I’m lounging in Richmond’s wonderful Jefferson Hotel, watching the hilarious and despicable parade of actors, actresses and Democrats—Hillary, the Obamas–rushing to condemn Harvey Weinstein now that his use to them is probably ended, and they see safety in numbers. Many of their statements—I was just listening to Mira Sorvino—mouth the same platitudes about how “this is no longer conduct that can be tolerated”—pssst: It was never tolerable behavior; your industry and colleagues just tolerated it anyway—and how it is essential that such sexual predators be stopped—pssst again: why didnt YOU do anything to stop it?– while saluting the courage of victims who come forward, without any adequate explanation in many cases of why they, or others, didn’t come forward for years and even decades while other actresses were victimized and even raped. (The alleged rape total is now up to three.)
Angelina Jolie said today that she was harassed by Weinstein a decade ago, decided not to work with him, and “warned other actresses she knew not to do so as well.” This dovetails nicely with another harassed non-reporting actress’s tale, that of Gwyneth Paltrow—years late, of course, that she was attacked by Weinstein, and her boy friend at the time, Brad Pitt, confronted him. Presumably Pitt also later knew about Jolie’s experience,being married to her and all. Brad Pitt was afraid to expose Harvey Weinstein? Sorry, I don’t believe it. I don’t believe George Clooney’s statement either, or long-time stars like Glenn Close. I also don’t understand Paltrow, whose father was himself an influencial producer. Her father wasn’t willing to stop Weinstein? Why not?
[CORRECTION: an earlier version of the post conflated Sorvino with Paltrow. Thanks to Spartan for the alert.]
This was a conspiracy of silence, abetted by Weinstein’s wallet. As long as he was a useful ally to ambitious actresses willing to exchange their ethical duties as citizens and human beings for parts and pay-offs, and liberal politicians employing wilful ignorance to keep money flowing to their campaigns and causes, Weinstein had a free pass to molest and abuse, and knew that he had a free pass.
The posturing by so many powerful people who could have made Weinstein a pariah at any time—but just not during the current campaign at the time, or while the latest promising Miramax project was being produced—is nauseating. Even if one excuses the struggling starlet—and I don’t, not when she’s struggling and afraid, and definitely not years later, when she knows what happened to her is still going on but she’s now a Hollywood power herself—there is no way to excuse the community. This isn’t sort of like inner cities that have a “no snitch” culture that allows crime, drugs and murder to rot everything while innocent victims are terrorized, it is exactly like them. Victims still have ethical duties as citizens and human beings. Of course it’s hard. If being ethical was easy, we wouldn’t have to keep talking about it.
Of course, the most complicit of all may have been Harvey Weinstein’s business partners, including his brother. There is no reasonable possibility that some, most, or all of them didn’t know that their meal-ticket was a sick, sexual predator. Certainly Weinstein’s brother, now running The Weinstein Company. Now I read in the Wall Street Journal before me that the company is planning on rebranding, taking the Weinstein name off of the company. The idea is that after a few successes and maybe some convenient amnesia, people will begin trusting the company again. Hey, let’s call it “Trust Entertainment”! (That’s my idea, not theirs.)
Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day:
Is this ethical?
My take, though I am, as always with ethics quizzes, open to a better answer, is no.
It would not be ethical for O.J. Simpson to have plastic surgery, a sex-change, and to invent a new identity so women would date him again
It would not have been ethical for Arthur Anderson to quietly keep the same personnel and culture and emerge as different accounting firm.
And The Weinstein Company should not get away with calling itself Trust Entertainment.
In “Marathon Man,” the William Goldman film and novel, a Mengele-like Nazi fugitive named Szell shaves his distinctive white hair and visits the diamond sector of New York City, pretending to be a Jew among the same people he tortured and killed on Hitler’s behalf. A concentration camp survivor recognizes him, and he is pursued down the street as the old woman points at him and screams, “SZELL! SZELL!”
If The Weinstein Group tries to hide from its accountability and past, everyone in Hollywood and the media should never allow the public and artists to forget what it did, who it hurt, and that it is a different company in name only.They should metaphorically point to every new project, every new enterprise, and cry, “Weinstein! Weinstein!”
Lest we forget.
UPDATE: By sheer coincidence, my wife and I rented “Wind River” after I posted this. It’s terrific. It also was produced by The Weinstein Company, which we only discovered in the closing credits.
I’ll be more careful next time. So should you.
Ethics Alarms 
I think you are confusing Sorvino with Paltrow.
Yup. Thanks. Easily fixed.
The board of directors should be sued for breach of fiduciary duty to the shareholders. If all of Hollywood knew of his behavior they did too. Reemerging under a new brand is deceit and an attempt to absolve themselves of their own culpability. They should all wear the same permanent scarlet letter they are hanging on Weinstein.
These directors facilitated his behavior and so did all those who were willing to trade their bodies for fame, power, and money. So long as we accept the idea that women are mere innocent victims in these cases and they had no choice but to submit to parasites such as Weinstein there will be plenty of wannabes who will trade on their sexuality to achieve a goal of fame and fortune. That alone will be enough to perpetuate behavior such as his.
Before anyone levels the charge that I am blaming the victims here ley me point out that everyone has a choice. I would rather be a no name pauper than be someones bitch for money. That is the ultimate betrayal of one’s dignity.
As the article clearly points out, the allegations against Weinstein include rape.
Would you like to withdraw the implication in your comment that rape victims “had a choice” and “traded on their sexuality” for money?
You know who he’s talking about Chris.
