rumors, just like we hear rumors that Obama is secretly a Muslim and homosexual, and Trump is secretly strupping his daughter.  Most such rumors are false news.  But every once in a while, such a rumor is shown to be true, especially if there was a blue dress involved. ;)

Those who know for a fact that such things are true face a dilemma.  If they speak out, they will be immediately attacked.  People will say they are accusing the person because they are jealous of the person's success, or want to blackmail him, or are crazy, or any number of things.  Just look at what people said about those who accused Trump of inappropriate behavior.  You think Weinstein would have done any less, if not more?

And if they were in the entertainment business, he would have used his considerable influence to ruin them.  Unless, of course, they took a deal...

Weinstein's actions were reprehensible, and, assuming the allegations are true, he richly deserves the punishment he is getting.  Just as Ailes and O'Reilly richly deserve the punishments they got, assuming the allegations against them are true, too.  Such behaviors should not be tolerated by anyone.  But it won't be easy, especially for the few who actually know of such behaviors.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #7 on: October 12, 2017, 12:20:39 PM »
Quote
Does Donna Karan have a point here that this invites a certain type of behavior? Nothing justifies assaulting another person but if you’re dressing in a way that is overtly and aggressively sexual, does it help create the environment for unsavory behavior?

I know.  I mean, with women showing their ankles and faces all the time, what do you expect? ;)

Which means, of course, hell no, Donna has no good point.  Men decide what is "overtly and aggressively sexual," and that definition changes depending on the society and the particular person.  Which means that any outfit short of burqa can (and will) be seen as "overtly and aggressively sexual" by somebody.  (And I bet there are some men who think burqas are tremendously sexy... :D )

Since a walking around topless or stark naked does not justify someone assaulting her, it really doesn't matter.  Unsavory behavior is the assaulter's responsibility alone.  It comes from his (and maybe sometimes her) mind-set alone.  Nothing another person does justifies the behavior.  It is the assaulter's lack of self-control, or egotism, or desperation, or psychosis, that causes the behavior.  Not the way a woman does or does not dress.

You'd think people would have figured that out by now...  >:(

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #8 on: October 12, 2017, 12:22:16 PM »
Seems to me Ailes got a lot of the same treatment as Weinstein. Covered up for years, private settlement hush money, retribution against accusers.

Now, they're different in the degree of graphic detail available to the public, I'd grant you that. But as far as people knowing they were doing something wrong and covering it up? Same difference.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #9 on: October 12, 2017, 01:59:30 PM »
Seems to me Ailes got a lot of the same treatment as Weinstein. Covered up for years, private settlement hush money, retribution against accusers.

Now, they're different in the degree of graphic detail available to the public, I'd grant you that. But as far as people knowing they were doing something wrong and covering it up? Same difference.
I'm not talking about Ailes and Weinstein, I'm talking about the people that condemned Ailes while still holding cover for Weinstein. The reality is, Weinstein could come back from this once he completes rehab (whatever rehab is in this context). I have a hard time with the outrage for Ailes while more than a few had to have been simultaneously covering for Weinstein.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #10 on: October 12, 2017, 02:10:19 PM »
Quote
Does Donna Karan have a point here that this invites a certain type of behavior? Nothing justifies assaulting another person but if you’re dressing in a way that is overtly and aggressively sexual, does it help create the environment for unsavory behavior?

I know.  I mean, with women showing their ankles and faces all the time, what do you expect? ;)

Which means, of course, hell no, Donna has no good point.  Men decide what is "overtly and aggressively sexual," and that definition changes depending on the society and the particular person.  Which means that any outfit short of burqa can (and will) be seen as "overtly and aggressively sexual" by somebody.  (And I bet there are some men who think burqas are tremendously sexy... :D )

Since a walking around topless or stark naked does not justify someone assaulting her, it really doesn't matter.  Unsavory behavior is the assaulter's responsibility alone.  It comes from his (and maybe sometimes her) mind-set alone.  Nothing another person does justifies the behavior.  It is the assaulter's lack of self-control, or egotism, or desperation, or psychosis, that causes the behavior.  Not the way a woman does or does not dress.

You'd think people would have figured that out by now...  >:(
Well, I think building a strawman to attack is something people should have figured out by now too but there it is. I get that you need to SJW this thing but, come on, you sound just like Joss Whedon.

If a woman bares her breasts and is upset that men look, it seems that the woman showing them off bears at least some of the responsibility - she's bearing them specifically to show them off, to have people look. It's absurd that she could be offended when men comply with her tacit request to look at her in a sexual way. As I said, this does not excuse a sexual assault or unwanted touching but it does send a message about sex and availability and anyone with two brain cells to rub together and not pushing some faux feminist agenda knows this. That doesn't mean burqa's for women, such a stupid strawman, everyone knows what I mean - dressing professionally and/or within the bounds of good taste, and if you don't understand what that means then you've really got a stunted fashion sense.

I think DK has a point there, it's getting lost in a type of defense of Harvey (although she says she wasn't defending him, just pointing out something). If you dress provocatively, you should expect a specific type of attention, that's why you dress that way after all. If that type of attention is unwanted, maybe dress more conservatively. Why is that an unreasonable idea?

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #11 on: October 12, 2017, 02:58:55 PM »
Quote
If a woman bares her breasts and is upset that men look, it seems that the woman showing them off bears at least some of the responsibility - she's bearing them specifically to show them off, to have people look. It's absurd that she could be offended when men comply with her tacit request to look at her in a sexual way.

"Tacit request" according to whom?  Who decided it was a "tacit request to look at her in a sexual way?"

I had a girlfriend once who protested the Miss California pageant by baring her breasts during the march.  Do you think she was making a "tacit request to look at her in a sexual way," or to protest having men constantly look at her "in a sexual way?"  (It was the latter, BTW. :) )

So who decided her showing breasts meant she wanted people to look at her in a sexual way?

Men will always look at women "in a sexual way," regardless of what they wear.  But some men like to think that certain clothing and styles means that the woman wants him to look that way at her.  Many times this is true--IF the woman knows the man and wants to turn that particular man on.  But men in general?  Only if she can make some money on the deal...

But there are men who use this "tacit request to look at her in a sexual way" as an excuse to think some stranger wants him in a sexual way.  And looking (aka leering--just looking won't elicit a response) is just the first step.  Whistling, gesturing, provocative language, groping--these are next steps when men think there is a "tacit request."  And there are always men willing to take the next step...

There are times and places where certain dress is not appropriate.  You shouldn't go to church in a swimsuit regardless of your sex. :) But one should never generally conclusion that a woman who dressed "that way" (whatever way that is--depends on the society) is making a "tacit request."  In fact, it is best to assume she is not.

Because it is normally not for any given man, no matter what Harvey might assume. :)

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #12 on: October 12, 2017, 03:04:01 PM »
I'm not talking about Ailes and Weinstein, I'm talking about the people that condemned Ailes while still holding cover for Weinstein. The reality is, Weinstein could come back from this once he completes rehab (whatever rehab is in this context). I have a hard time with the outrage for Ailes while more than a few had to have been simultaneously covering for Weinstein.

So there aren't people wailing about Weinstein who shrugged at or defended Ailes?

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #13 on: October 12, 2017, 03:15:41 PM »
Quote
If a woman bares her breasts and is upset that men look, it seems that the woman showing them off bears at least some of the responsibility - she's bearing them specifically to show them off, to have people look.
Not to mention we are talking about an industry that stops just short (some times) of mandating their lack of dress and overtly sexual portrayal.  Even if it wasn't a woman's choice to dress this way, they may very well be impeding their opportunities if they do not dress (or undress) provocatively. 

The phrase is not "modesty sells" after all.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #14 on: October 12, 2017, 03:37:08 PM »
The issue of whether on some level 'women are asking for it' by how they dress is immaterial to this conversation. Whether or not it's even true isn't germane because we're talking about encounters in a private setting, not in public. It's moot to discuss what 'men want' when discussing what Weinstein in the particular may have wanted or assumed. He's not just 'some man', but was specifically a man in power in Hollywood and that context is more relevant than what some arbitrary man might or might not assume from how a woman dresses.

The real question to ask isn't whether women want attention, but whether some of these women might have wanted it. For each woman Weinstein solicited without suggestive input from her there was probably another woman voluntarily offering to prostitute herself (for all intents and purposes) to get ahead. It's not about 'women', it's about women in the film/theatre industry and what they might be willing to do to get parts. I'm quite sure many would gladly sleep with some guy if it put them ahead of the other woman going for the part, if all other things were equal. Many no doubt wouldn't. The trouble is, in industries like film and fashion that at their very basis are in the business of pimping out women, they will attract women who will literally think in those terms. I'm mentioning this because for all the culpability Weinstein and those like him have (which is 100% culpability, just to be clear), there's also an environment where women are already demeaned in other ways and are often willing to demean themselves to get the work that's in ultra-low supply with a glut of competition. It makes the entire environment toxic to good mental health and good values, and in turn this could lead a scumbag like Weinstein to even fool himself into thinking they wanted it anyhow. The sad thing is some of them may have, while many others were basically raped, and in his mind it was probably all the same.

