Lessons And Notes From The Harvey Weinstein Fiasco

The latest development in the rapid fall of Hollywood independent film mogul and lionized Democratic donor Harvey Weinstein: The board of his own company, The Weinstein Company, just fired him.

You should read the New York Times’ damning story, following an investigation, about the extent of Weinstein’s long reign of misogynist terror in Hollywood. I don’t care to re-hash it. Note, as you read, that as disgusting as it is, more disgusting stories have come out since it was published. For example, a TV journalist now says that Weinstein once trapped her in the hallway of a restaurant that was closed to the public and masturbated in front of her until he ejaculated.  She says she told friends about the episode, but remained quiet because “she was in a long-term relationship” and was “fearful of the power that Weinstein wielded in the media.”

  • WHAT? She withheld this story for a decade because she was fearful, thus allowing Weinstein to abuse how many other women? Hundreds? I’d love to ask her if a powerful individual, in her opinion, could have done anything that would have caused her to make the effort to overcome her fear and self-interest. Someone who would act as she describes is pathological. What she endured was a criminal act. This is signature significance, is it not? Does a civilized, trustworthy, non-sociopath sicko ever do such a thing even once, on the worst day of his life? “I’m sorry I trapped you and masturbated in front of you; it wasn’t the best choice, and anyone can make a mistake.”

The man is and was dangerous. The woman had a citizen’s duty to report this to the police; I don’t care how powerful he was.

  • And, apparently, dozens of actresses had experiences, if not quite that horrifying, horrifying enough. In the Times report, we learn that Weinstein invited Angry Progressive Feminist Ashley Judd to the Peninsula Beverly Hills hotel 20 years ago for what she thought would be a breakfast meeting about her career. Weinstein had her sent to his hotel suite, where he greeted the actress in a bathrobe and asked if he could give her a massage. She told The Times that he then proposed that she watch him shower. Now she tells us this? Now, after she excoriated the President on the Mall, using obscene terms to cheer on  “resistance” “pussy- hat marchers  in January and speculate about the President’s Trump’s wet dreams about his own daughter?  Judd  said she kept quiet to avoid alienating Harvey Weinstein because she was just at the beginning of her career—you know, like all of those Cosby victims. What’s her excuse for the rest of the 20 years, allowing more young actresses to be extorted into sexual submission? Larry O’Connor has the (revolting) answer, I think. In a piece for Mediaite, he writes of Judd,

Has she channeled that anger and humiliation and fear at the industry that allowed it? Or at the man and his multi-million dollar corporation that enabled it? No. Her real enemies are Republicans. Don’t you get it?

So the not-so-hidden message in Weinstein’s non-apology statement was “Hey, remember, I supported Hillary and Obama and I raise millions for Democrats and I’ll help destroy the NRA and Trump. I may treat you like shit, but my heart is in the right place. Now get your knee pads on.”

In Hollywood, being liberal means never having to say you’re sorry.

Judd has been praised for having the courage to tell her story now…when Weinstein is elderly and his power is waning, knowing the he was about to be exposed. No, this is an example of Rationalization #22, “It’s not the worst thing.” Yes, Judd is not as bad as the many, many actresses who kept quiet about this sexual predator, endangering others, who still are mum. Whoopie!

  • Actress Meryl Streep, a prominent force in launching the trend of turning all entertainment award show into non-stop anti-Trump diatribes because he boasted about “pussygrabbing” (though never, as far as we know, about public masturbation) issued a statement, perhaps because she has effusively praised Weinstein more than once:

    “The disgraceful news about Harvey Weinstein has appalled those of us whose work he championed, and those whose good and worthy causes he supportedThe intrepid women who raised their voices to expose this abuse are our heroes. One thing can be clarified. Not everybody knew. Harvey supported the work fiercely, was exasperating but respectful with me in our working relationship, and with many others with whom he worked professionally. I didn’t know about these other offenses: I did not know about his financial settlements with actresses and colleagues; I did not know about his having meetings in his hotel room, his bathroom, or other inappropriate, coercive acts. And If everybody knew, I don’t believe that all the investigative reporters in the entertainment and the hard news media would have neglected for decades to write about it.”

    She’s lying, or she is incredibly stupid. This immediately reminded me of Greta Van Susteren’s  laughable defense of Fox News predator Roger Ailes when he was finally publicly exposed as a serial harasser, saying she didn’t believe it because he had never harassed her. Hollywood producers and executive have used their power and influence to prey on women since the beginning of Tinseltown: this is a sick, sexist culture that has been exhaustively documented by memoirs, journalists, and Hollywood itself. These predators are always known around town; how could they not be? Look, I have been on the fringes of professional show business, on the other side of the continent, and I had heard rumors of Weinstein’s casting couch conduct. I had heard about Cosby too, at least 10 years before that scandal broke. But Meryl Streep is shocked—shocked!—that Harvey Weinstein wasn’t a feminist just because he gave lots of money to progressive candidates and their causes? Sure, Meryl.

    At best this is contrived ignorance, like Albert Speer saying that he never knew about the concentration camps because he didn’t want to know.

  • I just read Ann Althouse’s reaction to Streep’s statement. Perfect:

“The cagiest part of this writing is the phrase “everybody knew.” If only one person didn’t know, then not everybody knew. So it’s easy to stand firmly on the trivial technicality that not everybody knew… especially since so many people had a personal interest in staying in the dark and not following up on the clues. But many people knew, and yet the matter was suppressed for many years. The “investigative reporters in the entertainment and the hard news media” were neglectful, and the failure of everybody to know doesn’t overcome the inference of neglect. And, indeed, there is neglect in the not knowing in some cases, such as, perhaps, yours, Meryl Streep…You should have spoken out when it mattered. Before the bubble burst. Speak out about somebody else. The abuse of power is familiar, you say. All right, then. You there on the inside, Meryl, you raise your brave voice, if you have one. Otherwise, this after-the-fact statement is just an inadequate effort to cover your own ass and of a piece with the ignorance of the facts served your interest before the story hit the news.”

  • Equally ridiculous, but perhaps this really is ignorance, was Streep’s claim that if everybody knew, the news media would have reported it. At the Weekly Standard, Lee Smith debunks that decisively:

Sharon Waxman, a former reporter at the Times, writes in The Wrap how she had the story on Weinstein in 2004—and then he bullied the Times into dropping it. Matt Damon and Russell Crowe even called her directly to get her to back off the story. And Miramax was a major advertiser. Her editor at the Times, Jonathan Landman, asked her why it mattered. After all, he told Waxman, “he’s not a publicly elected official.”

Manhattan’s district attorney knew, too. In 2015, Weinstein’s lawyer donated $10,000 to the campaign f Manhattan district attorney Cyrus Vance after he declined to file sexual assault charges against the producer. Given the number of stories that have circulated for so long, Weinstein must have spread millions around New York, Los Angeles, and Europe to pay off lawyers and buy silence, including the silence of his victims. But he had something else going for him, too. He knew his victims would be reluctant to go public because it might suggest that some of their success, their fame even, was a function of their inability to protect themselves from being humiliated by a man who set the bar for humiliating others at the precise level of his own self-loathing.

  • So long and extensively had Weinstein been not merely a sexual harasser, but an unusually prolific and reckless one, that it is similarly incredible that powerful Democrats, many of whom are now rushing to donate the money they received from Weinstein to charity, didn’t know exactly the kind of man who was holding fundraisers for them. They knew, and they also trusted the news media not to embarrass them by publishing a story like the Times did during the election cycle.

We have learned, for example, that Anita Dunn, a top Obama campaign staffer, a confidant of Michelle Obama and former White House communications director, gave Weinstein damage control advice when the Times story hit. Long time Clinton scandal-suppressor Lanny Davis was also a fixer on Weinstein’s payroll.