Yes, he’s talking about the hateful cartoon stereotype of women that exists in his head.
Odd…he’s envisioning a standard in which they are courageous enough to oppose a position abuser. You’ve got a stereotype that they are powerless weenies.
You know, for someone who accuses everyone who disagrees with him of “spin,” you sure do have an incredible talent for it.
I am sure if you wanted to, you could see the difference between “envisioning a standard where women are courageous enough to oppose a position abuser,” and calling any woman who doesn’t live up to that standard a whore.
But you don’t want to see the difference, and as experience has shown, you will never see what you don’t want to.
Drivel.
If you’d bother to pay attention to all of CM’s comments and not hone in on a single detail that CM didn’t even assert to Strawman *like you always do*, you might realize the point he’s making.
But you don’t want to see the difference, and as experience has shown, you will never see what you don’t want to.
Gee, why would anyone zero in on a single detail like calling abuse victims who don’t come forward prositutes (which is not a strawman; you’ve literally been defending that position this whole time, and can’t pretend otherwise now)? It isn’t like that detail is overwhelmingly distracting or anything.
And no one ever asked Mrs. Lincoln how the rest of the play was. Weird how people focus on such trivial details!
No, moron, Chris Marschner doesn’t minimize the crime of rape. It’s apparent he’s discussing all the points prior to any individual instance of rape in which the victims can oppose the abusive conduct of the abuser. But they don’t. They sacrificed all that for material gain.
We get it. It’s a sucky position to be in and it’s hard to resist pursuing personal gain for what temporarily appears to be a mere discomfort that “will pass”.
We get it. It’s a sucky position to be in and it’s hard to resist pursuing personal gain for what temporarily appears to be a mere discomfort that “will pass”.
You know what’s a real good way of showing that you get that someone is in a sucky position?
Not calling that someone a prostitute.
Seriously, this is basic empathy. Do you need flashcards?
LOL. After being called out for being an asshole once, he doubles down.
Have a good day, Chris.
I’m perfectly content to be an asshole to assholes who call rape victims prostitutes. Happy to do it, in fact.
I hope your strawmen keep you company the rest of the day!
I am sure you’ll be kept comfortable by the delusion that you haven’t spent all morning defending the exact disgusting argument you’ve spent all morning defending.
Whatever helps you sleep at night Chris, when you are ready to join the conversation, the grown ups will be over here recognizing that CM is criticizing all the tolerated conduct of abuse and harrassment prior to the horrendous rapes.
Gee, why would anyone zero in on a single detail like calling abuse victims who don’t come forward prositutes (which is not a strawman; you’ve literally been defending that position this whole time, and can’t pretend otherwise now)? It isn’t like that detail is overwhelmingly distracting or anything.
And no one ever asked Mrs. Lincoln how the rest of the play was either. Weird how people focus on such trivial details!
Chris,
Maybe you don’t realize it but you are the only one here using the words whore or prostitute, no one has called these women that as you are claiming. You’re exaggerating this to the point of complete absurdity.
This is another one of those times where you should have shut up.
Incorrect, Zoltar.
Chris M. said this:
What fear can they have except loss of money and fame. They are not in fear of bodily injury or death.
My point was there are enough people willing to prostitute themselves for fame and fortune that allows predators to feel they can get away with it.
Now, he did use the verb form of prostitute rather than the noun, so technically, you could be right. But let’s look at what he said about Weinstein’s accusers in another thread:
There is a reason why we call it the oldest profession.
When I asked what he was talking about, he replied:
Chris, think about it. What do you call a woman that places monetary gain over basic self respect.
Now, technically, he still did not call these women prostitutes! He simple made an implication that can only be read as calling them prostitutes (seriously, if you have another explanation for what he meant by “oldest profession,” or another answer to his question “What do you call a woman that places monetary gain over basic self respect,” I’d love to hear it).
His comments in this thread are just elaborations on this same original implication.
If you can delineate an ethical distinction between calling rape victims who did not react as Chris M sees fit prostitutes and heavily implying that they are prostitutes, then do so; I doubt it will be convincing. You’re resting your case on a technicality. It is very clear to any rational reader that Chris M was calling these women prostitutes. That is unethical. If you really want to spend your day hounding me because Chris M never actually used the noun form of prostitute, and merely asked rhetorical questions whose only possible answers are “prostitutes,” well, I can’t control how you choose to spend your time.
Chris wrote, “Chris M. said this:
What fear can they have except loss of money and fame. They are not in fear of bodily injury or death.
My point was there are enough people willing to prostitute themselves for fame and fortune that allows predators to feel they can get away with it.”
You supposedly quoted Chris M when you wrote “Chris M. said this:
… My point was there are enough people willing to prostitute themselves for fame and fortune that allows predators to feel they can get away with it.”
You’re a liar!
Chris wrote, “Incorrect, Zoltar.”
You wrote that and then proceeded to lie. You’re morally bankrupt.
The point is that no one has actually called these ladies a whore or a prostitute as you have falsely claimed, they implied it. Does the Middle School you teach English at know that you’re an idiot?
What the fuck are you on about now, Zoltar? Are you saying that Chris M didn’t say those things? They are direct quotes. He said them at October 11, 2017 at 9:08 am.
Why are you calling me a liar for accurately quoting him?
Chris wrote, “What the fuck are you on about now, Zoltar? Are you saying that Chris M didn’t say those things? They are direct quotes. He said them at October 11, 2017 at 9:08 am.
Why are you calling me a liar for accurately quoting him?”