It's nice to bring down the hammer on guys like this, but that's not the whole problem. It's not just individual scumbags but the entire industry that breeds bad behavior. I've heard various celebrities talking about the portrayal and handing of women in the industry and it doesn't look good. When you have an environment when a 30 year old woman is told she's too old to be playing romantic leads - often opposite 60-70 year old men - it's not just about guys like Weinstein any more. I've read interviews with people like John Cusack who say that what's happening is bordering on kiddie porn in terms of how young they're reaching for female talent, whilst brushing away anyone who doesn't look like a teenager. This isn't exactly going to lead to a clean environment in the first place, and even if outright predators like Weinstein are hunted down there is still so much room for predatory behavior to flourish in and around all this.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #15 on: October 12, 2017, 03:54:10 PM »
I think the most positive thing coming of this is the calling out of people who facilitate this behavior or remained silent.  The court of public opinion is an equal force to that held by those who would abuse their power.  When caught between a rock and a hard place, the odds tip in favor of taking a chance at angering a horrible human being or suffering damage regardless.  Better to sacrifice the monsters and improve the industry in the process.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #16 on: October 12, 2017, 04:04:50 PM »
I think the most positive thing coming of this is the calling out of people who facilitate this behavior or remained silent.  The court of public opinion is an equal force to that held by those who would abuse their power.  When caught between a rock and a hard place, the odds tip in favor of taking a chance at angering a horrible human being or suffering damage regardless.  Better to sacrifice the monsters and improve the industry in the process.

It's not that easy a calculus. Imagine devoting your whole life to a particular career where you train for it for years and even feel like it's the only thing you can do because of the kind of person you are. And now imagine that you know that there's a 99% chance you'll fail and be forced to quit but you're willing to take that chance and make it work. And if it doesn't work, you have no college degree and no formal training to do anything else. You might well have to go do some minimum wage job or perhaps go back to school - if you can even afford to. And now consider that for some people there comes a moment where you do one disgusting thing it will open all the doors and your slim 1% chance at being able to work in your chosen field turns more into a near-certainty. It can be the difference between having the life you wanted versus having to give up everything and admit it was all for nothing. Given this context it seems clear to me how easy it would be for someone to just bite the bullet, do the thing, and then finally get the break the vast majority never get. And worse than that, you'd know that if you refuse someone else will come right along to do the thing you wouldn't and will get that opportunity instead. You won't feel like you made the world better, you'll know you just made room for someone else to get the opportunity instead as you sheepishly go off and never get work.

Because this is exactly the scenario that exists it's all the more important to somehow stamp out predatory behavior. This isn't like other industries. A person's entire future can hinge on being given one honest chance; sometimes there is no second chance. And when an actress sees what might be that one chance, and it comes with strings attached, that's a huge temptation, adding to the fact of perhaps also being afraid to refuse.

What you say might sound rational to someone who does a normal job. For people in that industry the calculus is all kinds of messed up. No one goes to medical school assuming that even if they pass they'll probably never work as a doctor anyhow. The opposite is true in Hollywood. They go to classes, train hard for years, and still know it's a long shot. Crazy business.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #17 on: October 12, 2017, 04:15:46 PM »
Times are changing.  One outraged would be actress making an impassioned account of their encounter and how they walked away refusing the advances of X powerful person, could embolden others to come forward and at the same time make them "internet famous." 

The catch is only takes a couple of false accusations and slander and the "bad ol' days" are granted cover again.  The "power" in the industry is (from the outside at least) as decentralized as it's ever been.  Unless others in power fear (unjust) accusations against themselves in turn, I think it's harder for one power player to shut all the doors on an aspiring actor.  Still possible to "miss your chance" but I've never been a starving artist wondering what kinda job I'll have to take to pay the rent in a town I know I can't afford to be in, but MUST live in to find opportunity in my chosen field.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #18 on: October 12, 2017, 05:41:39 PM »
I had a girlfriend once who protested the Miss California pageant by baring her breasts during the march.  Do you think she was making a "tacit request to look at her in a sexual way," or to protest having men constantly look at her "in a sexual way?"  (It was the latter, BTW. :) )

That's a horrible example.  She was clearly relying on the nudity in order to bring attention to her cause.  That's in the nature of an explicit request to look at her in a sexual way, even if it's for the purpose of shaming the viewer.

Quote
So who decided her showing breasts meant she wanted people to look at her in a sexual way?

In that case your girlfriend did.  In other cases, the woman might have or might not have, or the circumstances may have.  Do you think that actresses going nude in a movie don't want to be looked at in a sexual way?  Seems like an odd and unlikely position.

In this case though the point is actually explicitly not relevant.  Whether a particular woman in fact decided to seduce him and tried to be perceived as sexual, which given the benefits is certainly possible, he made a decision to treat all women as sexual objects regardless of what they really wanted and to use his power over them to make that a reality.  His bad acts overrule any possibility that any particular unwilling woman was somehow "complicit" in the event because nothing they did was really relevant to how he treated them.

Quote
Only if she can make some money on the deal...

Which by the way, is expressly the case in a casting couch culture.  Access to a very limited resource by the producers.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #19 on: October 12, 2017, 05:45:16 PM »
It's not about 'women', it's about women in the film/theatre industry and what they might be willing to do to get parts. I'm quite sure many would gladly sleep with some guy if it put them ahead of the other woman going for the part, if all other things were equal.

Wrong measure.  It's not about what they are "willing" to do, unless you are positing that a particular woman would prefer to sleep with him and get the part over just getting the part.  The abuse of power is in exploiting what a woman is "willing to do" not in what she wants to do.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #20 on: October 12, 2017, 06:55:02 PM »
If a woman bares her breasts and is upset that men look, it seems that the woman showing them off bears at least some of the responsibility - she's bearing them specifically to show them off, to have people look.

So she can't simply be hot in the literal sense, and ever desire to remove even that final layer in an attempt to cool off without it automatically becoming a sexual act in your book? This is an embodiment of "Rape Culture" that I actually would agree with.

Quote
It's absurd that she could be offended when men comply with her tacit request to look at her in a sexual way.

Now this aspect of your complaint is a little more complicated. Circumstances and context matter, and given present day social context re:"Rape culture" any woman who goes about topless in a reasonably public venue where such activity isn't normal, should expect to get ogled, because that particular kind of "presentation" in that particular context is highly unusual. There are women who are aware of this, and in venues where it is legal, there are some minor efforts to try to "normalize" it for people, for both good and ill intent which can vary wildly by individual.

Quote
As I said, this does not excuse a sexual assault or unwanted touching but it does send a message about sex and availability and anyone with two brain cells to rub together and not pushing some faux feminist agenda knows this. That doesn't mean burqa's for women, such a stupid strawman, everyone knows what I mean - dressing professionally and/or within the bounds of good taste, and if you don't understand what that means then you've really got a stunted fashion sense.

What is "Sexual" is highly context sensitive, and mostly cultural in nature. Ankles and calves, or heaven forbid knees, were considered "highly sexual" when came to women in New York City as recently as the start of the 20th Century. Look at the wiki page for the Flatiron Building in New York for further detail if you need it.

Quote
I think DK has a point there, it's getting lost in a type of defense of Harvey (although she says she wasn't defending him, just pointing out something). If you dress provocatively, you should expect a specific type of attention, that's why you dress that way after all. If that type of attention is unwanted, maybe dress more conservatively. Why is that an unreasonable idea?

"Provocatively" for whom under what context? "Conservatively" for whom under what context? A "conservatively dressed" (typical, non-LDS) woman in Phoenix, AZ who travels up to SLC during a 100 degree heatwave that then proceeds to wear what they'd wear in Phoenix in that weather while in SLC would be rather scandalously dressed by comparison(but much more comfortable). However, by your measure, they're "dressing for attention" rather than "dressing for personal comfort."

Which cycles back to the "Rape Culture" thing that even I will agree with, people should be able to dress comfortably for the environments they find themselves in(within local legal restrictions), and not feel compelled to dress in "an uncomfortable manner" in order to "feel safe" where ever they may be. And if you're going for a society that allows for secular freedom of expression and true gender equality, that also means you don't distinguish between genders. If you feel that women must cover their nipples, you should make sure the men are required to as well.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #21 on: October 12, 2017, 07:23:59 PM »
So she can't simply be hot in the literal sense, and ever desire to remove even that final layer in an attempt to cool off without it automatically becoming a sexual act in your book? This is an embodiment of "Rape Culture" that I actually would agree with.

No one is entitled to tell someone else how to feel.  Why would a topless woman have a right to tell a man he is not entitled to feel that is sexual?  The entitlement of the woman is to not have the man treat her in a disrespectful or entitled manner because of such act.

Are you really implying some kind of moral thought police that goes contrary to instinct is an entitlement of a woman?

What about the flip?  Should flashing still be illegal?  Can a man decide to take off his shirt and flex his muscles in front of a random group of women and be entitled to not have them consider it a sexual act?

Quote
What is "Sexual" is highly context sensitive, and mostly cultural in nature. Ankles and calves, or heaven forbid knees, were considered "highly sexual" when came to women in New York City as recently as the start of the 20th Century. Look at the wiki page for the Flatiron Building in New York for further detail if you need it.