From Chris Cilliza, reliable Democratic apologist at CNN:

 it’s hard to see how Obama and the Clintons — Weinstein is a long time pal of Bill and Hillary — can avoid putting out statements condemning him for his behavior…But there’s more to this story than simply issuing statements condemning Weinstein or returning his now-tainted money. These paragraphs from the Times story gets to that broader point:

“In interviews, some of the former employees who said they had troubling experiences with Mr. Weinstein asked a common question: How could allegations repeating the same pattern — young women, a powerful male producer, even some of the same hotels — have accumulated for almost three decades?

“‘It wasn’t a secret to the inner circle,’ said Kathy DeClesis, Bob Weinstein’s assistant in the early 1990s. She supervised a young woman who left the company abruptly after an encounter with Harvey Weinstein and who later received a settlement, according to several former employees.”

Then there’s this from New York magazine’s Rebecca Traister: “I have been having conversations about Harvey Weinstein’s history of sexual harassment for more than 17 years.”

It seems like Weinstein’s boorish behavior — to put it mildly — was an open secret in the circles he ran in. The prevailing sentiment when the New York Times published its piece was not “WOW!” but rather “Finally!”

That’s important. If everyone around Weinstein knew about his inappropriate conduct around women, why were so many Democratic politicians willing to pal around with him and/or accept his money?

We know why, don’t we?

Weinstein is an ethics corrupter, but he also had the advantage of living in two extraordinarily unethical cultures, show business and politics, protected by a third, the news media. In the end, the fact that there are sexual predators enabled in Hollywood is no surprise, and neither should be the revelation that all of the pious—and politically effective—indignation by Democrats over the alleged sexual misconduct of candidate Trump was pure hypocrisy—after all, there was Bill Clinton.  Nonetheless, there are still many Americans who thought Hillary, the Democrats, Meryl and the Hollywood glitterati were sincere. That they care about woman’s issues, rather than just find it useful to pretend to care.

If they cared, Harvey Weinstein would have been exposed for what he was long ago, and many women would have been spare humiliation and abuse.

111 Comments

Filed under Arts & Entertainment, Business & Commercial, Character, Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Ethics Dunces, Government & Politics, Journalism & Media, Philanthropy, Non-Profits and Charity, Workplace

111 responses to “Lessons And Notes From The Harvey Weinstein Fiasco

  1. Steve-O-in-NJ

    The trinity you just described will always close ranks around one of their own, and those who suffer will just have to take one for the team to protect that all-important progressive agenda and the supra-important right to destroy gestating human life.

  2. ”when Weinstein is elderly”

    Sheesh, the guy’s but 3 short years older than me. When does elderly start these days?

    A headline about Chelsea Clinton trying to cleverly backdoor into (retweeting) the Weinstein situation gave me a chuckle.

    “Chelsea Clinton dips her toe in Weinstein scandal and nearly gets it blown off”

    http://www.bizpacreview.com/2017/10/08/chelsea-clinton-dips-toe-weinstein-scandal-nearly-gets-blown-off-545909

    She strikes me as rather tone-deaf and not overly quick-witted or intuitive; think she gets that from her mother?

  3. charlesgreen

    I agree with everything you say here…except maybe this:
    “The woman had a citizen’s duty to report this to the police; I don’t care how powerful he was.”
    I’d like to hear from the women on this blog about that one.

    • ”I’d like to hear from the women on this blog about that one.”

      We will.

      Reminded me of a quote from the movie “North Country” (“inspired by the 2002 book ‘Class Action: The Story of Lois Jenson and the Landmark Case That Changed Sexual Harassment Law’ by Clara Bingham and Laura Leedy Gansler, which chronicled the case of Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Company”).

      Bill White (Woody Harrelson):

      “What are you supposed to do when the ones with all the power are hurting those with none? Well for starters, you stand up. Stand up and tell the truth. You stand up for your friends. You stand up even when you’re all alone. You stand up.”

      • charlesgreen

        I’m reminded of a twitter dialogue I saw recently:

        Guy: Why the hell don’t more women report rape?
        Woman: Because frankly they are concerned that they won’t be believed.
        Guy: Frankly I have a hard time believing that one.

        No apparent irony on the part of the guy.

        • Isaac

          There’s no irony in it. Credibility isn’t based on the gender of the speaker, it’s based on the rationality of the statement made, regardless of who made it.

          It’s not credible to assert that men don’t believe women who say they are raped. Men are generally extremely eager to assist women in any kind of distress, almost to a fault. To claim otherwise is NOT believable, and the gender of the person making the silly claim on Twitter matters not a whit.

          It’s much more reasonable (and tracks with observed reality) to assume that rapes often go unreported because the woman fears repercussions from her rapist, especially when the rapist/molester is powerful and influential, like Bill Clinton, Bill Cosby, or Weinstein. And in some cases the woman is ashamed of whatever lurid details might be exposed in the process of exposing the rape (for example, if a married woman was in an illicit romantic relationship with her rapist, etc.) or just doesn’t want to bother with the ordeal of a public trial and would rather bury the whole thing than relive and rehash it publicly in a lengthy trial.

          • charlesgreen

            “Credibility isn’t based on the gender of the speaker, it’s based on the rationality of the statement made, regardless of who made it…It’s not credible to assert that men don’t believe women who say they are raped.”

            Respectfully, I think you are living on a planet we’d all like to live on, but that does not correspond to reality.

            There are a ton – a ton – of studies that demonstrate systematic, systemic bias against women when it comes to credibility: in courts, in the justice system, in business, in rape cases, in medicine, in science. I suggest you look ’em up.

            • Chris

              This blog needs more women. I have no idea how to successfully rebut unmitigated bullshit like Isaac’s here. Spartan has done her best, but one woman’s perspective is easy to dismiss. Which is like…the entire point that Isaac is helping us make while somehow also dismissing that point.

              • Isaac

                I respectfully suggest that you and Charles both get some more hobbies away from the internet. Breath the fresh air. Go meet some healthy and well-adjusted people of both genders. Spend some time with the common folk who have never been awakened to the patriarchy by gender studies courses. You will find that both men and women generally like and believe one another. It’s really quite a nice planet, at least over here where women can testify in court and show off their hair and drive cars and such.

                Charles says that there’s totes, like, TONS of studies showing that prove systematic and extreme bias against women when it comes to credibility. So it’s like, a fact because the science. I don’t know what he’s talking about since whatever surveys and actual research I can find on Google show that women are universally considered more trustworthy than men by both genders, generally and also in business situations:

                https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/14/why-we-think-women-are-mo_n_796551.html

                http://theglasshammer.com/2011/03/11/why-women-are-more-trusted-than-men-and-how-to-use-trust-to-our-advantage/

                Then there’s this little nugget, that women are MORE likely than men to disbelieve a rape victim. Female jurors are less likely to convict a rapist than male jurors:

                http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2010/02/16/women_are_more_likely_to_blame_rape_victims_for_their_own_rapes_than_men.html

                Chris offers nothing but name-calling, and apparently thinks that it’s “unmitigated bullshit” to say that boys like girls and generally believe them when they say they were raped. I think the burden of proof should be on you guys, cause that’s kind of insane.

                Just use your common sense. Most women don’t lie about rape. But the few who DO, get results. Mattress girl became a celebrity whose lie got her an audience with senators. Rolling Stone did an entire article about “Jackie’s” rape without asking for one shred of proof and without verifying anything. There’s a reason why the small fraction of women who lie about rape consider doing it, even though it’s reprehensible and a disservice to the majority of women who tell the truth. Lying about rape works, BECAUSE most women DON’T lie about rape, and because most men believe that most women wouldn’t lie about rape. If the preceding were not true, there would be no incentive for anyone anywhere to lie about rape.