Because here is the quote within this sub-thread where the conversatioin is taking place that I referenced from above; https://ethicsalarms.com/2017/10/10/ethics-quiz-branding-ethics-and-the-weinstein-scandal/#comment-473818 where he wrote, “These directors facilitated his behavior and so did all those who were willing to trade their bodies for fame, power, and money.”
The comment you were referencing was outside this sub-thread and I was not aware of it, this is an honest mistake. I’m surprised you didn’t notice this.
Chris it turns out that we are both correct. I was referencing the conversation in this sub-thread, you were referencing a quote outside of this sub-thread. So you’re not a liar in this regard and I apologize for calling you that. You were correct and I was correct.
Deeply appreciated, Zoltar. We both seem a little keyed up today.
Chris wrote, “Deeply appreciated, Zoltar.”
You’re welcome.
Someone who exchanges sex for monetary gain has become exactly, in actual fact, really and truly, unavoidably, and in no uncertain terms, a prostitute.
Using the correct word doesn’t imply or dictate that a person can’t sympathize with someone who feels pressure or temptation to prostitute themselves. It just means that it doesn’t do any good to lie about what happened. It’s like someone who commits adultery who says he “made a mistake.” Downgrading one’s behavior to make it more benign just keeps the door open for others to make the same errors without the necessary hindrances of shame and conscience.
Before anyone says anything dumb…the above is obviously referring to anyone who accepted sexual favors. I can’t take for granted that anything is obvious here in current year.
Apparently I have to remind people yet again that the “prostitution” line came in the context of allegations of rape, harassment, and abuse.
Women who did not report this abuse out of fear of losing their livelihoods were not “exchanging sex for monetary gain.” Suggesting that they were is repugnant.
Ducking my question, however. What is your characterization of those who submit to sexual exploitation to advance in their careers over those who refuse?
Ducking my question, however. What is your characterization of those who submit to sexual exploitation to advance in their careers over those who refuse?
My characterization of them is that they are victims, and we need to reshape the system so that no one ever feels the need to make this terrible choice.
There’s never a need to make that choice. That’s rationalization 25. The Coercion Myth: “I have no choice!”
When people say they had to behave unethically because they had no choice, it is almost always a lie. What they mean is that they didn’t like the choices they had, and taking the unethical option involved less sacrifice, less controversy, less criticism, less effort…in short, less courage, than doing the right thing. Ethics often requires pain; if making the ethical choice was easy, there would be no need to practice being ethical. You may decide that doing the right thing is too costly or requires more personal misery than you can bear—a lost job, a ruined reputation, financial capacity, punishment for breaking with tradition or rules—sometimes that is a reasonable choice. But you still had a choice, and you are still accountable for the choice you made
Nobody has to be an actor.
Probably the worst sexual harassment I endured (well, at least it’s up there) was at a popular family-owned restaurant.
Nobody HAS to do anything, although everybody has to eat. I’m unaware of an industry safe from this. Silicon Valley — nope. The military — nope. The law – nope (ha ha). The restaurant business — hell no.
Certainly some industries have more problems than others. If I want to avoid developing an eating disorder, I probably shouldn’t become a model. If I want to avoid head injuries, I probably shouldn’t become a football player.
But I should be able to go into any career of my choice without fear of enduring sexual harassment or assault. Yes, it happens everywhere, but saying that “I don’t have to be a _____” does nothing to advance the ball.
Yes, I think this is a fair assessment. But it can’t change if the harassers aren’t reported, and the more women who report, the stronger the reports are. And men have to report as well. On each other. And I have. More than once. AND told women who worked for me to report. It’s the only way to fix this. And yes, making them pay helps, as long as the settlements are backed by internal discipline, like firing, which it was in the cases I was involved in.
Settlements good. Cover-up pay-offs bad.
Reminds me of Penn State and the Catholic Church, institutions that looked the other way on the unethical rot within. Assuming the allegations are true, the people speaking up now must have been really in fear. I find it close to victim blaming by saying they should’ve said something sooner. Yes they should have in hindsight.
I fear that this is just the tip of the iceberg.
The current victims are watching how this plays out and will decide to come forward or stay in shamed silence.
Showing empathy is not being naive.
What fear can they have except loss of money and fame. They are not in fear of bodily injury or death.
My point was there are enough people willing to prostitute themselves for fame and fortune that allows predators to feel they can get away with it.
“I’m not blaming victims, I’m just saying victims of harassment, assault and rape are prostitutes.”
Seriously, Chris Marschner. What is wrong with you?
There’s nothing wrong with him, and you know it. Yes, the women are victims of harrassment. That being said, they were in a position to report what occurred. They did not and so accepted the established relationship in order to gain fame and fortune.
This isn’t hard to realize.
Do you agree with his characterization of women who were raped by Weinstein and did not come forward as “prostitutes?”
I agree with his characterization that any individual who chooses not to confront the sexual crimes and sexual aggression of another in order to advance their own material well being, in such a fashion that they are essentially exchanging those crimes against THEM for THEIR own material advancement, are behaving in a way that can be called “prostitution” for effect.
See, you are minimizing an individual’s duty to oppose evil and holding those individuals to a lower standard. Or maybe you just expect less of women. I donno.
No, I do not expect less of women. This testimonial from a male victim explaining why he did not come forward is powerful to me. I don’t expect it will be to you, because you lack empathy.
“I don’t expect it will be to you, because you lack empathy.”
This is the way assholes, like you, indicate you have nothing useful to say.
Sure, I’m the asshole, not the guys saying that women who are intimidated by their abusers are prositutes.
Is rent just super cheap in Bizarro World or something?