There is nothing wrong with a culture having mores, or for members of that culture to live up to them.  What's wrong is trying to force another to comply with your mores. 

Quote
"Provocatively" for whom under what context?

For the context and culture in which the act is committed?  We're not talking pure abstracts where we have to have a curtain separating the dress and the situation.  We're talking about specific choices in specific social contexts.  We can figure out what's work appropriate without condemning social dress after hours.

Quote
However, by your measure, they're "dressing for attention" rather than "dressing for personal comfort."

Would you find it difficult to label a man who decided to wear just a tube sock?

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #22 on: October 12, 2017, 08:27:34 PM »
It's not the thought, it is the behaviour. If someone seems attractive to you, it is not unreasonable to approach that person under normal circumstance. If there is a position of power, like in a working environment, I would say there is no appropriate approach. Once approached, a simple no should easily be the end of the discussion. Signal misread, my bad, take care, goodbye.

Part of the problem for women, as they tell it to me, is that virtually anything - or indeed nothing - will activate such behaviour in sufficient numbers of men as to be really annoying at the least, and dangerous at most. A little restraint would go a long way.

With regard to all the questions about shirtless men, I don't believe in a double standard, but let's face it some dude on muscle beach doesn't really have to have the same concerns as a woman alone in a room with some creep.

Should every ballet dancer, male or female, expect to be groped since they are dressing overtly sexual?

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #23 on: October 12, 2017, 09:22:09 PM »
Groped is moving the bar.  Everyone should be entitled to be free from physical advances, or generally from other people acting entitled towards them.  That's a far cry from the idea that they should be free from other people's internal feelings, and reasonable reactions.  No ballet dancer should be groped, but they all should expect that people will look at their bodies.  Heck they deliberately wear outfits designed to let you see their muscle flow, because that is part of the art they are performing.

I think too, you've inadvertently hit on a problem.  You say you don't believe in a double standard, and then you immediately set out a double standard.  This area is rife with double standards.  Identical conduct in a man and a woman, causing a reaction in a person of the opposite sex is frequently seen as being morally wrong for the man - in both cases - and often without any rationale reason. 

It's irrational to believe that a woman can wear anything she chooses and men have no right to react no matter what, but to believe a man is harassing every women he meets if he chooses to wear certain clothes.  You're welcome, of course, to drop back to social conventions or even to recognizing "reality" to explain away the difference, but the instant you do you are validating the idea that societies views should have some form of weight, you're just concluding that its the mores that agree with you that are right. 

Edited - Just one other thought on that.  It's not all men.  There are outfits that a man wears that a woman will deem harassing and confront him about, where if he tells her he's gay, she'll not only be embarrassed she'll apologize to him.  How odd is that result?
« Last Edit: October 12, 2017, 09:25:08 PM by Seriati »

JoshCrow

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #24 on: October 12, 2017, 09:48:06 PM »
It's not that easy a calculus. Imagine devoting your whole life to a particular career where you train for it for years and even feel like it's the only thing you can do because of the kind of person you are. And now imagine that you know that there's a 99% chance you'll fail and be forced to quit but you're willing to take that chance and make it work. And if it doesn't work, you have no college degree and no formal training to do anything else. You might well have to go do some minimum wage job or perhaps go back to school - if you can even afford to. And now consider that for some people there comes a moment where you do one disgusting thing it will open all the doors and your slim 1% chance at being able to work in your chosen field turns more into a near-certainty. It can be the difference between having the life you wanted versus having to give up everything and admit it was all for nothing. Given this context it seems clear to me how easy it would be for someone to just bite the bullet, do the thing, and then finally get the break the vast majority never get. And worse than that, you'd know that if you refuse someone else will come right along to do the thing you wouldn't and will get that opportunity instead. You won't feel like you made the world better, you'll know you just made room for someone else to get the opportunity instead as you sheepishly go off and never get work.

Except that argument ignores the seemingly large number of "made-it" A-list celebrities who decided even from their position of public fame to say nothing about what happened in their past. You don't think Gwyneth Paltrow could have dropped a bombshell on Weinstein (even just in the press) and possibly put a stop to his activities? Wouldn't it be 'worth it' at some point to possibly prevent other women from going through the same horror, even if it meant you might not have as many gigs? Even merely alerting women to the predator in their mists would have been a public service, and yet none of these women had the stones to be the first.

99% of my anger is directed at Weinstein, but I'm reserving 1% for the lack of ethics involved in not calling this guy out as loudly as possible, particularly with an A-list career firmly in place, and especially in the last ten years or so when it's become quite easy to rally instant support for such a cause.

Their silence, including those who took hush money, is part of enabling this monstrous abuse.

edited to add: look what I found just now: http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/12/media/amazon-studios-roy-price-harvey-weinstein/index.html

Look how easy it is. This guy was pretty powerful and now he's toast. The cultural needle has moved - it's open season on these bozos. Silence is the foolish option at this point - smart money says you press 'record' on your phone for any private meeting with the opposite sex.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2017, 09:56:03 PM by JoshCrow »

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #25 on: October 13, 2017, 12:19:39 AM »
So she can't simply be hot in the literal sense, and ever desire to remove even that final layer in an attempt to cool off without it automatically becoming a sexual act in your book? This is an embodiment of "Rape Culture" that I actually would agree with.

No one is entitled to tell someone else how to feel.  Why would a topless woman have a right to tell a man he is not entitled to feel that is sexual?  The entitlement of the woman is to not have the man treat her in a disrespectful or entitled manner because of such act.

Two different things here. Just because Person B views something that Person A is doing as "sexual in nature" does not mean that Person A actually thinks what they are doing is "sexual" in any way, shape or form. So this gets into a complicated "shades of grey issue" where if we're "prohibiting sexual actions" and Woman A doesn't think that walking around topless is a sexual act(or at least, shouldn't be considered one), then who is Person B to come along and try to proscribe it because they "can't help themselves" and do anything but view it as being sexual.

The people in the "I can't help myself" camp are the "rape culture" side on this. 

Quote
Are you really implying some kind of moral thought police that goes contrary to instinct is an entitlement of a woman?

Now whose standard are we going to adhere to? There are Jewish, Christian, and Islamic sects that hold as a matter of scriptural interpretation that the simple sight of a woman's hair is an intensely sexual act. Islam will of course go even further in some cases, going so far veiling the face and practically every square inch of skin belonging to a woman because "men can't help themselves" when presented with even the smallest glimpse of female skin.

So when was the last you were biologically compelled to rape a woman because you saw her hair? Her face? Her hands? Her Arms? Her legs? Her abdominals? There is a very significant portion of the global population that thinks sighting any of these things on an unrelated woman should leave you with the overpowering desire to rape them. Somehow, that doesn't seem to be what I've experienced in reality. Rape statistics in Western Nations also seem to indicate that also isn't the case, but there are plenty of religious groups that will tell that is so.

This also ignores aboriginal tribes that were (historically) documented as going either outright nude, or topless for everyone prior to "good Christian Missionaries" coming along and teaching them the importance of modesty and buying textile goods(from their respective homelands).

Quote
What about the flip?  Should flashing still be illegal?

Which kind of flashing we talking about? "peekabo" short clothing, Girls Gone Wild type, or people in trench coats, or plumber pants?

GGW and the trench coat flashers are overtly sexual, the "peekaboo" type is very likely to be sexual in nature too. The plumber variety, not so much.

Quote
Can a man decide to take off his shirt and flex his muscles in front of a random group of women and be entitled to not have them consider it a sexual act?

Depending on context, I think that would be fair.

Quote
There is nothing wrong with a culture having mores, or for members of that culture to live up to them.  What's wrong is trying to force another to comply with your mores.

Not going to disagree, but that's where the problem comes into play with the "public space" as it becomes a question of who gets to define the baseline? As it stands, in much of the country, the woman who wants to go topless on a hot day cannot do so without potentially getting placed on a sex offender registry. 

Quote
For the context and culture in which the act is committed?  We're not talking pure abstracts where we have to have a curtain separating the dress and the situation.  We're talking about specific choices in specific social contexts.  We can figure out what's work appropriate without condemning social dress after hours.

Woman(or man) sunbathing in a (private property) backyard which can be seen into from a public park/church?

Quote
Would you find it difficult to label a man who decided to wear just a tube sock?

Should he be difficult to categorize? Would you rather he wear some kind of gourd?   ;)

Obviously in that case he's placing emphasis on his penis, so it is sexual in nature.

But if you're going down that route, than I think you'd find that after the initial "shock factor" wears off, in a "topless woman" vs "woman in a string bikini" contest for male attention, the bikini wearer is going to get, and maintain more attention in the long run. Human nature is to be more curious about the things we cannot see than we are about things things we've "already seen." But first you have to overcome the shock of seeing things you're not used to seeing. Which goes back to efforts to "normalize" the sight of the female breast in total.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #26 on: October 13, 2017, 01:02:01 AM »
It's not about 'women', it's about women in the film/theatre industry and what they might be willing to do to get parts. I'm quite sure many would gladly sleep with some guy if it put them ahead of the other woman going for the part, if all other things were equal.