                When a powerful person (Kobe Bryant, Weinstein, Cosby) is accused of rape, that person’s fans (male and female) tend to disbelieve the victim. That is not what is being contended. Charles says that women in general are afraid to tell anyone they were raped because men in general will not believe them. That is hogwash.

                And if feminists and their “allies” are actually teaching women the lie that “men won’t believe you” when all evidence is to the contrary…then they’re practically facilitating rape. How about this instead: “If anyone rapes, gropes, or takes advantage of you, tell everyone. Immediately. Tell the men in your life, in particular; they’re LESS likely to blame you.”

                • charlesgreen

                  Isaac, thank you for raising some good points here, and for clarifying your confusion about other points.

                  This is a subject I happen to know a lot about, having researched and written myself about the subjects of trust and credibility, including gender.

                  The headline: you are absolutely correct that women are widely considered more trustworthy than men. You can cite my own research to that effect, here:
                  http://trustedadvisor.com/public/files/pdf/2010_TA_Whitepaper_Think_Again_Special.pdf

                  Where you go wrong is in conflating trustworthiness and credibility. The Trust Equation breaks trustworthiness into four components: Credibility, Reliability, Intimacy, and Self-Orientation. The overwhelming reason women are considered more trustworthy than men is due to one single factor: Intimacy, defined as the sense of security we get sharing information with someone. On the factor of credibility – in the broad terms outlined in that paper – it’s a wash.

                  One way to intuitively check this observation is to note the least and the most trustworthy professions (Google Gallup or Pew for years of data on this): the least trusted are lawyers and politicians. The most trusted? Nurses. Nurses are 89% female. The reason we trust them is not their purported medical expertise, but their bedside manner. We trust them to tell the truth, and in turn we tell the truth to them. But you’ll note that doctors (a largely male profession) are the first to tell you that you shouldn’t trust medical advice from nurses – an issue that cuts to credibility.

                  But that’s all general data. Let’s get to your specific points. At the outset of this conversation, you said “Credibility isn’t based on the gender of the speaker, it’s based on the rationality of the statement made, regardless of who made it. It’s not credible to assert that men don’t believe women who say they are raped.”

                  First, let me agree with you that a major reason women are so unlikely to report rape in high-publicity cases is the power of the person they are going up against (you’re right to cite the Cosby, Kobe cases as examples of this).

                  But that doesn’t explain the general reticence to report rape, even in cases of non-celebrity rape. And it doesn’t explain the skepticism with which men approach women when it comes to credibility in general. Here are a few examples.

                  – The logic behind abortion waiting periods is that women have to take more time to ‘consider’ what they’re doing, i.e. they haven’t thought about it.

                  – The medical profession is systemically skeptical when it comes to women’s self-reporting of health issues
                  https://thinkprogress.org/when-gender-stereotypes-become-a-serious-hazard-to-womens-health-f1f130a5e79/

                  – 80% of women feel that men are perceived as more credible in business. (Either 80% of women are wrong, or there’s something going on here)
                  https://www.fastcompany.com/664593/who-has-more-credibility-men-or-women

                  – The phenomenon of “speaking while female” is well-documented; women who speak up in business are more frequently interrupted, ignored, or judged “shrill.” Here’s one citation with several more embedded within it, this one by Sheryl Sandberg and Adam Grant

                  – Asked why there are so few women physicists compared to biologists, the answer depends on the gender of who’s answering the question
                  https://www.themarysue.com/physics-biology-gender-gap/

                  – Stereotypes show up in the workplace: and we all know them. Men are seen as rational, unemotional. Women are seen as feelings-based, emotional, non-rational. Hence on technical issues – a big part of ‘credibility – men tend to get rated more highly than women (including by women, you are right about shared stereotypes in many cases)
                  http://www.catalyst.org/system/files/Women_Take_Care_Men_Take_Charge_Stereotyping_of_U.S._Business_Leaders_Exposed.pdf

                  – In business, men are perceived as more competent (a key component of credibility in my work, cited above). Men routinely get credited with ideas originally brought up in conversation by women.
                  https://www.forbes.com/sites/85broads/2011/04/14/why-is-it-that-women-are-seen-as-less-competent/#32d6d3a4394d

                  To bring this back to your original comment: you made two claims – one about women and credibility in general, and one about credibility in the case of rape. You later said, “feminists and their “allies” are actually teaching women the lie that “men won’t believe you” when all evidence is to the contrary…”

                  In general, “men won’t believe you” is not a lie, it’s objectively true – see the citations above.

                  In particular, in the case of rape, here is a study of studies that touch on the issue: a typical quote – “male students blamed the victim to a greater extent than did female students; students consistently attributed more blame to the victim in date rape situations than they did in stranger rape situations.”
                  https://cultureofrespect.org/attitudes-perceptions-and-rape-myths/

                  There is one other point that neither you nor I have touched on, and it’s important: the legal system, for often good reasons, imposes a great degree of skepticism in the face of rape accusations, ranging from questioning by the police to rules of evidence in court to the aggressive role of defense attorneys who are expected to challenge the rape witness’s credibility. No doubt this all contributes to female rape victim’s beliefs that “no one will believe me.” While you can’t describe the ‘system’ as male or female, it is built to challenge the assertion of rape victims, who are disproportionately female.

                  My take: your assertion that men grant claims of rape the same credibility that women do is not clear-cut, but I read it as more false than true (again, you’re right that the issue is not just gender-based, but correlated with ideologies, age, etc). I’d welcome more citations (your claim that “all evidence is to the contrary” is just not true).

                  Your more general claim that “credibility isn’t based on the gender of the speaker” is definitely false. Gender is a big factor in how people view credibility (again, only one part of trustworthiness).

    • Still Spartan

      I’ve talked about that extensively here and I won’t do it again.

  4. Ann Althouse has a vicious take down of Rebecca Traister’s recent “why I am a coward” piece in The Cut (www.thecut.com). Here it is in what Ann Althouse does best:

    https://althouse.blogspot.com/2017/10/i-have-been-having-conversations-about.html

    Althouse dissects the piece with surgical precision and does not mince words.

    jvb

  5. Aleksei

    I also find it funny how the late night shows became Democratic party activist programs, and naturally they won’t cover this. No Jimmy Kimmel crying over women being forced to see Mr. Weinstein’s schlong. Then there was SNL’s Lorne Micheal asked why they didn’t run a Weinstein joke, and he answers “it’s a New York thing.” Last I checked President Trump is also from New York, but he doesn’t get there “New York thing” rule applied. Funny. This is a bad case of “Forget it Jake. It’s Chinatown.” Jack is right, these Hollywood elites, their political and media buddies could care less about women if it becomes incovenient in furthering their agenda (whatever that maybe). They would stomach hundreds of rapes if they were “for a good cause”. Ashley “nasty woman” Judd being silent about this all this time is truly the creme de la creme. Too bad come next time the “pussyhat” march on Washington occurs, all this will be forgotten and she will be again telling us how bad the other guys are with women. Go figure.

      • Aleksei

        jan chapman, thank you for sharing the video. For for Seth Meets and his team for running this. They were some funny moments. This is definitely a step in the right direction. I have my reservations if Hollywood will take the this culture head on, but I sure hope to have new scandals to erupt, preferably where the king pins are still in their prime, and not at the end of their reign.

  6. Greg

    Weinstein’s lawyer donated $10,000 to the campaign of Manhattan district attorney Cyrus Vance after he declined to file sexual assault charges against the producer.