“Is rent just super cheap in Bizarro World or something?”
No, actually Cost of Living in California is exorbitant.
A prostitute is someone who trades sex for money. A victim of unwanted sexual advances who does not report it because it means that she may never be able to work in her chosen field ever again is not a prostitute. She is someone who has been put in a horrible position. And, even if she does report it, the chances are that she will not be believed and it will be all for nothing unless there is concrete evidence of the conduct in question in addition to evidence that it was unwanted. It’s almost impossible to prove both of those elements as sexual advances typically happen behind closed doors.
Thank you. It’s amazing to me that this still needs to be explained.
Correct. No one says the victims in question weren’t in a very difficult situation.
And ethical people don’t say that victims in a very difficult situation are “prostituting themselves.”
Keep missing the point Chris Marschner was emphasizing.
I get his point just fine. It does not change the fact that ethical people don’t say that victims in very difficult situations are prostituting themselves.
What point could possibly change that fact?
This dodge only goes so far. We saw what happened with Cosby; I saw the same happen where I worked. A habitual harasser was finally accused, and dozens of past victims finally came forward to back up the accuser. Sexual harassment accusations are taken very seriously. If anything, I’ve seen unfair assumptions that the accused is guilty. The accusation is harmful even when it can’t be substantiated.
Yes, it’s always a horrible situation when doing what is right may cause oneself pain and hardship. This is the definition of an ethical dilemma.The idea is to choose ethics over non-ethical considerations, the welfare of others over ones own interests.
I think your experience on this is more limited. As a person who has been harassed multiple times, as well as someone who practiced employment litigation for years, you are just wrong. Sure, employers do training on this — and pay lip service to the ideal, but people are only fired if they are low level managers or colleagues. If the harasser is a partner or money driver for the company, the harasser stays on and the accuser is paid a settlement and is given glowing references if she agrees to find a new job.
I don’t know where you get this. It’s simply untrue. I saw law partners dumped from firms. I saw a major association exec canned and destroyed. Bob Packwood. Highly regarded teachers and professors. A board member of mine, a doctor, was kicked out of his organization because of an accusation with minimal proof. Many, maany situations where top leaders were punished severely after investigations. And it doesn’t matter anyway: you either oppose a corrupt system, or you support it.
Accepting money to support it is always wrong. This is why trial lawyers oppose confidentiality agreements as unethical, and so instruct clients, though it’s still a client’s call.
I guarantee you that I have more experience in this area. There are always exceptions to the rule though.
Look at Weinstein — the very case you are discussing. There are people who knew. Settlements were paid. Do you think those were paid by him personally or by his corporation? Lawyers and insurance companies were involved. Yet, he stayed on for three decades DESPITE WOMEN REPORTING IT. There’s no settlement without a report.
They kept him on until the scandal hit and he became a liability. End of story — and it’s the same story, over and over again.
So, maybe the countless and pointless essays on victim blaming here should shift to, “Why was Weinstein kept on if there were at least three settlements paid to victims?”
Ahahahaha, maybe in about 1/3 the cases the accuser gets a settlement and glowing references. In the other 2/3 she is told to shut up or be blackballed in the area or suddenly she finds herself fired, strictly on the basis of her performance, of course. The partners and rainmakers also don’t like competition in the same age group for their targets. I was warned against harassment once when I was a 28yo associate for asking “Jane” (not her real name), a law clerk 3 years my junior who shared my interest in music, if she wanted to have coffee, by the same partner, “Frank,” 65 and a confirmed dirty old man, who later squeezed Jane’s ass at the firm Christmas party, then leered at her and told her not to get all sensitive about a joke.
Jane complained to me and asked if I would back her. She also took her case to one of the other partners, “Peter.” Peter pulled me aside, I told him my account, and he told me that while he was sympathetic to Jane, Frank was the top guy, he was junior to him, I was junior to both of them, and Jane was just a temporary clerk, not worth a partner getting involved in a messy political battle or an associate putting his job in jeopardy for. Make no mistake about it, Peter would have lost a chunk of his equity and I would have lost my job if we had pressed the point. Peter had just bought a Lexus he was making payments on and I had student loans to pay. So we pulled Jane aside, Peter told her he wasn’t taking Frank on, I told her I would say I didn’t see or hear anything, and if she was wise she’d try to land something new for the upcoming summer, keep her head down until the end of the school year, and not start her career as someone with a reputation as a troublemaker, because no firm would touch her then.
Reality bites sometimes.
Thanks for sharing that story, Steve.
Thank you Steve.
“Yes, it’s always a horrible situation when doing what is right may cause oneself pain and hardship. This is the definition of an ethical dilemma.The idea is to choose ethics over non-ethical considerations, the welfare of others over ones own interests.”
Thank you. It’s amazing to me that this still needs to be explained.
It fits for the ones who continue to do business with him.
One, only one rape conviction would have ended all of this.
“It fits for the ones who continue to do business with him.”
Matthew! How dare you victim blame! I’m awash in virtue signalling!
WTF? He’s not out there victimizing actresses at the top of their game, he’s doing it to no-name naive young actresses who have no say in where they work. What an ignorant comment.
To be fair, I’m not sure those descriptions apply to Paltrow and Jolie at the time the harassment against them occurred.
Which still doesn’t make victim-blaming them ok, either.
Lazy comment. When past victims are in a position to protest future victims and don’t because of current self-interest or apathy, they deserved to be blamed. Or do you really think that one-time victim status provides a lifetime pass? Paltrow always had power. Her mother was an established actress. Her father was a successful TV producer. Her boyfriend was a superstar. Jolie: her father was a A list actor. Her husband was a superstar, So was she. She was widely admired, even idolized. An accusation at any point before last week by her would have been devastating, and the risks were minimal. She is accountable.