Wrong measure.  It's not about what they are "willing" to do, unless you are positing that a particular woman would prefer to sleep with him and get the part over just getting the part.  The abuse of power is in exploiting what a woman is "willing to do" not in what she wants to do.

This isn't strictly binary, but I believe it's you who has the wrong measure. In terms of what a given actress might want, it's not about whether they sleep with someone to get a part versus whether they just get the part. It's about whether they sleep with someone to get the part, versus going up strictly on merit against the competition. Even in that scenario alone there are people who would sleep with someone to get an edge. And then there's the worse case, where the part will go to whoever will go to the casting couch, in which case the bad choice is requisite. The scenario where an actress in the position we're discussing (is up for a role but doesn't have the star power to dictate her own terms) won't almost ever include the scenario where she knows she'll have the part in advance. It's always either a crapshoot or else she pulls some string to get an edge, whether that's consenting to something sexual, speaking to someone of influence, etc.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #27 on: October 13, 2017, 01:17:22 AM »
Except that argument ignores the seemingly large number of "made-it" A-list celebrities who decided even from their position of public fame to say nothing about what happened in their past. You don't think Gwyneth Paltrow could have dropped a bombshell on Weinstein (even just in the press) and possibly put a stop to his activities? Wouldn't it be 'worth it' at some point to possibly prevent other women from going through the same horror, even if it meant you might not have as many gigs? Even merely alerting women to the predator in their mists would have been a public service, and yet none of these women had the stones to be the first.

I'm not ignoring it. I'm saying you can't use the same kind of rationale you'd expect in any other kind of workplace. I never said that it's impossible for actors to come forward, only that the blocks to doing so are much stronger than it may appear at first glance. What I didn't go into (because I don't know enough to do so) is the minutiae of exactly what ways Weinstein could threaten even famous actors. Supposedly Matt Damon had the clout - as a messenger of sorts - to squash an article being written on the topic a few years back. I'm assuming the journalist didn't fear Damon in particular, so either he was bribed or something, or else Damon merely conveyed a message of some kind of threat that was convincing enough to stop someone not even in the same field as Hollywood actors. So in terms of what levels Weinstein could pull - I don't know. Were there threats on career that were backed up by the real goods? Maybe. Personal threats? Who knows. While I do think that cowardice could probably explain a lot of the people not coming forward, it's probably not the whole story. Hollywood is also sometimes referred to as a surprisingly small place, where everyone knows everyone, and the atmosphere of not angering people goes beyond merely being nice at parties. I'm not sure it's so simple as an actor 'going somewhere else' if someone like Weinstein says you'll never work in this town again. To what extent that kind of threat is legitimate is unknown to me.

Quote
99% of my anger is directed at Weinstein, but I'm reserving 1% for the lack of ethics involved in not calling this guy out as loudly as possible, particularly with an A-list career firmly in place, and especially in the last ten years or so when it's become quite easy to rally instant support for such a cause.

Their silence, including those who took hush money, is part of enabling this monstrous abuse.

edited to add: look what I found just now: http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/12/media/amazon-studios-roy-price-harvey-weinstein/index.html

Look how easy it is. This guy was pretty powerful and now he's toast. The cultural needle has moved - it's open season on these bozos. Silence is the foolish option at this point - smart money says you press 'record' on your phone for any private meeting with the opposite sex.

I'm not disagreeing with you on this. I think they should have come forward. But since they didn't we have counterfactual evidence of how 'easy' it must have been to do so. Either they're all so cowardly that it beggars belief, or else there was just enough real pressure to prevent it. Odds are it's the latter, and my main point was that it's not so easy to just bash them for keeping it quiet. We don't know what was going on there. I disapprove, but at the same time know there are things I don't know. You're right that things are changing, and the timing of his outing is no accident. It's changes more or less at such a time that this would happen now, and it did. Five years ago America wasn't where it is now. It's time, and it happened. So good for that.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #28 on: October 13, 2017, 01:32:16 AM »
Now whose standard are we going to adhere to? There are Jewish, Christian, and Islamic sects that hold as a matter of scriptural interpretation that the simple sight of a woman's hair is an intensely sexual act. Islam will of course go even further in some cases, going so far veiling the face and practically every square inch of skin belonging to a woman because "men can't help themselves" when presented with even the smallest glimpse of female skin.

So when was the last you were biologically compelled to rape a woman because you saw her hair? Her face? Her hands? Her Arms? Her legs? Her abdominals? There is a very significant portion of the global population that thinks sighting any of these things on an unrelated woman should leave you with the overpowering desire to rape them. Somehow, that doesn't seem to be what I've experienced in reality. Rape statistics in Western Nations also seem to indicate that also isn't the case, but there are plenty of religious groups that will tell that is so.

I think you're going too far with this one. It's not rocket science, people dress to achieve an effect, even if that effect it merely to look good to oneself. It would be idle to deny that many women dress to please. Whom they may be trying to please is another matter. You can talk cultural context all you want, but within a given culture some things are seen as titillating while others, not as much. People who are from there know which is which, more or less. I mentioned above that some actresses probably presented the casting couch idea to powerful men of their own accord to get ahead, while in other cases the men probably solicited them and didn't care what the women wanted. But of those women who went after the directors, you don't think they dressed in such a way as to attract attention? They know what to do to get looked at in the right spots. And this goes towards the shibboleth that some people (for example WS above) try to claim, which is that what a person wears shouldn't be anyone else's business. That's BS because they are dressing in many cases in order to have an effect on others. If they really didn't care then presumably they'd wear a $1 sack that kept them warm and no more. And moreover, when a woman dresses to look good (or a man, for that matter) they most certainly do want attention. In Europe people aren't shy about admitting this kind of thing and they'd be quite put off if they didn't get the attention. In America there is a prudish mentality where all of this has to be kept on the hush-hush, so people dress to please but insist they're 'just dressing for themselves.' No doubt this is true on occasion but untrue more often than that. What Americans probably really mean is they want attention, but not the wrong kind. Basically that means they want to be noticed by other women and by good looking men, and totally ignored by creeps or anyone they're not interested in. Obviously what I'm saying isn't applicable in all cases, but it's the dirty truth that's right there in the open most of the time. Speak to women who trust you and they'll basically just admit it point blank: They *love* getting attention from the right guys, and can't stand getting undesired attention from ugly/old/creepy/weird guys. So I don't buy any of this 'what they show shouldn't be taken as sexual by others' stuff. That's not rape culture, it's reality. Rape culture is when men feel entitled to something as a result of it.

Your analogy about whether seeing a hot woman makes you fly into rape mood misses the point. It's about whether it gives you the impression the woman 'wants something' or not. In the case of casual walking down the street, one might correctly surmise that what she wants is to be looked at, possibly even flirted with (by the right people). It doesn't mean they want aggressive contact, sex, catcalls, or disrespectful behavior. But change the scenario and it's a woman going into a private meeting with a casting director and she's dressed to kill, he might just get the idea she's got her mind set on something other than auditioning. And I mean by this that he might rightly be coming to that conclusion. I suspect that powerful men receive propositions all the time and have to force themselves to say no if they believe it's immoral to accept. My point is that this reality muddies the waters when discussing this issue, because as much as scumbags like Weinstein might prey on women, the culture is messed up enough that a casting director or producer might get the feeling all the time that 'they want it' without themselves having malicious intentions. It enables a Weinstein to rationalize to himself that they probably wanted it anyhow. Not saying he's right, or that this justifies it in any way, but it sets the scene for this being normalized to some extent even without having to insert scumbags into the equation. It makes it all the easier for scumbags to get away with it, is basically my point, and it's enabled by the Hollywood culture which is already sick to an extent.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #29 on: October 13, 2017, 04:53:42 AM »
Now whose standard are we going to adhere to? There are Jewish, Christian, and Islamic sects that hold as a matter of scriptural interpretation that the simple sight of a woman's hair is an intensely sexual act. Islam will of course go even further in some cases, going so far veiling the face and practically every square inch of skin belonging to a woman because "men can't help themselves" when presented with even the smallest glimpse of female skin.

So when was the last you were biologically compelled to rape a woman because you saw her hair? Her face? Her hands? Her Arms? Her legs? Her abdominals? There is a very significant portion of the global population that thinks sighting any of these things on an unrelated woman should leave you with the overpowering desire to rape them. Somehow, that doesn't seem to be what I've experienced in reality. Rape statistics in Western Nations also seem to indicate that also isn't the case, but there are plenty of religious groups that will tell that is so.

I think you're going too far with this one. It's not rocket science, people dress to achieve an effect, even if that effect it merely to look good to oneself. It would be idle to deny that many women dress to please. Whom they may be trying to please is another matter. You can talk cultural context all you want, but within a given culture some things are seen as titillating while others, not as much. People who are from there know which is which, more or less.

This fails my bullsh-- test on the first pass because I know it doesn't apply to me the vast majority of the time. While I may be male, and as such women remain "mysterious creatures" in many respects, I reject claims that assert they're that different. In most cases, I'm not dressing to please anybody, I'm dressing to conform to social expectations of how I should be presenting myself. You know, so I don't get fired, thrown in jail, or otherwise ostracized(such as: "looking like a slob or homeless person") from society for failing to toe some collectively agreed to line that we all are only vaguely aware of to at least some extent.