    Last week, the New Yorker was suggesting that Donald Trump’s lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, had donated to Vance as a payoff for not prosecuting Donald Jr. and Ivanka. This week, David Boies supposedly donated to Vance as a payoff for not prosecuting Weinstein. In both cases, it strikes me that the suggestion is nonsense. Both Kasowitz and Boies are renowned litigators, heads of major litigation firms with many, many clients besides Trump and Weinstein. Both of them claim that their donations were motivated by their belief that Vance is the best person for the job, and it’s not clear to me that they aren’t telling the truth. I know other lawyers who have donated to Vance for that very reason without any expectation of a quid pro quo. Even assuming the worst, that Kasowitz’s and Boies’ donations were given as an explicit payoff for past or future services, there’s no particular reason to believe that the payoff was given on behalf of Trump or Weinstein, rather than some other client, or more likely, as a way of cultivating general goodwill on behalf of all of their firms’ clients.

    But, really, how much influence with Vance could a $10,000 or $25,000 donation buy? He won his last two races with 91% and 85% of the vote. He can effortlessly raise as much money as he needs. He’ll be district attorney until the day he dies, if he wants to be.

  7. Chris marschner

    There is a reason why we call it the oldest profession.

    • Chris

      Since when do we call sexual harassment the oldest profession?

      • Chris marschner

        Chris, think about it. What do you call a woman that places monetary gain over basic self respect.

        These people enable the harraser. I am not excusing his behavior at all. Power id the ability to get another to acquiese to a demand. If all women the creep to go F himself he would never gain the power over them. Just how many movies could this guy produce if no woman would work for him based on his behavior.

        He is a cretin- no argument. However, he is not the only film producer in town. Others in the industry also sold themselves to him . You want his support you did what he asked. When the request means you must must degrade yourself for his gratification or abandon your firmly held beliefs because he is paying you its called prostituting oneself.

        • Chris marschner

          Should be ” tell the creep to go F himself”

          Courage is the willingness to risk loss. When talented people withhold services because they will not tolerate such behavior the harrasser will soon find himself surrounded by no talent suck ups and hos ability to make money needed to control others will vanish.

        • Still Spartan

          Reporting a sexual harasser once cost me a job and set back my career for years. Given I had irrefutable proof, the jerk’s defense was that I had invited the conduct in question. Even with one of the best firms in the world representing me – for free – I still settled for peanuts because it all comes down to he said/she said. If given the chance to do it over again, I wouldn’t report it and would have just quietly found a new job.

          • charlesgreen

            Thank you for sharing that.

          • Chris marschner

            You fought and won. But I have a couple of questions. You had irrefutable proof and he had just a claim that you invited it. How did it just boil down to just he said she said? I am not a tryer of facts but that seems incredible to me if you had top tier representation and you had to settle for “peanuts”.

            Irrespective of that you fought back. That is what all persons who feel aggrieved should do.

            • Still Spartan

              Nope. Biggest mistake of my life. I didn’t win. The amount I settled for did not make up for lost income. Plus, it earned me a visible demerit as a young attorney in DC.

              The defense is a simple one — the same that is used in rape cases. “She asked for it.”

            • charlesgreen

              Chris, why is it that – and it happens a lot on this blog – men persist in telling women what they should do or feel as women. White people persist in telling black people what they should do or feel as black people. Americans persist in telling Europeans what they should do or feel as Europeans.

              When the Others actually try to tell their own story – don’t we owe them the simple respect of trying to listen to what they have to say?

              • Chris

                All the while urging us to be ever-so-sensitive to the possibility of “microaggressing” against powerful white men who are triggered by kneeling.

                https://ethicsalarms.com/2017/10/08/morning-ethics-warm-up-1082017-tv-comics-law-deans-sports-and-california-everything-is-seemingly-spinning-out-of-control/#comment-473486

                • That’s just race-baiting, Chris. The objections to the silly, incoherent protest has nothing to the race of the protesters, only the place and time it occurs, the vague and simple-minded justifications for it, and the arrogance of the whole affair. I don’t take demographic polls of stupid protests before I gauge their appropriateness, and neither does anyone else worth paying attention to. You know, when Rick Monday tackled a protester trying to desecrate a flag in the outfield during a baseball game, nobody claimed the player was being a racist—but then, the jerk with the flag was white. I’m sure if it happened today and the flag-burner was black or Hispanic, the player would be accused of being “triggered” by the black protester. How embarrassing to even make such a claim. How pathetic to see the world that way.

                  Don’t interfere with my entertainment with personal political grandstanding. It doesn’t matter what the cause is, or who the player/actor/Muppet/ acrobat/sprinter/singer/ dancer/instrumentalist is, what his or her gender, nationality, color or creed is. That’s not what we’re paying for. Do your damn job.

                  I cannot imagine why that’s difficult to grasp.

                  • charlesgreen

                    “Race-baiting?” Seriously? I thought Chris’s use of the micro-aggression meme was laugh out loud funny. Why can’t us lefties use clever charges of hypocrisy as well as righties?

                    More seriously though. I recommend for all of us to read The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion, by Jon Haidt.
                    Here’s the CliffNotes version:

                    –Left-leaning people have a relatively narrow moral palette: they focus mainly on liberty and harm – the Utilitarian view of ethics, i.e. live and let live, if no harm’s done then there’s no harm period.

                    –Right-leaning people add about three other core values to their moral palette: loyalty, respect, and symbolism. They assign relatively equal weight to those five values, as opposed to the two-value moral calculus of liberals.

                    What this means is clear when someone raises an issue on the conservative three values: like flag-burning, saluting the flag, standing for the national anthem.

                    The liberal view is that symbols only have meaning for what they symbolize – like liberty. The conservative view is that not saluting the flag, not standing for the anthem, is a moral violation, an insult, a sign of disrespect and ingratitude, anti-patriotism, even bordering on treason.

                    And so we talk past each other.

                    I believe and accept that conservatives, including most on this blog, believe deeply and sincerely that NFL players taking a knee are ungrateful, unpatriotic, disloyal, insensitive, and basically kind of immoral. Again – I do not doubt the sincerity and depth of those beliefs. I respect those beliefs, and the people who hold them.

                    I also believe, for me personally, that those beliefs are ridiculous. I’m a good liberal: I focus on what the flag means, not the flag itself, and so forth.

                    What we’re missing in today’s debate (expertly triggered and exploited by the President) is respect for others’ moral belief systems. When people criticize Colin Kaepernick without recognizing the sincerity of his beliefs, the time and money that he’s spent on putting his money where his mouth is, you are not just disagreeing with him, you’re utterly disrespecting another person. And that’s just not all right.

                    So Jack, when you claim Chris is “race-baiting,” and that the NFL protests have “nothing to do with race,” you are being disrespectful – to Chris, and to the NFL players whose own statements refute your claims about them.

                    What we need is honest coherent disagreement, without all the inflammatory insults and ad hominem attacks. You don’t have to agree with Chris or me, and I don’t have to agree with you. But we all should, ought to, need to, respect the beliefs of others and their right to hold them.

                    • Still Spartan

                      Huzzah!

                    • Junkmailfolder

                      This is a sincere question, not meant to be snarky or a gotcha–do you not see any incongruity between this noble call for everyone to get along and respect each other and your comment you just made above about how Chris M’s opinions shouldn’t be shared with people who are different (more oppressed?) from him?

                      I really can’t reconcile how these two thoughts came from the same person in the same conversation, but I’d be interested to hear your rationalization.

                    • charlesgreen

                      “your comment you just made above about how Chris M’s opinions shouldn’t be shared with people who are different (more oppressed?) from him?”

                      Junkmail, I respect your sincerity in the question. But I honestly am not clear what you’re referring to in the above quote.