I haven’t even taken issue with the idea that they’re accountable for not coming forward, though I am sympathetic to them for not doing so. But I also see the point that they had an ethical obligation to do so despite how hard it was.
I have taken issue with saying they were “prostituting themselves” by not coming forward, and you should, too.
Actually, it did. Neither was a known commodity yet — despite their star parents,
As I just wrote, no, it didn’t. Certainly not years later, when both women were Hollywood powers. What stopped them then?
Probably what stopped them is the same reason that I haven’t documented the numerous times I have been harassed over the years (ranging from comical to serious). What’s the point? I don’t think you get it. It happens so frequently in the work place that it becomes something you just have to accept.
This is so widespread that no amount of reporting will change a damn thing. The power structure itself is diseased.
Chris marschner wrote, “My point was there are enough people willing to prostitute themselves for fame and fortune that allows predators to feel they can get away with it.”
I understand your point but your use of the word prostitute is hyperbole.
I actually only learned of the Weinstein company a few weeks ago when I was trying to find Wind River in theaters. As soon as I learn of it, it implodes. Hmmm….
Well, he was the money man and I’m not clear whether the director of “Wind River” knew anything about Weinstein’s awful behavior. Still, his brother certainly knew about it and whatever they decide to name the production company these upcoming movies should be boycotted by anybody that gives a damn about ethics in Hollywood.
Hollywood has a conveniently short memory though.
I am perplexed as to why I should care. I’m certainly not surprised. Am I supposed to think less of Weinstein’s films now I know he’s a scumbag? Should I seek a morality report on all participants and coaches and owners before I next go to a football match? I am only interested in Serena Williams because she plays great tennis. Can’t I only be interested in Weinstein because he makes great films? The victims can claim their redress in the courts (good luck to them) and if Weinstein has engaged in criminal behaviour he should be pursued and charged. All the reported players here are adults and have considerably more relevant power than I do. I will not be joining the lynch mob.
I’d probably ask someone to register that opinion if I wasn’t sure someone would: thanks.
You need to think that through: if a an entity knowingly provides power and wealth to someone who uses both to do substantive harm, at what point does that harm outweigh whatever good they do in your eyes? It’s really a cognitive dissonance test: do you give a damn that supporting the work of, say, Woody Allen gives tacit endorsement to his misogyny? Your position is exactly what Hollywood’s position has been, and Hillary’s, and the Democrats. “Why should I care? He makes good movies! He isn’t harassing ME.” This is exactly the attitude that Democrats used to protest Bill Clinton, and the attitude that protected Weinstein.
Presumably, you would feel the same about the films if TWC kept its name, right? So they aren’t trying to deceive YOU; they are trying to deceive others who prefer to do commerce with companies that don’t facilitate predators. As do I.
ProteCt old Bill, not protest, right? (normally innocuous, but changes the whole meaning in this case)
How much of the flood of outrage heaped upon Weinstein (justifiable though it may be) by the Hollywood elite is attention diversion from any number of them who were and actively still are serial abusers of their power?
A lot, is my guess.
Seems all the abusers aren’t heterosexuals.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3611046/I-molested-passed-Corey-Feldman-details-horrors-Hollywood-pedophile-ring-reveals-Corey-Haim-just-11-raped-leading-life-drugs.html
Who said they were?
Too complicated for me. Do I risk seeming to support Woody Allen’s ‘mysogony’, or his politics? I certainly don’t intend to. Maybe there should be special seats for those like me with only a narrow interest in the film rather than the participants. I enjoyed a Sophocles play quite recently. I didn’t even think whether he might have been a pedophile or had slaves or multiple wives? Should I have? It was simply a great play.
I also don’t follow all the flak about ‘prostitution’. Rape is a terrible crime but prostitution is simply a transaction, legal but regulated in much of the western world. If freely entered into by both parties I can’t see that it is necessarily ‘unethical’. In a robust, freedom loving, self reliant culture (such as you celebrate) what is the problem? Maybe you’ll say it is ‘exploitation’ and an abuse of power? Well my employers ‘exploited’ me for decades with the implied threat that if I didn’t perform I’d be fired. I seek no sympathy.
This reminds me of a case I had in my days in the labor section. One of our police officers was a pedophile. Not only did his wife know about it, but she offered to babysit for all the local families who had young girls, to guarantee him access, and she later lied on the stand for him. It was more important to her that she preserve her meal ticket than that she protect kids from the sick fuck she was married to. Meantime a lot of the families kept quiet and just wouldn’t let her babysit anymore, to avoid making trouble in the community. He managed to escape criminal consequences due to the prosecutor allowing someone onto the jury who’d also been in trouble for fooling around with kids, but there was no saving his job – the administrative law judge wrote in very clear terms that “the appellant exposing and stroking his penis in front of the four-year-old victim was no accident.” The man was a slug, who should be warming a prison cell and getting regularly raped by Bubba, but cowards made that impossible.
Are you subtly implying that Left wing purveyors of humorous commentary have a double standard in who they vilify?
That would be so unlike me…
Note the weaselly-worded statement by HRC: “The behavior described by women coming forward cannot be tolerated.”
Gosh, no intentional wiggle room there, eh? Reminiscent of the “Name That Party” game Lefties LUV to play.
Remember when those Bell, CA Lefties got caught with their ‘nads in a ringer?