Quote
I mentioned above that some actresses probably presented the casting couch idea to powerful men of their own accord to get ahead, while in other cases the men probably solicited them and didn't care what the women wanted. But of those women who went after the directors, you don't think they dressed in such a way as to attract attention? They know what to do to get looked at in the right spots.

Well, there us a reason they say prostitution is the oldest profession. If they cannot get it on merit alone, prostituting themselves may get them over the line. I didn't bother addressing that particular item because I'm somewhat agreed with you on that one in regards to Weinstein and Hollywood. "The Casting couch prostitute" as I'd call it is basically a trope that's been widely known about for decades, even if "nobody knew" who all the people were who pursued things in that way. As such Weinstein may have initially been "honeytrapped" by an aspiring actress and gone downhill from there, or actresses may have otherwise "misread" cues from Weinstein that he may or may not have been intentionally giving which result in their "feeling compelled" to prostitute themselves in exchange for getting a particular part. Sometimes in part because they were afraid that if they didn't, someone else would.

Fast forward a couple decades later and current political narratives, and suddenly those women can present themselves as "rape victims" because they "felt compelled to put out" when it very well and quite possibly was them having engaged in sexual politics by way of self-prostitution. So Weinstein's would be that he accepted their offers.
 
Quote
And this goes towards the shibboleth that some people (for example WS above) try to claim, which is that what a person wears shouldn't be anyone else's business. That's BS because they are dressing in many cases in order to have an effect on others. If they really didn't care then presumably they'd wear a $1 sack that kept them warm and no more. And moreover, when a woman dresses to look good (or a man, for that matter) they most certainly do want attention.

See previous comments earlier about why people dress how they do. Of course, dressing specifically for a work environment, or more specifically a NEW POTENTIAL workplace, the dress standards increase considerably as you want to make "a good first impression." So you dress well, as try to dress to impress, at least within whatever dress code parameters they specify. Which for a Hollywood casting call can run the full range. A female actress "dressed to kill" may have a hard time being cast for playing the role of tom-boyish girl-next-door type character for example, unless there is potentially a scene where that kind of attire may occur, and even then...

Besides, from some of very brief/limited clips of casting calls I've seen for more than a few movie/tv projects, most Hollywood casting calls are done in street clothes.

Quote
In Europe people aren't shy about admitting this kind of thing and they'd be quite put off if they didn't get the attention. In America there is a prudish mentality where all of this has to be kept on the hush-hush, so people dress to please but insist they're 'just dressing for themselves.' No doubt this is true on occasion but untrue more often than that. What Americans probably really mean is they want attention, but not the wrong kind.

Funny you should mention that, because this actually ties back to that "Rape Culture" thing, as you see, there is pretty strong correlation between reported/estimated incidence rates for rape and how restrictive a particular area/culture is in regards how exposed they allow their women to be. Surprisingly, it seems the areas that allow near total female nudity in public venues also seem to have the lowest incidence rates for rape, while as dress codes become increasingly restrictive, the incidence rate increases considerably. With highest rates believed to be in the middle east, you know, in the countries where women wear burkhas because men couldn't control themselves if women were to show any skin.

Quote
Basically that means they want to be noticed by other women and by good looking men, and totally ignored by creeps or anyone they're not interested in. Obviously what I'm saying isn't applicable in all cases, but it's the dirty truth that's right there in the open most of the time. Speak to women who trust you and they'll basically just admit it point blank: They *love* getting attention from the right guys, and can't stand getting undesired attention from ugly/old/creepy/weird guys. So I don't buy any of this 'what they show shouldn't be taken as sexual by others' stuff. That's not rape culture, it's reality. Rape culture is when men feel entitled to something as a result of it.

This is highly subjective, but at the same time runs on a simple scale. The problem with the "creepy/weird guys" (who can often be ugly/old guys too)when it comes to women isn't so much that they find these unattractive(although that's probably true). It is that "those people" make them feel unsafe. Which cycles us right back to that "rape culture" refrain where women(and men) in particular are constantly taught that "Good girl's don't ____" so if you're female and doing _____, then you're "not a good/nice girl" and thus "you're asking for it." Because men "can't help themselves" and it is up to woman to dress in such a manner as to ensure they don't somehow compel that helpless male into raping them. (/end moment of sarcasm)

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #30 on: October 13, 2017, 09:06:35 AM »
Quote
Speak to women who trust you and they'll basically just admit it point blank: They *love* getting attention from the right guys, and can't stand getting undesired attention from ugly/old/creepy/weird guys. So I don't buy any of this 'what they show shouldn't be taken as sexual by others' stuff. That's not rape culture, it's reality. Rape culture is when men feel entitled to something as a result of it.

Your analogy about whether seeing a hot woman makes you fly into rape mood misses the point. It's about whether it gives you the impression the woman 'wants something' or not. In the case of casual walking down the street, one might correctly surmise that what she wants is to be looked at, possibly even flirted with (by the right people). It doesn't mean they want aggressive contact, sex, catcalls, or disrespectful behavior. But change the scenario and it's a woman going into a private meeting with a casting director and she's dressed to kill, he might just get the idea she's got her mind set on something other than auditioning. And I mean by this that he might rightly be coming to that conclusion. I suspect that powerful men receive propositions all the time and have to force themselves to say no if they believe it's immoral to accept. My point is that this reality muddies the waters when discussing this issue, because as much as scumbags like Weinstein might prey on women, the culture is messed up enough that a casting director or producer might get the feeling all the time that 'they want it' without themselves having malicious intentions. It enables a Weinstein to rationalize to himself that they probably wanted it anyhow. Not saying he's right, or that this justifies it in any way, but it sets the scene for this being normalized to some extent even without having to insert scumbags into the equation. It makes it all the easier for scumbags to get away with it, is basically my point, and it's enabled by the Hollywood culture which is already sick to an extent.
QFT.  I think that’s what Donna Karan was driving at and it’s a valid point.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #31 on: October 13, 2017, 09:27:29 AM »
Harvey has made a statement.

Quote
Harvey Weinstein, in his first public response since multiple women accused him of sexual misconduct, said "we all make mistakes."

"Guys, I'm not doing OK, but I'm trying," Weinstein told reporters on Wednesday as he entered an SUV parked outside his daughter's Los Angeles home.

"I got to get help," the former film executive said.

"A second chance, I hope," Weinstein, 65, added.

Will he get that sevond chance?

Quote
"Mr. Weinstein obviously can't speak to anonymous allegations, but with respect to any women who have made allegations on the record, Mr. Weinstein believes that all of these relationships were consensual," a statement from his representative to The New Yorker magazine said. "Mr. Weinstein has begun counseling, has listened to the community and is pursuing a better path. Mr. Weinstein is hoping that, if he makes enough progress, he will be given a second chance."

Maybe he will. That it’s even a possibility to talk about tells us Harvey just might return.

Quote
The Hollywood mogul and mega-Democratic fundraiser was booted from The Weinstein Company, the film studio he co-founded, on Sunday after a bombshell report from The New York ...

I’m guessing he has a pretty good shot at a second chance.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #32 on: October 13, 2017, 09:34:02 AM »
Bout as much chance as Cosby.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #33 on: October 13, 2017, 09:56:23 AM »
Cosby was already out of the game. Cosby was finally taken down because he was no longer connected and his reach into Hollywood essentially gone. That’s not the case with Harvey.

Harvey is still at the height of his power, even now people will have to do some calculus before crossing him. Harvey is very well connected politically, working with all the power brokers from the Democratic party for 30 years. That’s the party that runs California, and Harvey gives them tons of money. He’s also connected to the party’s national  ruling elite as well, Obama, Clinton, etc. Harvey still has a lot of game he can play, a lot of influence and money he can bring to bear. I wouldn’t compare hom to Cosby at this point.

Given all that, what finally brought Harvey down? He did something to someone, or hinted at doing it,  that finally broke the wall of silence. Harvey was able to completely kill these stories for years, suddenly he wasn’t despite still being in his position of power. Who did he get on the wrong side of? My guess, Michelle Obama.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #34 on: October 13, 2017, 10:18:20 AM »
That was to say, "no chance at all".  He will now be a silent (or more so) money man in the background.  He may wield some influence, but will never reclaim his previous position.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #35 on: October 13, 2017, 10:55:55 AM »
Bill Clinton was everything Harvey is, he was the same open secret, same serial abuser of women, everything. He overcame it to become president. Harvey is at least as connected and influential as Bill was when Bill got his second chance with a presidential nomination, perhaps even more so as Harvey's not in the backwoods of Arkansas.