                      To be clear:
                      1. I believe Chris M should be able to share his opinion with anyone he wants.
                      2. I don’t believe I implied otherwise.
                      3. If I did imply otherwise, I hereby declare it was a mis-speak, an error, whatever you want to call it.
                      4. Is it possible you misunderstood me?

                    • Race-baiting. I have made it abundantly clear what’s wrong with the protests, and why fans object to it. The race angle is, as it often is, a way to stifle legitimate arguments. I don’t appreciate it, especially when it’s used on me.

                    • Junkmailfolder

                      @Charles

                      I’m referring to this post:

                      “Chris, why is it that – and it happens a lot on this blog – men persist in telling women what they should do or feel as women. White people persist in telling black people what they should do or feel as black people. Americans persist in telling Europeans what they should do or feel as Europeans.

                      When the Others actually try to tell their own story – don’t we owe them the simple respect of trying to listen to what they have to say?”

                      Chris’ advice was that people (not necessarily women) should stand up against people who mistreat them or others. Your response was that he, as a white, male American, shouldn’t tell others who aren’t white, male, or American, what he thinks they should do.

                      Putting aside the fact that almost all communication is intended to make someone either feel or do something, you’re essentially saying that his viewpoint isn’t valid or worth sharing because of his immutable characteristics. How in the world does that encourage us to “respect the beliefs of others and their right to hold them”?

                    • charlesgreen

                      Ah I see what you’re referring to, thank you for clarifying.

                      I think what I meant to say was not “that he, as a white, male American, shouldn’t tell others who aren’t white, male, or American, what he thinks they should do.” Though I’ll take some responsibility if it appeared that way.

                      What I intended – or, if you will, what I should have said more clearly – was that if you’re going to tell people whose experiences are different than yours what is the right thing to do, AND THEY’VE ALREADY TOLD YOU WHY THEY DISAGREE, it’s incumbent on the party of the first to understand where the other person is coming from, to ensure you’re not projecting your own belief systems on the others.

                      In this case, Chris M (I think it was Chris M) had said should have done X, and conjectured that she’d feel better if she had done so. Spartan replied that the opposite was the case. Chris M doubled down.

                      It’s both the initial presumptuousness, as well as the doubling down, WITHOUT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE POSSIBILITY OF THERE BEING ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE, that I found objectionable.

                      The right way to phrase objections like that is to be very careful about the use of caveats: “at the risk of projecting into a usually-female situation…” or “I realize I don’t know the specifics but I’m going to guess here…” Things of that sort.

                      What happens when you just assert normative propositions at someone, particularly in a low-bandwidth medium like blogposts (“you should have raised the issue at first, and if you had I’m sure you’d feel good about it eventually”) is just guaranteed to piss people off. Note Spartan’s reaction. And/or, you might just be wrong. Again, see Spartan, who told Chris that no she wasn’t proud of it, in fact she thought it was a huge mistake. For Chris to respond “No it wasn’t a mistake” is just plain disrespectful.

                      That’s what I intended to convey, though obviously without full success.

                    • “I believe and accept that conservatives, including most on this blog, believe deeply and sincerely that NFL players taking a knee are ungrateful, unpatriotic, disloyal, insensitive, and basically kind of immoral….
                      When people criticize Colin Kaepernick without recognizing the sincerity of his beliefs, the time and money that he’s spent on putting his money where his mouth is, you are not just disagreeing with him, you’re utterly disrespecting another person.”

                      To the first part of the quote that I selected, this is one conservative that doesn’t fit that description of yours. I believe the kneeling down is unwise, because the majority are either doing out for show/virtue signaling (ok..you’re “raising awareness”…now what? For most, they do nothing to follow up on their demonstration) and/or have no idea the truth behind what they believe.

                      Deadspin summed up Kaepernick’s original kneel was because he “wanted ..police officers to not shoot black people…”, implying this is strictly about black lives directly taken by police. Which grossly ignores that (according to the Washington Post Police shooting checker) 10 out of the 737 lives taken by cops were black and unarmed, which is 1 freaking percent; it also ignores that twice as many white (armed or not) lives are take by cops than black (armed or not). And before any goes spouting off about proportionality, make sure you also address the ratio of males to female lives take by cops (9 to 1). We accept this imbalance (as Ive mentioned else where on this site) because men put themselves into contact with cops at a rate disproportionate with their overall representation in the population, and have a disproportionate number of those interactions relating to violent crime, relative to females. Im not more likely to lose my life to a cop simply because I am a man. I am artistically more likely to engage in violent crime, as a an, and thus, am more likely to come into violent confrontations with police, which increases my chance of being killed by cop. Well, guess what? The same holds true for blacks. Black males represent 6% of the population, and are responsible for roughly the same amount of violent crime as whites. And yet, are killed less often.

                      If they want to protest, at least protest with facts, not emotion.

                      To the second part, if I sincerely hold that 2+2 is 22, my level of sincerity is irrelevant. To enable me to continue on that misguided belief, regardless of how sincere I am, is actively harming me, not helping. Coddling an adult whose acting with inaccurate information, and whose actions have brought professional harm to himself…is. Not. Helping.

                  • Chris

                    The “microaggression” term was first used in that discussion by Rich in CT, Jack, to describe the kneeling. I brought up race (and class and gender) because many here (though I can’t remember if Rich in CT was one of them) have completely dismissed this term when it is used to describe offenses against blacks and women. Rich using the term (presumably in all seriousness) to describe something the white male Vice President of the United States was offended by was too ironic for me to let pass. But perhaps he has not previously derided the concept of microaggressions; you have, so I expect you find his comment ridiculous.

                    The Rick Monday analogy fails for several reasons that I am sure you are already aware of. Any protester storming the field deserves to be tackled; a player choosing to kneel instead of stand during an anthem is nothing like a non-player invading the field and desecrating the flag. I can’t believe I even have to say that. Kneeling isn’t “desecration.” It is, again, a sign of respect, and has always been interpreted as one until people who don’t believe there should be *any* protests against police brutality of blacks of *any* kind chose to deliberately misinterpret the act of kneeling in order to accuse their political opponents of being America-hating Commies.

          • Still Spartan,
            Has the asshole corrected his sexually harassing behavior?

        • Chris

          You are really gross.

  8. Sue Denim

    Could be worse – they could have made him the Democrat nominee for President.
    He appears qualified by current standards.

  9. Other Bill

    Sparty. You did the right thing. You lost the case. So what? You lost some money. So what? Justice is blind and often stipid. You did the right thing. Be proud of yourself. Is a big firm partnership worth your self respect? No. And your daughters will do the right thing. They might not become masters of the universe but they will be good human beings and do the right thing because their parents did the right thing.

    • charlesgreen

      OB I think you’re entirely missing the point. You’re telling Spartan she should be proud of standing up for justice, that it’s only about some money, and she’ll gain in self-respect.

      Go read some of pieces being written by women about this stuff. This is not about the honor of standing up for The Good. This is about systematic, ongoing doubts of men in power that what a woman says is true, coupled with shunning, shaming, and serious threats of career death (did you read Spartan’s bit about having lost a few years of her career? Don’t you think maybe that’s more than “you lost some money, so what?”)

      There’s a reason that rape, sexual assault and gross behavior like this often get reported – it’s because the guy so often gets away with it!

      Let’s not forget that someone who bragged on camera about grabbing women by the pussy got elected President, because he convinced enough people it was just locker room talk. And let’s not forget before that, he threatened to sue everyone who made a claim of harrasment against him.

      In Hollywood, Weinstein probably had more power than Trump had. I find it entirely possible to believe that plenty of women do the calculus that Sparta did, and decided that the Honor of Doing the Right Thing was simply not worth it in public humiliation, shaming, and career suicide. Can you really blame them? (Sparta already answered that question for you, by the way)

      • Have you ever wondered why the guy often gets away with it?