(bolds mine throughout)
09/21/2010 : “Today, eight city council members were arrested in Bell, California for what Los Angeles County District Attorney labeled ‘corruption on steroids.’ Thus far, every major news outlet that has reported on the story has omitted the fact that all eight individuals arrested are Democrats.
”These glaring omissions come only weeks after NewsBusters reported that of the 351 stories on the then-brewing controversy, 350 had omitted party affiliations, and one had mentioned they were Democrats only in apologizing for not doing so sooner.
”ABC, CBS, the Los Angeles Times, the Associated Press, Bloomberg, USA Today, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, and the San Francisco Chronicle all reported on the arrests today without mentioning party affiliations.
”One commenter at CNN’s online story got it spot on: ‘I notice there is no mention of the party affiliation of the accused. I can find no mention of it in any story on the internet. This must mean they were all Democrats.‘ ”
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/lachlan-markay/2010/09/21/eight-dems-arrested-bell-ca-corruption-steroids-not-single
Media bias? There ain’t no stinkin’ media bias!
Hmm, Harvey’s wife is leaving him. I wonder if Hillary can go for the Are-You-Kidding-Me Grand Slam and signal her approval.
”I wonder if Hillary can go for the Are-You-Kidding-Me Grand Slam and signal her approval.”
I think HRC’s too smart (read: diabolically evil genius) for that.
Extending your baseball metaphor, her critics (EVIL White sexist Patriarchs notwithstanding) would knock that not only out of the park, but out of the parking lot.
“Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.”***
Unless the incidentS involve my husband.
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2017/oct/10/late-night-hosts-blast-harvey-weinstein-for-monstrous-indefensible-behavior
Several days and thousands of devastating memes later, at which point they didn’t really have a choice. And in doing so, had to address the issue of their ignoring the story for so long…by sandwiching Weinstein jokes in between Trump jokes. It’s almost as pathetic as if they’d just kept on ignoring it.
Whaddya bet they drew straws to see who’d break ranks and fall on their sword?
Jack wrote, “This was a conspiracy of silence, abetted by Weinstein’s wallet. As long as he was a useful ally to ambitious actresses willing to exchange their ethical duties as citizens and human beings for parts and pay-offs, and liberal politicians employing willful ignorance to keep money flowing to their campaigns and causes, Weinstein had a free pass to molest and abuse, and knew that he had a free pass.”
Remembering that this is all coming from the Hollywood and they’re “all” actors; if all these accusations are completely true then there is a VERY SERIOUS institutionalized moral bankruptcy problem corrupting the entire Hollywood entertainment industry! The institutionalized corruption is not only at the offender level but also those that enable the offenders to continue the abuse and that includes the victims.
The Hollywood facade has been slowly peeling away in recent years revealing just how deep the tentacles of institutionalized corruption go. How can we as a society support an industry that is so utterly institutionally corrupted that morals are set aside in favor of doing whatever it takes to become rich and famous.
P.S. How should the direct and indirect support of an industry that is institutionally corrupted reflect upon those the corrupt industry supports?
These Weinstein accusations brings a new light to Trump’s locker room banter on the bus; could it be that voicing those opinions were the direct result of the perceived institutionalized corruption that has existed for famous/powerful people in Hollywood for years?
Heck, maybe Weinstein told Trump this stuff and Trump parroted it, Trump does seem to parrot routinely. 😉
This reminds me of the 80s anti-drug commercial where the dad comes into the bedroom and yells “where did you learn this stuff?” kid replies “I learned it from you okay!?”
Maybe someone should put Trumps head on the kid and Harvey’s head on the dad? I’m not that talented with video editing….
Also…once all is said and done, which will be the bigger news story this year? Hurricane Harvey or Hollywood Harvey?
Tim LeVier wrote, “which will be the bigger news story this year? Hurricane Harvey or Hollywood Harvey?”
Neither, with the current news media and Trump, It’ll probably be something like Trump took a dump.
Well, just wait. I bet Harvey Keitel dies for the trifecta and it will just be “2017 was the year of ‘Harvey’ “
As for the quiz; it’s not ethical to change the name.
I agree, but I think it’s meaningless until the ownership of the company is addressed. What part does Harvey still own? Should Bob still be a part of it? Should it all be sold off to another studio or investment firm? Or is a change of the window dressing sufficient to wash their hands of it?
I’m not saying they shouldn’t change the name, but I think it’s too early to change the name. They should wait until the full scope of this scandal is revealed, if only because whatever the name of the company is, it will continue to be referenced in articles and lawsuits. Why waste a name change when it is so far from being over?
Of course, I suppose the other consideration is that any film about to be released will have the “Weinstein” production company card at the front and those cards are eternal. If you know the name’s gonna change, might want to ensure nothing new carries the name.
Interestingly enough, in the clip provided above, when the elderly Jewish woman recognizes Szell, points him out and begins chasing him down the street, begging for people to help her, she is completely dismissed by the onlookers. You can over hear two gentlemen talking. One says something about her screaming and the other says “Eh, she’s crazy. I don’t know”.
What’s interesting about it?
I believe it represents the fact that she was screaming for help and no one helped her. She was dismissed as crazy. It is a representation of what a victim who sets off the alarms would get and provides a visual example of why these female stars kept quite.
Again, as stated above there are several victims (of these types of crimes not involving Harvey W.) watching this current event to see how the “victims” are treated.
Will they be dismissed, called crazy?
There is social pressure to keep quite. Not to say the King has no clothes (crappy analogy, sorry)
Well said.