I would not count Harvey out yet. He's on the ropes for sure but there's still a lot of time left on the clock and he's apparently a guy that knows how to use his power to influence things, especially in the media. Plus, he has access to all the image creation ability of Hollywood. This guy could come back.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #36 on: October 13, 2017, 11:34:59 AM »
I'm glad HW has the support of those who want to see democrats lose their grip on the moral high ground.  I'm sure that heartens him and at least he can find a place among the ranks of Republicans if he repents.  (and throws his financial weight their direction)   :P

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #37 on: October 13, 2017, 01:03:40 PM »
I had a girlfriend once who protested the Miss California pageant by baring her breasts during the march.  Do you think she was making a "tacit request to look at her in a sexual way," or to protest having men constantly look at her "in a sexual way?"  (It was the latter, BTW. :) )

That's a horrible example.  She was clearly relying on the nudity in order to bring attention to her cause.  That's in the nature of an explicit request to look at her in a sexual way, even if it's for the purpose of shaming the viewer.

Quote
So who decided her showing breasts meant she wanted people to look at her in a sexual way?

In that case your girlfriend did.  In other cases, the woman might have or might not have, or the circumstances may have.  Do you think that actresses going nude in a movie don't want to be looked at in a sexual way?  Seems like an odd and unlikely position.

In this case though the point is actually explicitly not relevant.  Whether a particular woman in fact decided to seduce him and tried to be perceived as sexual, which given the benefits is certainly possible, he made a decision to treat all women as sexual objects regardless of what they really wanted and to use his power over them to make that a reality.  His bad acts overrule any possibility that any particular unwilling woman was somehow "complicit" in the event because nothing they did was really relevant to how he treated them.

Quote
Only if she can make some money on the deal...

Which by the way, is expressly the case in a casting couch culture.  Access to a very limited resource by the producers.

Have you ever been to a nudist colony, Seriati?  Or a nude beach?  Do you think all those people--including the fat ones--want others to look at them in a sexual way?

In the case of my old girlfriend, she explicitly told an interviewer that intention was to demystify breasts and make them less of a sexual "item."  If they were more commonplace, they wouldn't be such a big deal.

So, no, she didn't want people to look at her "in a sexual way."  And she certainly didn't decide that people should look at her in a sexual way.

What you are missing is the difference between intention and effect.  Yes, many men would look at her in a "sexual way."  They have learned that seeing breasts is supposed to be a turn-on, just as others have learned that hair or ankles are supposed to be a turn-on.  So, yes, she knew that men would look at her in a "sexual way."

But there was no other way to make her point without bearing her breast (pun intended :) ).  She was not out there to titillate men.  She was out there to make a point about women being treated as merely sexual objects.

It's the word "request" that I object to.  She was not "inviting" men to lust after her.  Nudists are not "inviting" others to lust after them.  Actresses performing dramatic scenes in the nude are not trying to titillate the audience.  (The directors is another story. :) )  And women who dress "sexy" are not necessarily "requesting," "inviting" or "wanting" men to lust after them.  It will happen; we are, after all, a lusty species.  And at times women do want to be looked upon as being sexy.  But it is not always the express intent.  And when people assume that is always the "tacit request" is when they presume that it is directed at them specifically, which leads to the problems like Harvey.

Men will lust, but lust is not license to act upon that lust.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #38 on: October 13, 2017, 02:22:01 PM »
Men will lust, but lust is not license to act upon that lust.

Your points are in general reasonable here, but this is where you get into trouble. This is the kind of phrase whose doublespeak connotations get so distorted in feminist arguments. First of all, what do you mean by license? Do you mean the right to act as one sees fit? Well actually people do have license to act as they see fit, based on any criteria they choose, including lust. They don't have to be granted license to act upon their impulses. But the substantive meaning here is that men are not necessarily being invited to act upon it at all times, which is true. But it's not the case that people may only interact with other people by invitation only. If that were true most social interaction would vanish; it's an absurd case when taken literally. So we can specify: women don't necessarily want excessive attention or interaction on a constant basis. That much is a gimme. So one must be respectful and...well, decent.

But the less savory part of the doublespeak connotation of "license to act upon that lust" is basically the rape connotation, which is to say a man doesn't have the right to expect any particular response from the lady, or to feel justified in rejecting a simple "no" from her. But the equivocation happens when "license to act upon" is used to both mean 'rapist' and 'giving attention to.' I think it's a bit of the motte and bailey here, where when pressed the issue will be reduced to being respectful, but when making the initial case the tone makes the men in question sound effectively like rapists. It is fundamentally *not* the case that initiating an interaction with someone, even when it's not solicited, is in any way reprehensible, so long as care is taken to monitor the response and respect it. Yes, it can be annoying to be an attractive lady who gets attention all day long. I don't live through that but I think I can imagine what it would be like - really awesome some of the time, and exasperating most of the time. But that's just a case of reality having difficulties; one need not infer malfeasance when noting that being a bombshell can be rough some of the time.

You're basically not going to get disagreement from most people that lusting isn't license to 'have something' from the object of one's desire. But the problem as I see it is with the intent to imply guilt on those who are affected by a woman's attractiveness and want to act on it, even if just to strike up conversation. Once you read a feminist blog about how trying to open a door for a woman makes you a chauvinist pig you can see that the idea isn't about taking no for an answer, but goes much farther and is about treating the femininity of a woman as being something that shouldn't even be a feature in how men interact with them. And of course we realize that such an idea is both ridiculous on the face of it, and isn't even a good goal, putting aside the fact of its implausibility. A person's attractiveness is a factor, it should be a factor in the sense of it existing and knowing it has an effect, and more to the point, steps taken to enhance attractiveness are all a part of the way in which it matters is implemented.

'Should' bearing a breast have a sexual connotation? That is actually a very dense topic and would require an extremely in-depth metaphysics to address. But it does have a connotation in America and shaming people who see it that way isn't going to help anyone learn anything.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #39 on: October 13, 2017, 05:15:13 PM »
Since I agree with just about everything you say there, Ferning, I would only say in my defense that you're reading too much into my phrase. :)

It may be because others have used the phrase before me, with those connotations, but I am unfamiliar with those writings and plead ignorance.

One thing I would quibble about, though:

Quote
'Should' bearing a breast have a sexual connotation? That is actually a very dense topic and would require an extremely in-depth metaphysics to address. But it does have a connotation in America and shaming people who see it that way isn't going to help anyone learn anything.

I don't think I'm so much shaming them as challenging their assumptions.  Yes, it has the connotation.  Yes, it will induce a reaction in most men.  But that is where it should end.  Those who believe it means more need to be very specific, especially when justifying actions.  Because that is an easy way to justify inappropriate behavior.

I don't mean to shame anyone.  But people can be easily offended when their implicit assumptions are challenged.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #40 on: October 13, 2017, 05:29:27 PM »
I'm glad HW has the support of those who want to see democrats lose their grip on the moral high ground.  I'm sure that heartens him and at least he can find a place among the ranks of Republicans if he repents.  (and throws his financial weight their direction)   :P
Not sure why you're lashing out but there is this to my point:
Quote
After he spoke out so forcefully on both health care and gun control over the past month, many late-night viewers might have expected Jimmy Kimmel do the same about the sexual harassment and assault allegations against Harvey Weinstein....
"First of all, the Harvey Weinstein thing, people like this false equivalence of that's somehow equivalent to what happened in Las Vegas," Kimmel added, arguing that the alleged assault of dozens of women does not deserve the same reaction as the killing of nearly 60 people. He said that Weinstein is "not a friend of mine," adding, “I'm not in the movie business.” As a once and future Oscar host who is friends with many of the movie stars in Weinstein's orbit, that claim is a hard one to buy.
Yeah.  Kimmel is all over the current issues but this one ... no way.  He won't touch it. Why? Because Harvey's not dead yet, he could come back and I'm betting Harvey will remember anyone that crossed him.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #41 on: October 13, 2017, 05:45:31 PM »
In the case of my old girlfriend, she explicitly told an interviewer that intention was to demystify breasts and make them less of a sexual "item."  If they were more commonplace, they wouldn't be such a big deal.

So, no, she didn't want people to look at her "in a sexual way."  And she certainly didn't decide that people should look at her in a sexual way.
Her justification for exhibitionism is pretty weak. Nearly every town of any size has a bar where many women expose their breasts, these types of bars have been around for generations and they're all too common. There are men that go to them all the time and this immersion therapy justification you bought is solidly disproven - these bars would not exist if her approach worked. We can see breasts at will on the internet for the last 20 years, anytime we want, 24/7. And you know what, men still look at them sexually. She absolutely wanted them to look at them in a sexual way, that was the whole point! Once they did, she could shame them, create some type of perceived moral superiority over men. Exhibitionism is not going to keep men from perceiving sexuality, at best it'll empty the $1 bills out of their wallets. And this Joss Whedon style of feminism is more detrimental to women that actual misogyny.

Flip the script here. Go out and wag your penis in public, try to claim you weren't being sexual and it should not be seen in a sexual way. You'll be spouting that justification from the backseat of a police car on the way to jail because everyone knows exactly what you were really doing - "I swear officer, I was snaking everyone for equality and to demystify male genetalia!".  Riiigggghht.   :o

Women exposing their breasts are no different. And when they do, expecting it to be seen as anything other than sexual is naive at best.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #42 on: October 13, 2017, 06:38:50 PM »
Men will lust, but lust is not license to act upon that lust.