        • Isaac

          This isn’t in any way unique to rape or sexual harassment lawsuits. Getting justice in court for anything is ALWAYS a risky and costly proposition, and the party with more money and less to lose by wrangling in court for months or years is always at an advantage.

      • “Let’s not forget that someone who bragged on camera about grabbing women by the pussy got elected President, because he convinced enough people it was just locker room talk. ”

        Why not just make a rule that you can’t say Trump got elected because…, without acknowledging the other horse that was in the race.

      • Other Bill

        I think you’re missing the point Charles, which is sometimes you just have to do the right thing. A career is just a multisyllabic word for a job. If you trade your self respect for a partnership at a megafirm, you’re at the top of a years long slippery slope. How many associates will your partners make you screw over for fun and profit going forward? What will forty years of being in sleaze sixty hours a week do to your soul? And trust me Charles, I know what it’s like to commit career suicide (your term.) I’ll send you the Arizona Supreme Court cite. Please don’t lecture me about what doing the right thing and standing up for yourself entails.

        • Isaac

          Just about the hardest lawsuits to fight without mega-powered help are SLAPP lawsuits, filed by wealthy entities (often companies or institutions) against critics in order to stop perfectly legal criticism.

          You can fight and win against a SLAPP suit, but the time and energy generally aren’t worth it, and in most cases, the critic just can’t afford to lawyer up and win. So the critic is forced to take down the offending blog post, or YouTube video, or whatever, effectively forfeiting their freedom of speech. Of course ’tis still more noble to take arms against the Herbalifes of the world and go bankrupt slaying the giant in court.

          That’s the crappy nature of trying to get justice and vindication the right and legal way. It’s often hard. No need to find the invisible hand of patriarchy at work, though, the courts are like that whether or not there’s a gender element.

  10. I guess this illustrates a general principle: sincere people work on what’s going on around them, then move on to correct the faults of the nation, world, and history. It’s a false activism that ignores what’s under your own nose while protesting what goes on at a distance.

  11. Still Spartan

    I haven’t even gone into the harassment at other jobs that I didn’t report or sexual assaults that I haven’t reported. Or the harassment or sexual assaults that my friends haven’t reported. Or the harassment that I watched other friends actually report with the same shitty result.

    I also won’t go into my case in any more detail because of the gag order — even though it was ages ago — but did you miss the part about the free representation? I had a top DC law firm representing me at no cost, and it still was one of the worst decisions of my life.

    Please stop telling the victims what they should do. Are you even hearing yourselves? Why don’t you spend a fraction of that time wondering why men do this (well, mostly men)? If your answer is: “Because the victims don’t report it,” then everyone here is an idiot. I’m at a senior level now, and I have never harassed anybody. My female friends who are partners at law firms do not harass their employees. This is about men. The same guy who whistles at you at the construction site will grab your ass in the corner office if he thinks he can. And while all men aren’t wired that way (I can’t even believe I had to write that), a lot of you are.

    • It’s not a man-woman thing at all, S. (Why do men do it? Men are pigs, they have power, they abuse it. Women harass too, when they can, if they have the power and are jerks. There’s no mystery.) It’s a citizen, do the right. Every woman who stayed quiet or accepted money allowed a Kennedy, Cosby, Clinton, Ailes etc to hurt someone else. They were scared? Yup, being responsible and ethical often requires courage and sacrifice. The fact that I understand it and sympathize doesn’t change the duty.

      • charlesgreen

        “It’s not a man-woman thing at all, S.”

        Really? Jack, do you hear yourself? Go ask ten women whether they believe sexual harassment is an equal opportunity offense. Come on, get real. No way it’s “not a man-woman thing.” That’s exactly what it is.

        • You do understand that argument can be extended to any demographic, and any sort of misbehavior?

        • I study and teach this, Charles. Women harass. Men Harass more, but women abuse power when they have it too. And I view Hillary as a harasser once removed, and an accomplice. And she’s a standard-bearer for women. Buletin: spousal abuse is also not just a man-woman thing. The fact that most people don’t know what they are talking about doesn’t change reality.

          • OH! I almost forgot: the attitude and misconception you just expressed, Charles, is why harassed men report the abuse even less often than women. They don’t think anyone will believe them.

            See: Michael Crighton’s “Disclosure.”

            • Chris

              OH! I almost forgot: the attitude and misconception you just expressed, Charles, is why harassed men report the abuse even less often than women. They don’t think anyone will believe them.

              Then it seems we need to work on changing the culture so that victims of sexual assault are given more trust and credibility.

              Or we could continue blaming women for not coming forward.

          • charlesgreen

            “spousal abuse is also not just a man-woman thing.”

            –85% of domestic abuse claims are against men by women; 15% of them are claims against women by men.
            –While women are less likely than men to be victims of violent crimes overall, women are five to eight times more likely than men to be victimized by a domestic partner.
            –Women are much more likely than men to be killed by an intimate partner. In 2000, intimate partner homicides accounted for 33.5 percent of the murders of women and less than four percent of the murders of men.

            Source: http://www.dvcpartners.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=48&Itemid=58

            I can’t believe ANYONE could suggest near-equivalency on this topic. It is just blatantly one-sided. The fact that it’s not 100% is generally used – as it’s being used on this thread – as a way of minimizing women’s very legitimate claims. It’s not just an abuse of statistics, it’s massive reality-denial.

            • Junkmailfolder

              Charles,

              Say what? Various surveys put the percentage of male victims who report domestic violence between 5 – 10%, while for women it’s between 27 – 30%. The CDC released data in 2010 (https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf) that reports that 5.4 million men had been victim to physical violence from an intimate partner vs 4.7 million women.

              • charlesgreen

                Junkmail,

                Kudos to you for choosing the CDC as your database of choice. Now you just need to learn how to read it.

                I wasn’t able to find your particular stat, but here are a few selected stats you chose to ignore, from the Executive Summary of the very CDC report you cited:

                1. Nearly 1 in 5 women (18.3%) and 1 in 71 men (1.4%) in the United
                States have been raped at some time in their lives. (That’s 13X more frequent for women than men, in case you’re keeping score).

                2. One in 6 women (16.2%) and 1 in 19 men (5.2%) in the United
                States have experienced stalking victimization at some point
                during their lifetime. (311% more frequent for women).

                3. Nearly 3 in 10 women and 1 in 10 men in the United States
                have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an
                intimate partner. (That would be 300% more frequent for women).

                There’s more where that came from (your source), if you care to read it.

                The clear conclusion from the study you cited is NOT the rough equivalence of male and female victimization – it’s the VASTLY MORE FREQUENT victimization of women. Which, come on, is common sense; how could you have thought otherwise?

                Say what?

                • Junkmailfolder

                  My apologies, I thought we were talking about domestic violence, not specifically rape and stalking, since that is specifically what your comment was addressing.

                  Page 38 is where I’m looking–the estimated number of victims of physical violence (which is what your post was talking about) in a 12 month period.

                  Boy is it difficult to not be snarky and point out that you’re moving the goalposts. And yet there I go…

                • Charles,
                  Really? You’re actually patronizing Junkmailfolder? Seriously Charles, after all your faux outrage about patronizing right here in this thread?

                  Hypocrite.

        • Other Bill

          If women dont confront this abuse, how will things ever get better?

          • charlesgreen

            “If women dont confront this abuse, how will things ever get better?”

            Uh, maybe when men take responsibility for their abuse, without having to be dragged into court by women?

            • Other Bill

              So your answer is “not any time soon?” You are waiting for predators to police themselves? Wishful thinking. Bill Clinton is going to stand down? We should wait for rapists to be nice to girls? Okay.