Does anyone remember that episode of The Good Wife where a victim of rape runs through the front door of the firm and asks to talk to the female named partner, because the female named partner is an outward feminist, and the prospective client had been raped?
The twist was that the rapist was a Democrat. A powerful one, running for office. And the female partner had a real crisis of faith… Rape victims were to be listened to, and believed. But if they took the case, they’d be smearing a powerful Democrat. With the right politics. And it could be bad for the firm! The entire episode happened over the course of a couple hours while PIs worked to determine the truth, calls came ringing in from the politician’s wife, and the partner’s friends, urging her to drop the case for the greater good. At the end of the episode, the partners were fairly certain that something had happened, and were going to go ahead, but the victim, having seen the ordeal of merely being represented, walked away.
This trope… of Tribalism warring with values and tribalism winning, isn’t new. We didn’t discover it in the last week. Clinton, Cosby, Weinstein, Ailes, O’Reiley.,. But I’m wondering what the tribe IS, in fact… Because the tribe isn’t a pure Democrat/Republican divide. Bill Cosby is not a Democrat, but if you want me to believe that no one in deeply blue Hollywood knew what was going on, I’d like you to take a look at this bridge I’m selling. The divide isn’t a Victim/Abuser mentality… I don’t care if you think the victims have a duty or not to come forward, the people around these abusers, ones who were not victims, didn’t come forward either. The divide isn’t even in a power discrepancy… People like Brad Pitt, Angeline Jolie, Glen Close, people who were unaccountably powerful decades ago *still* didn’t come forward. Is the answer a strange mixture of the three, with different divides effecting different people in a perfect storm of silence? Or is the divide Hollywood/Everyone else?
It always hit me as deeply off that Hollywood and Academia generally insist that we live in a rape culture, that America is best described as a rape culture. It seems facially obvious to someone like me that we don’t; rape isn’t condoned, celebrated, or institutionalized. Our system isn’t perfect, it sometimes fails to see the forest through the trees, cognitive dissonance is a bitch, but generally, I feel we get it right… And so it always struck me as odd that they would insist this to people that knew better.
But then again… We all live in our bubbles right?
Projection of one’s own guilt onto the whole culture?
I’m wondering. Often part of the reason I think that proponents of opposing views end up speaking past eachother because the paradigms they live in are so different.
Up here in Canada, there was a fad for a season where Native Canadians would wear t-shirts that looked like those old “Got Milk?” dids from the 90’s, except they said: “Got Land? (Thank an Indian). When you talked to one of the people wearing those shirts, they would invariably say something like: “YOU STOLE OUR LAND!”
This seemed absurd to me. I didn’t. My parents didn’t. My grandparents didn’t. This thing that happened to your people happened so long before either of us was born, that while I can feel sympathy for your cause, I don’t feel an iota of guilt. But that was the culture they grew up in: Whitey stole their land, it’s obvious; they used to have it, and now they don’t.
I’m struggling to think of a paradigm where one could believe, genuinely believe that we live in a rape culture, without being surrounded by one. Because it seems facially absurd to people like me, who live in the world outside their bubble.
I do remember that episode, HT! (And your comments have been on fire lately.)
See what Steve-O said above. He hit the nail on the head. Part of the reason my case was weakened is that two senior associates who knew of/witnessed the harassment were not helpful during interviews with my counsel. They made it clear that they were putting their own jobs over helping a friend who had already quit the firm. After my settlement, I similarly had to say “no” to another employee at the same firm who was being harassed and reached out to me. I told her that I couldn’t speak to her at all, and that if they wanted any information, it would only be if I received a subpoena. I felt like garbage, but that’s the way a non-disclosure agreement works. I was never called to testify, so she either settled or decided not to press her case.
The problem here isn’t that victims don’t speak up, it’s that victims are powerless. Absent social media and the damning court of public opinion, Weinstein would still have his job and women would still be getting harassed/raped.
I talked about this at length with my entertainment lawyer husband. He said that there is a 0% chance that the studios didn’t know (including Disney, which I believe bought Weinstein’s company) — but it is possible that they didn’t know the extent of the abuse. He said that it is such a crap shoot over which movies would make money that they were willing to overlook Weinstein’s transgressions because he was perceived to have the winning formula.
It’s always about the money.
There is no indication that Paltrow and Jolie,, among others, were paid and signed confidentiality agreements. You have been writing as if Weinstein paid hundreds—that’s not what the reports suggest.. If they did not sign them, then they could have come forward. You couldn’t have, in your situation.
Confidentiality agreements are illegal in a few states, Good.
Here’s my question to you. We know of at least 3 settlements. How many in your book would have changed his behavior? 4, 8, 1000? Keep in mind that for most of this time, Weinstein’s company was privately owned. Putting aside assault, he could have committed as many civil harassment violations as he wanted and it wouldn’t have changed a damn thing because he was the owner of the company. So, even if EVERY actress complained about his creepy attempts at using the casting couch, it would have achieved nothing because he was the Producer. You either keep your mouth shut or you don’t get to work at all. The only reason he was fired is because his company is now publicly owned.
1. Eight settlements.
2. No “book.” Settlements with confidentiality agreements don’t change behavior. They allow misconduct and crimes to continue. See: General Motors.
3. You can’t possibly believe the last part. Corrupt and cowardly journalists and business partners allowed the crimes to continue. If every actress complained, Weinstein would be no more able to continue in business than Bill Cosby is able to get a new sitcom.
I’m not buying it. While it’s possible… likely, even, that your experience, and Steve’s, was par for the course at the time it occurred, I think it fails to take into account that it is currently 2017, and my Prime Minister is wont to say, and things are different now.