Your points are in general reasonable here, but this is where you get into trouble. This is the kind of phrase whose doublespeak connotations get so distorted in feminist arguments. First of all, what do you mean by license? Do you mean the right to act as one sees fit? Well actually people do have license to act as they see fit, based on any criteria they choose, including lust. They don't have to be granted license to act upon their impulses. But the substantive meaning here is that men are not necessarily being invited to act upon it at all times, which is true. But it's not the case that people may only interact with other people by invitation only. If that were true most social interaction would vanish; it's an absurd case when taken literally. So we can specify: women don't necessarily want excessive attention or interaction on a constant basis. That much is a gimme. So one must be respectful and...well, decent. But the less savory part of the doublespeak connotation of "license to act upon that lust" is basically the rape connotation, which is to say a man doesn't have the right to expect any particular response from the lady, or to feel justified in rejecting a simple "no" from her. But the equivocation happens when "license to act upon" is used to both mean 'rapist' and 'giving attention to.' I think it's a bit of the motte and bailey here, where when pressed the issue will be reduced to being respectful, but when making the initial case the tone makes the men in question sound effectively like rapists.

To be clear on my comments, when I'm specifying "rape" I do mean rape in the traditional sense, not the new doublespeak ultrafeminist definition they're trying to propagate.  It is a very safe bet that Wayward is not playing "definition games" with how people understand words to work either. That you are attributing "PC doublespeak" definitions to what we're saying is a failing on your part. That I'm being considered as someone using such definitions is also a major failing, given I've actively spoken against those "redefinition games" being played in the past. I will not disagree with you that there are other groups out there which ARE playing games with definitions, and this topic happens to be one of them that they've attempted to hijack with various degrees of success, but that doesn't mean that everyone who mentions "rape culture" has bought into some extreme form of man hating feminism.

I do think it is very possible that some of Weinstein's alleged "rapes" fall under this new definition criteria, but I think it is likely deliberate coercion was applied on more than one occasion.

Quote
It is fundamentally *not* the case that initiating an interaction with someone, even when it's not solicited, is in any way reprehensible, so long as care is taken to monitor the response and respect it. Yes, it can be annoying to be an attractive lady who gets attention all day long. I don't live through that but I think I can imagine what it would be like - really awesome some of the time, and exasperating most of the time. But that's just a case of reality having difficulties; one need not infer malfeasance when noting that being a bombshell can be rough some of the time.

And I will agree with the above, however, I draw the line at someone trying to use what a woman is wearing as justification for honor killings, or rapes. I don't care if they're Muslim, or good ole southern baptist country boys. "Just look at what she was wearing, she was clearly asking for it!" is NOT a justification for physically assaulting another human being, doubly so in a sexual context. I'll even go further and say there are "social lines" that should never be crossed on the psychological side even before anything physical happens--and this is coming from someone who thinks "anti-stalker" laws are poorly targeted in that they create legal events where you can have victims without an actual "stalker" being present.

Quote
You're basically not going to get disagreement from most people that lusting isn't license to 'have something' from the object of one's desire. But the problem as I see it is with the intent to imply guilt on those who are affected by a woman's attractiveness and want to act on it, even if just to strike up conversation.

Wanting to "act on the attractiveness" of someone is all well and good, it's when things progress towards sexual assault and/or refusing to take "no" or "not interested" for an answer while constantly invading their personal space.

Quote
Once you read a feminist blog about how trying to open a door for a woman makes you a chauvinist pig you can see that the idea isn't about taking no for an answer, but goes much farther and is about treating the femininity of a woman as being something that shouldn't even be a feature in how men interact with them. And of course we realize that such an idea is both ridiculous on the face of it, and isn't even a good goal, putting aside the fact of its implausibility. A person's attractiveness is a factor, it should be a factor in the sense of it existing and knowing it has an effect, and more to the point, steps taken to enhance attractiveness are all a part of the way in which it matters is implemented.

There is more than one side to every story, you're looking at the ultra-feminist justifications on this topic and ignoring the more rational reasons for why some of these "platforms for action" exist. Which goes back to many valid causes being hijacked by people pursuing other more nefarious aims. Like all those NAACP types who have no actual interest in helping the people they claim to advocate for, because that would put them out of a rather cushy job.

Quote
'Should' bearing a breast have a sexual connotation? That is actually a very dense topic and would require an extremely in-depth metaphysics to address. But it does have a connotation in America and shaming people who see it that way isn't going to help anyone learn anything.

Who said anything about shaming people who react that way? Oh right, the ultra-feminists. Outside of the ultra-fem side of things, the normal approach is education and normalization, rather than militant social shaming on the matter.

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #43 on: October 13, 2017, 06:59:51 PM »
Someone in Weinstein’s position should never be flirting with or even responding to advances made by women auditioning. A hiring manager beginning a sexual relationship during the hiring process is always unethical and almost certainly abusive. So it doesn’t matter if the woman walked into his office dressed to kill or in sweats there is no circumstance where someone with that much power and influence over another should allow a sexual relationship to begin.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #44 on: October 13, 2017, 07:13:25 PM »
Her justification for exhibitionism is pretty weak. Nearly every town of any size has a bar where many women expose their breasts, these types of bars have been around for generations and they're all too common. There are men that go to them all the time and this immersion therapy justification you bought is solidly disproven - these bars would not exist if her approach worked.

And you're taking the wrong lessons from the wrong material. Context matters here. The strip clubs also tend to adhere to another practice, shortly after the clothes have come off, the show is over, and it is time for someone else to come out to do "a sexy dance" for the customer.

Burlesque Show performers in the day also were well aware of this. As it is all about the tease, for which you need movement to enable the "naughty bits" to constantly move in and out sight, but preferably keeping them out of sight so they remain focused on the performer seeking to see "the forbidden parts" because once that body part is brought into full view, it's ability to hold the interest of the audience starts waning after a couple minutes.

Even for the bars that go further and have topless waitresses, context plays into things a bit(and actually may play into "they like the atmosphere") as even there, it would be highly unusual to my understanding for the waitress to spend much time actually at your table, or just "hanging out" lingering in your general vicinity. So you're getting an ongoing series of brief exposures of "forbidden" body parts that you've been conditioned to associate with sexual activities.

Going by what many nudists seem to claim, the "acclimatization period" for someone to get over either being naked in the company of others, or being around naked people runs about 15 minutes in a non-sexual social setting(as mind boggling as you might consider such an idea). After that magic window has been passed, it becomes something you start to "cease to register" on a conscious level. But it should also be noted, that 15 minute claim only exists in the context of an in-person interaction. So looking at a picture of a naked woman for 15 minutes isn't likely to work out to the same result.

Quote
We can see breasts at will on the internet for the last 20 years, anytime we want, 24/7. And you know what, men still look at them sexually. She absolutely wanted them to look at them in a sexual way, that was the whole point! Once they did, she could shame them, create some type of perceived moral superiority over men. Exhibitionism is not going to keep men from perceiving sexuality, at best it'll empty the $1 bills out of their wallets. And this Joss Whedon style of feminism is more detrimental to women that actual misogyny.

I'd agree about the online Porn, pictures and video exist in their own world, probably in large part because it is very easy for us to not register what we're looking at "as people" but instead regard them as things. Which is very detrimental, even the strip clubs fall into this general trap as the general presentation lends towards presenting the stripper as an object rather than a person. When you're placed in the context of that person being directly across from you and interacting with them that tends to rip down the ability to treat them as objects, barring you're having some kind of significant underlying psychiatric condition.

You might also want to bother to do some research into "body acceptance" of which "rape culture" is kind of an off-shot of(via "body freedom"), and actually ties back to nudism/naturism as well. It has actually had very positive impacts for the women who have seriously pursued it, as it is hard to become comfortable with your body if you spend all your time hiding from it. But that's a far cry from going the 4-chan route of encouraging women to get naked and post pics online and start posting live webcam feeds of them going about their routine sans clothing.

Quote
Flip the script here. Go out and wag your penis in public, try to claim you weren't being sexual and it should not be seen in a sexual way. You'll be spouting that justification from the backseat of a police car on the way to jail because everyone knows exactly what you were really doing - "I swear officer, I was snaking everyone for equality and to demystify male genetalia!".  Riiigggghht.   :o

Women exposing their breasts are no different. And when they do, expecting it to be seen as anything other than sexual is naive at best.

There are many (non-gender confused) Men who have bigger boobs than many women. The man can legally go topless in public, while the woman cannot. It isn't even a claim that women have them and men don't. And legally speaking, it isn't even "The Breast" that is legally restricted from public view(as men have them too), a woman could slap on a pair of pasties to cover only their nipples and be legal in almost every state in the Union. Of course, they probably would be harassed by police in many cities for doing so, but no citations regarding the exposed boobs specifically would stand in court. The only part of "The breast" that is legally restricted from public view in much of the country is the female nipple. Because heaven forbid someone should ever see a nipple! Oh wait, they can see all the male nipples they can handle, so long as men are willing to go shirtless, it is only the female ones that are "a problem."