            • charlesgreen wrote, ” “If women don’t confront this abuse, how will things ever get better?”

              Uh, maybe when men take responsibility for their abuse, without having to be dragged into court by women?”

              I’m pretty sure that’s exactly the kind of logical reasoning skills that absolutely every criminal minded individual on the face of the planet would love all their victims to have.

              “Really? [Charles], do you hear yourself?”

              P.S. Is there some new drug they are going to put in the water supply to get criminals to be responsible and turn themselves in?

              • “Is there some new drug they are going to put in the water supply to get criminals to be responsible and turn themselves in?”

                I’ve got it; anyone that doesn’t voluntarily turn themself in after committing a crime and then get’s caught by police later and is convicted is automatically sentenced to death by firing squad immediately following their conviction – no appeals. Anyone that turns themself in, will only get jail time as punishment. There, that should inspire people to “take responsibility” for their actions, after the fact, and turn themselves in to save their own life.

                😉

      • Still Spartan

        Of course it is a man/woman thing. For the record, I do know of two women who are sexual harassers. Two. On the other hand, I’ve encountered dozens of men who fall into that category.

        Spend your energies educating and/or yelling at the aggressors, not the victims.

        • Victims who do not report are aiding and abetting the aggressors. Those who accept payment to do so…well, you fill in the blanks.

          • Still Spartan

            Victims get paid whether or not they report. If they fight openly in court and win, they get a jury award. If they settle, they get money — usually far less then they would get from a jury.

            They settle to avoid being victimized AGAIN by people who will doubt their story, argue they should have handled events differently, etc.

            Do you think Weinstein was an asshat before he became producer extraordinaire? My guess is that he was, but power made him immune from attack. Law firms and corporations do the same thing every day. They don’t want harassment to happen but, at the end of the day, they will protect the person who is making the most money for the company. That’s almost always the person in power and so it is an endless cycle.

            • Other Bill

              Sparty. You did the right thing. Good for you. Thank you. I hope some day you’ll feel better about having done so. I think you will.

              • charlesgreen

                “You did the right thing. Good for you. Thank you. I hope some day you’ll feel better about having done so. I think you will.”

                OB,
                I have no doubt you meant this sincerely and with good intentions. But do you realize how patronizing it is?

                One way to paraphrase what you said is, “I know you don’t think it was the right thing to do, but I, as a man with great ethical insight, know better than you do, despite you being a woman who was there. And oh by the way gender has nothing to do with it. And I have faith that you will someday come to recognize the error of your ways and agree with me.”

                How could a woman victim hear that as anything more than arrogant victim-blaming? Do you not think she has spent massively multiple more time than you have thinking about it? Do you not think she has the native (and legal) intelligence to have made an informed decision about her viewpoint?

                Spartan can speak for herself (and does so eloquently). But somebody has to give women some credit for being able to draw valid conclusions on their own, rather than a patronizing pat on the head.

                • Still Spartan

                  To be fair, I think Other Bill would have written that even if were a guy.

                • So, criticizing behavior of a woman is mansplaining and insensitive… complimenting the behavior of a woman is patronizing…

                  Phenomenal.

                  • Chris

                    That’s not what anyone wrote. Certainly you know that *some* criticisms are insensitive and unfair, and *some* compliments are patronizing. Charles did a good job showing how this particular compliment is patronizing.

                    • Except that absolutely nothing about the language used by Other Bill is patronizing. Charles had to force it into that mold, by obviously adding a ton of verbiage to suit his aims.

                      That OB’s comment has no patronizing tone to it, the only reason it could be patronizing would be that OB is a man.

                      This is a crap standard, and you know it it is.

                      If a benignly minimal comment like OB’s is patronizing, then ALL compliments, from a man, must be seen as patronizing. And above, charles lambasted Jack for not being a woman and criticizing conduct and attitudes of particular women. Jack’s criticism was fair. That being said, if fair criticism from a man to a woman is unfair, then ALL criticism is.

                      So yeah, charles has said precisely what I characterized as: “criticizing behavior of a woman is mansplaining and insensitive… complimenting the behavior of a woman is patronizing…”

                      That you spin this is phenomenal.

                    • charlesgreen

                      “absolutely nothing about the language used by Other Bill is patronizing.”

                      Really? If they’re still up to it, let’s ask the women on this blog whether they consider it patronizing to women.

                    • “I’m appalled at this blatant patronizing of women!” He declares as he simultaneously ponders “if they’re still up to” the challenge of posting opinion s anonymously online!

                      Tone

                      Deaf

                    • Chris

                      This is the comment Charles said was patronizing:

                      “You did the right thing. Good for you. Thank you. I hope some day you’ll feel better about having done so. I think you will.”

                      You do not perceive a patronizing tone there. I do. So did charles. The statement says that a woman’s feelings about a fairly awful experience will probably change in a way more suited to how the male speaker thinks she should feel about the experience.

                      Describing that as patronizing is not “spin.”

                      It is fine for you to disagree that this statement is patronizing; I have no illusion that you will ever be convinced that you’re wrong on that. But it would be nice if, one day, on some topic, you could believe that some people might interpret things differently than you, and that they could do so fairly, instead of always believing that your opinion is a goddamn fact.

                    • Chris wrote, “But it would be nice if, one day, on some topic, you could believe that some people might interpret things differently than you, and that they could do so fairly, instead of always believing that your opinion is a goddamn fact.”

                      Chris,
                      It would be nice if, one day, on some topic, you could believe that some people might actually mean what they actually wrote, instead of always believing that your twisted misrepresented version is a goddamn fact!

                    • Thank you for that Zoltar. I find it particularly insifferable when people get huffy and indignant that someone disagrees with them and then falls back on that lame martyr routine.

                  • charlesgreen

                    It was not a compliment.

                    He said she did the right thing.
                    She said no, she did the wrong thing.
                    His response? “You did the right thing.”

                    That is not a compliment, that is a flat-out contradiction of what she said; because, of course, he knows better than she does, not having been there.

                    • Charles,
                      Contradicting is not patronizing, you’re making shit up, plus you are intentionally trying reading things between the lines that simply do not exist; stop putting words on OB’s mouth. Sometimes it seems like you and Chris are are obsessed with misrepresentating others and attacking the messengers even when the messenger has done absolutely nothing wrong; is there some masters course on generating this kind of nonsense rhetoric to gin up faux outrage that you both attended that helped you both perfect this kind of nonsense?

                      Seriously Charles; this should have been one of those easy to reply to comments for Spartan to simply write “Thank you”, but no, you chose to reply, when a reply from you was unnecessary, with an attack on the messenger and take the thread to a dark place. Your deflection is a complete waste of everyone’s time. Congratulations, this is what experienced trolls do so well.

                      You’re really looking rather foolish pursuing this ridiculous line of argumentation; give it a freaking rest.

                    • janpchapman

                      I vote for patronizing.

                    • Other Bill

                      Thanks ZMan and Aggie. I bailed on this because I just couldn’t handle Charles’ comment to me. I wrote what I wrote as one human being who had gotten clobbered in a lawsuit to another clearly very intelligent human being who had been clobbered in a lawsuit. I’ve tried to go out of my way to be nice to Sparty and Chris and even not let Charles get to me. But it’s not working so for my own well being I am simply not going to engage with them anymore. It’s too dangerous. Count me out. I’m not sufficiently argumentative. And best of luck to Jack and Aggie and ZMan as you continue to engage with them.,

                      I will leave with one last observation that occurred to me: I am not allowed to speak to a woman on a certain issue because that is mansplaining, or something. But it is perfectly permissible for Charles, a man, to speak for Sparty, a woman on this topic. Strikes me as strange. Also, I thought I was careful to phrase my comment in a way that Sparty was free to take or leave. I expressed my thoughts and my hopes for her. I didn’t tell her what to feel or think. And finally, when did empathy become verboten?