Anatomically speaking, would anyone care to explain to the class what is so "disturbingly different" about the female nipple that it somehow poses a public health and safety hazard sufficient to require special handling under the law? I'm a bit hazy on my biology class, but as i recall, male lactation is possible among humans too, although it would typically need to be artificially induced due to hormones. So it isn't even a thing where you can claim "only women can do ___ with their nipples."
« Last Edit: October 13, 2017, 07:15:29 PM by TheDeamon »

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #45 on: October 13, 2017, 07:23:41 PM »
Someone in Weinstein’s position should never be flirting with or even responding to advances made by women auditioning. A hiring manager beginning a sexual relationship during the hiring process is always unethical and almost certainly abusive. So it doesn’t matter if the woman walked into his office dressed to kill or in sweats there is no circumstance where someone with that much power and influence over another should allow a sexual relationship to begin.

He's 65 years old, he's from a different era. It doesn't excuse what he did, and he damn well should have "known better" by the 1990's at the least.

Due to his age come back or not is probably rather moot, he's rich, he's retirement age. So long as he manages his money well, and doesn't get sued into the ground, he'll likely live very comfortably for the rest of his life regardless.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #46 on: October 14, 2017, 10:02:17 AM »
Someone in Weinstein’s position should never be flirting with or even responding to advances made by women auditioning. A hiring manager beginning a sexual relationship during the hiring process is always unethical and almost certainly abusive. So it doesn’t matter if the woman walked into his office dressed to kill or in sweats there is no circumstance where someone with that much power and influence over another should allow a sexual relationship to begin.
Not even presidents?

I agree with you but you and I are apparently disagree with the Hollywood glitterati and American ruling elite. It’s good to be the king.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #47 on: October 14, 2017, 11:29:34 AM »
Weinstein’s opening for his statement has been rolling in my mind and my last comment finally kicked it loose.
Quote
I came of age in the 60's and 70's, when all the rules about behavior and workplaces were different. That was the culture then.

People have commented on that, largely agreed it was a different time and place where women were treated poorly. But times changed and Harvey didn’t. That’s the meme. Well, I’m calling bull*censored*.

In the 1990’s, the ruling elite, the mainstream media, and Hollywood told us in no uncertain terms that behavior like Harvey’s was acceptable. In fact, they would even tear down his accusers and humiliate them. We learned that from Harvey’s buddies, Bill and Hillary Clinton. Bill was everything Harvey was, serial abuse, rape, payoffs, lives destroyed. In both cases, it was an open secret. As Bill got the free pass and Hollywood, the very community Harvey lived in, circled the wagons to defend Bill, it gave Harvey the green light to engage in this behavior. The message was clear, powerful men can do this, it’s acceptable to ruin anyone that accuses powerful men of abusing women. The legacy of Bill Clinton is Harvey Weinstein.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #48 on: October 14, 2017, 06:36:19 PM »
The motion picture academy has expelled Harvey. Part of the statement:
Quote
We do so not simply to separate ourselves from someone who does not merit the respect of his colleagues but also to send a message that the era of willful ignorance and shameful complicity in sexually predatory behavior and workplace harassment in our industry is over.

Think about that. “The era of willful ignorance and shameful complicity in sexually predatory behavior”. Corey Haim and a few others have been openly talking about this era for years and nothing. And anyone pretending they didn’t know Harvey was doing this is nothing short of lying. The acknowledgment that this institutionalized predation exists, and was such a well known thing, is astounding. Next time the Hollywood elite deigns to lecture you about how you live your life, remember this and how utterly morally bankrupt and contemptible these people truly are.


Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Weinstein mess
« Reply #49 on: October 16, 2017, 11:18:45 AM »
For some reason, many seem to be commenting on some version of the idea that what I said about no one being entitled to proscribe the way others perceive their actions, is the same thing as others being entitled to act out in violative ways.  Why I get the inherent satisfaction in jumping up to validate yourself with the "right" opinion, there's likely no one on here who would even consider endorsing the sexual assaults you are describing.  Why then do they appear on this thread?  It's a validation point?  Is it a motte bailey argument?  Or is it some manner of claim that the two are the same thing?

My point is simply, no one - female or male - is entitled to tell others how to think.  We all are entitled to make any assumptions we choose about others - even hateful and unflattering ones - about others based on how they choose to dress or not dress.  We are all entitled to treat other people differently based on how they choose to dress or not dress. 

We are not entitled to harass people, at least beyond the scope of the law.  All of you are quick to jump on this point, when we're talking about men reacting to a woman making a point.  Jumping right to the defense.  Are you willing to stake out the same position about someone wearing a Make America Great Again hat?  Or is it okay to harass them, assault them and take their hat? 

No one is entitled to tell someone else how to feel.  Why would a topless woman have a right to tell a man he is not entitled to feel that is sexual?  The entitlement of the woman is to not have the man treat her in a disrespectful or entitled manner because of such act.

Two different things here. Just because Person B views something that Person A is doing as "sexual in nature" does not mean that Person A actually thinks what they are doing is "sexual" in any way, shape or form. So this gets into a complicated "shades of grey issue" where if we're "prohibiting sexual actions" and Woman A doesn't think that walking around topless is a sexual act(or at least, shouldn't be considered one), then who is Person B to come along and try to proscribe it because they "can't help themselves" and do anything but view it as being sexual.

Why jump to proscription?  Whether Person B views something as sexual has nothing to do with what Person A thinks about it.  If Person B gets off on shoes are they barred from shoe stores?   Or only from pleasuring themselves there, or otherwise staring and harassing people trying them on?

I think you need to make the case, without jumping to "proscription" unless someone is arguing that women should be barred from dressing sexy?

Or maybe you mean, like I hinted above, that no one should be permitted to make judgements about people based on how they choose to dress?  Where did the right to bar other people's thoughts come from?  Or the right to be free from consequence come from? 

Our goal in this area has got to be reasonable.  We all agree that no matter how someone dresses, no one should be entitled to assault or unreasonably harass them. 

Quote
Quote
Are you really implying some kind of moral thought police that goes contrary to instinct is an entitlement of a woman?

Now whose standard are we going to adhere to? There are Jewish, Christian, and Islamic sects that hold as a matter of scriptural interpretation that the simple sight of a woman's hair is an intensely sexual act. Islam will of course go even further in some cases, going so far veiling the face and practically every square inch of skin belonging to a woman because "men can't help themselves" when presented with even the smallest glimpse of female skin.

So what?  Are you saying those religions are barred from believing that?  Our laws do, and should, bar them from imposing such a standard.  Bright line on converting your belief into someone else's legal punishment.  But, again, that's a far cry from prohibiting religious men from refusing to associate with "immodest" women.

Quote
So when was the last you were biologically compelled to rape a woman because you saw her hair? Her face? Her hands? Her Arms? Her legs? Her abdominals?

Never.  But you've jumped shark by even asking this question.  Dodged the debate, skipped the tough question and practically Godwinned the point.

Quote
There is a very significant portion of the global population that thinks sighting any of these things on an unrelated woman should leave you with the overpowering desire to rape them. Somehow, that doesn't seem to be what I've experienced in reality. Rape statistics in Western Nations also seem to indicate that also isn't the case, but there are plenty of religious groups that will tell that is so.

And?  I have no problem declaring them wrong and their culture wrong for endorsing that.  I'm not a cultural relativist.  Our culture is far better on women's rights than those cultures.

Quote
Quote
What about the flip?  Should flashing still be illegal?

Which kind of flashing we talking about? "peekabo" short clothing, Girls Gone Wild type, or people in trench coats, or plumber pants?

GGW and the trench coat flashers are overtly sexual, the "peekaboo" type is very likely to be sexual in nature too. The plumber variety, not so much

Honestly, why should it matter "what" kind?  Unless you intend to impose your mores on them why would you need that information?  Whether they intend it to be a sexual act or not can't be a test for how you are entitled to react to it.  How would that even work?

Quote
Quote
Can a man decide to take off his shirt and flex his muscles in front of a random group of women and be entitled to not have them consider it a sexual act?

Depending on context, I think that would be fair.

If it depends on "context," then you are de facto accepting that society has a right to expect certain behaviors from individuals in certain contexts, ergo, there can also be a standard for how women dress and it's just a matter of determine what is appropriate.

Quote
Not going to disagree, but that's where the problem comes into play with the "public space" as it becomes a question of who gets to define the baseline? As it stands, in much of the country, the woman who wants to go topless on a hot day cannot do so without potentially getting placed on a sex offender registry.

I agree that's the wrong standard.  Of course I have less hang ups about nudity than most.

Quote
Woman(or man) sunbathing in a (private property) backyard which can be seen into from a public park/church?

If the church doesn't want to see it, then can always close the windows or build a wall.

But you've flipped the point.  What we've been talking about, is whether or not the sunbather has a reasonable expectation to expect the church goers not to judge them, and the answer to that is no the sunbather does not.

Quote
Quote
Would you find it difficult to label a man who decided to wear just a tube sock?

Should he be difficult to categorize? Would you rather he wear some kind of gourd?   ;)

Obviously in that case he's placing emphasis on his penis, so it is sexual in nature.

That standard clearly does not work in the female activist example, they too often place emphasis on their breasts.