          • It is important to report misconduct right away.

            It is much harder to ascertain the truth of an accusation made thirty years after the fact than an accusation made the day after.

            Not only that, there are statutes of limitations which may completely preclude any legal remedy.

          • Jack Marshall wrote, “Victims who do not report are aiding and abetting the aggressors.”

            I think it might be a better choice to use the phrase “enables the criminal” instead of the phrase “aiding and abetting”.

            The lack of action from victims of violent crimes who do not report the crime to authorities enables the criminal attacker to attack their next victim. Victims rationalize away their responsibility to report the crime and ignore the secondary consequences of doing nothing to stop the violent attacker. I have very pointedly asked ladies in the self-defense classes I used to teach, “what would you do to stop the attacker if you knew that the attackers next victim was going to be your 14 year old daughter”?

            Allowing violent criminals to go unchallenged by victims, using our justice system, does not encourage criminals to change their violent behavior and it certainly does nothing to remove the violent offender from the streets thus preventing them from attacking someone else.

            Any phrase that is relates to “you’re attacking/blaming the victim” is an unethical rationalization when the victim refuses to do what’s necessary to stop violent offenders.

            Victims of violent crimes who report the crime are doing what’s necessary to disable the criminal from attacking their next victim.

            There is a moral responsibility to report violent attacks!

    • Why was a gag order instituted? Was this to give force to a non-disclosure agreement, or some other reason?

      • Still Spartan

        All settlements of this nature involve a non-disclosure agreement. All pleadings, briefs, etc. are not available for public viewing.

  12. Has anyone noticed that the court of public opinion only has one side, the prosecution – aka SJW’s – aka the media, and that is slowly taking precedence over all rights granted in the Constitution.

    I don’t know if Harvey Weinstein is guilty of the things he is being accused of and I’m not going to jump on the smear/destroy him bandwagon based only on the smears published in the social justice warrior press. Doesn’t this person get the same “innocent until proven guilty” that everyone else gets or since it’s related to sex we’re just supposed to believe the accusers and destroy the accused?

    Now that we have the media as judge & jury rendering verdicts, and destroying lives as their SJW punishment do we even need the justice system. The justice system is obviously too slow for SJW’s. Next on the SJW agenda, vigilante punishment; oh wait, too late.

    Are we a nation of rights and laws or not?

    • It used to be that when someone was abusing others someone went to the police and then others followed suit and talked to the police, a case was built, and the abuser ended up in court; now the accusers bypass the justice system and take their case straight to the court of public opinion via the SJW media. Seriously people, it’s not going to be long and no one is going to be able to get a fair trial in the justice system because of the viral nature of SJW smearing in the media.

      • Still Spartan

        Citation for any of this nonsense? Throughout history, most victims keep their mouths shut.

        • Chris

          I, too, would like to hear of this magical time when cases of sexual assault were treated more fairly then they are today.

          • Chris wrote, “I, too, would like to hear of this magical time when cases of sexual assault were treated more fairly then they are today.”

            Chris, is publicly smearing the accused by the accuser(s) and the social justice warriors in today’s court of public opinion via the media “fair”?

            • charlesgreen

              How is that an answer to Chris’s request for evidence about the magical time you referenced in your earlier comment?

              • Charles,
                It’s so nice of you to encourage what is an obvious deflection from what I wrote.

                I did not say that sexual assault cases were treated more fairly in the past than they are today, and I also did not say that sexual assault cases are treated more fairly today than they were in the past; in fact Charles, my comment was not about sexual assault specifically, it was a generic statement about an overall trend of SJW’s, the court of public opinion, and the media.

                Additionally: You three do realize that there is more than one kind of abuse, right?

                Now Charles, why don’t you and your two buddies above address the main points I raised about the public smearing from the SJW’s in the court of public opinion and the media’s constant participation in the process of demonizing the accused before they have ever been convicted of a crime? Of course a deflection attacking the messenger by misrepresenting what was written is probably a lot easier and a lot more fun to argue about?

                • charlesgreen

                  “It used to be that when someone was abusing others someone went to the police and then others followed suit and talked to the police, a case was built, and the abuser ended up in court; now the accusers bypass the justice system and take their case straight to the court of public opinion via the SJW media.”

                  Zoltar, I agree with you considerably about the media – especially the late night talk hosts especially – sharing complicity in this event. That’s why I didn’t bother to “rebut” your claim. (though in fairness some of the media – e.g. the New Yorker – have been working on this stories for years, waiting on enough people being willing to go on the record).

                  Now, having responded to your “main point,” how about responding to Chris’s question about your direct quote above: Just when was this magical time when things worked so well? The 1980s? The 1970s? The 1950s? I’d like to know just when “it used to be” so different.

                  • charlesgreen wrote, “Now, having responded to your “main point,” how about responding to Chris’s question about your direct quote above: Just when was this magical time when things worked so well?”

                    Charles,
                    What has to happen for you and Chris to stop put words in my mouth?

                    • charlesgreen

                      You mean these words from your mouth?
                      ““It used to be that when…”

                    • Chris

                      What charles said.

                      No, it is not fair when accused are treated as guilty from the word go, and SJWs are largely responsible for this problem.

                      But you said… “It used to be that when someone was abusing others someone went to the police and then others followed suit and talked to the police, a case was built, and the abuser ended up in court.”

                      This is a naive statement. A more accurate one would be “It used to be that when someone was abusing others, they usually got away with it, because victims were afraid to come forward.” Which is exactly what happened with Weinstein for so many years.

                      The standard you describe is an ideal; there is no past time period where it was common practice. It is what we are working toward. Very often abusers still get away with it. Increasingly more common is abusers being tried in the court of public opinion, or being expelled from school without sufficient evidence. And of course, sometimes, they are fairly tried and punished. But we still live in a culture with massive disincentives for victims of sexual abuse to come forward, and this is the part of the equation that you’re leaving out.

                    • charlesgreen wrote, “You mean these words from your mouth?
                      ‘It used to be that when…’ “

                      Stop it Charles, just stop! You should know by now that I’m not that damned ignorant.

                      I could have said a billion different things after that snippet you quoted. Why didn’t you bother to quote the part where I supposedly said/implied that there was a “time when cases of sexual assault were treated more fairly then they are today”; I’ll answer that, because it doesn’t exist!
                      You’re jumping on this bandwagon to misrepresent me, that’s your choice. I won’t justify this misrepresenting deflection with anything more other than calling it exactly what it is; it’s BS; it’s a misrepresentation; and it’s a deflection.

                      Now, due to other events in life my patience is wearing thin today, can we be done with this nonsense.

        • Still Spartan & Chris,

          Warning, Warning!!!

          Both of your Cranial Power Generation Potentials are rapidly increasing.

  13. Weinstein is an ethics corrupter, but he also had the advantage of living in two extraordinarily unethical cultures, show business and politics, protected by a third, the news media. In the end, the fact that there are sexual predators enabled in Hollywood is no surprise, and neither should be the revelation that all of the pious—and politically effective—indignation by Democrats over the alleged sexual misconduct of candidate Trump was pure hypocrisy—after all, there was Bill Clinton. Nonetheless, there are still many Americans who thought Hillary, the Democrats, Meryl and the Hollywood glitterati were sincere. That they care about woman’s issues, rather than just find it useful to pretend to care.

    I link to this article about John Kass.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-trump-clinton-women-kass-0518-20160517-column.html

    I need not post the content of Kass’s article. I will point out that the acting industry elite do not exactly have a leg to stand on in criticizing Weinstein’s behavior.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s