Weinstein has settled cases, sure, but he didn’t settle hundreds, there aren’t NDA’s framed in every Hollywood living room as some kind of sick cultural icon. And believe me, the victims coming forward will be able to continue working in the future. Angelina Jolie is not about to allow herself to be blackballed. This is not your mommy’s Hollywood, this is not your granny’s America.
But Angelina Jolie might have been blackballed 20 years ago.
You want to argue they couldn’t have come forward, because it would have derailed their careers? That seems an awful lot like a choice, and I can’t help but think it reflects on their values. But sure, they, made it. We can judge that, but there’s an argument that a rational, self interested person wouldn’t have done differently.
And then somewhere along the way, that excuse waned. Sometime between 1997 and 2017, the people coming forward now gained status sufficient to deal with the press, somewhere between 1997 and 2017 there was a cultural shift, outside of Hollywood, if not in it, that facilitated the victims. Sometime between 1997 and 2017, these victims shifted from being scared of repercussions, to an indifference toward the damage Weinstein was doing. Because 2017 Angelina Jolie, after a gigantic career, beating cancer, and life in the spotlight, gives zero fucks.
Jessica Barth, Zoe Brock, Liza Campbell, Emma de Caunes, Cara Delevigne, Lucia Evans, Dawn Dunning, Romola Garai, Louisette Geiss, Louise Godbold, Judith Godreche, Heather Graham, Ambra Gutierrez, Angelina Jolie, Katherine Kendall, Laura Madden, Gwyneth Paltrow, Zelda Perkins, Tomi Roberts, Lea Seydoux, and Lauren Sivan, all waited until Ashley Judd, Asia Argento, Mira Sorvino, and Rosanna Arquette came forward first. And God knows how many others there were.
“We can judge that, but there’s an argument that a rational, self interested person would have done differently.”
wouldn’t
Fifty five years ago my father closed his successful business and walked away rather than pay kickbacks to a corrupt Shire Engineer. In those days there was no practical way to report such practices and have them investigated, and he would certainly have been sued for slander if he had tried to speak out. The cost to our family was considerable but my parents bore it because they would not submit to this corruption.
Thirty eight years ago as a fairly newly married husband with a new mortgage and a wife who had been retrenched a week ago I refused to do a certain piece of work despite the fact that my employer told me I had to do it or be fired.
I have some personal history that allows me to relate to these women, sans the possibilities of fame and vast wealth!
I fully accept that these women may have felt they didn’t have any viable way, at the time, to bring this creep down, but they could have walked away. Truth is that they MUST have known that the ‘casting couch’ was in play – hell, I was aware of the concept and I’m a bloke living on the opposite side of the world – and they went into that perverted industry prepared to do pretty much anything in exchange for fame and fortune. Their failure to stand up and be counted contributed to, even encouraged, Weinstein abusing women for decades to come. Whilst the scale of the crime is different these actresses, and many of the actors who must have known as well, are as guilty as the guards at Auschwitz, except they certainly wouldn’t have faced execution if they stood up; or at least walked away.
The story of Telemachus has probably been embellished but he deserves a place in your ethics heroes list none the less Jack. Certainly no one in Hollywood does.
I’ll get off my high horse now and hope that when my time comes around I won’t be found wanting.
I didn’t think we could top “Harvey Weinstein’s victims are prostitutes,” and now we have “Harvey Weinstein’s victims are as guilty as the guards at Auschwitz.”
I wonder why more women don’t post here.
Funny you should say that. I’ve had some female friends who read this blog comment to me privately that these posts have caused them to abandon Ethics Alarms.
Well, anyone who can’t stand thinking about things in different ways than their favored echo chamber is urged to leave. That kind of doctrinaire, “How dare anyone challenge my reasoning!” is the antithesis of learning, discourse, and ethical analysis.
“Not being OK with rape victims being called prostitutes” =/= “can’t stand thinking about things in different ways.”
In fact, it’s overly generous to call that first thing “thinking” at all.
And really, Jack–this is the kind of condescension I imagine turns some readers off. “Why, if you can’t take people accusing rape victims of prostitution, you just aren’t as rational and able to handle different perspectives as I, Rational Man” is a really off-putting attitude.
I will happily condescend to anyone so shallow and narrow that they only focus on a single extreme comment or two to condemn a discussion involving over 20 people and a hundred comments.
It isn’t a single extreme comment. Chris M’s comment was a natural outgrowth of the general tone when it comes to women and minorities on this site. You can tell because multiple prolific commenters have defended his comment without reservation. “I’m not buying it” was a thing that was just said to a survivor of sexual assault about the aftermath of sexual assault! This blog is denying a systemic problem while confirming it.
I have to say I agree. The overall tone — and by mostly male voices — is far too critical and shaming toward the victims.
I have incredibly thick skin, and I have to say that it has filled me with great sadness to read all these comments over the past week.
Your own experience apparently makes it difficult for you to see this story objectively. Law isn’t show business. The criticism of the actresses who sat back and allowed this to continue after they were in positions of credibility and power were not in your position. Now, let’s say you became the most powerful and wealthiest lawyer in the nation, and had the power to pay the damages arising from a breach of a confidentiality agreement, and a lawyer or firm that had harassed you was still victimizing women and you knew it. NOW you’re Anjolina Jolie, Glenn Close, Paltrow or Streep.
What do you do?
It is well known that this happened. Comedians made jokes about this in the past — 30 Rock, Seth McFarland. The problem wasn’t with the female voices saying that this wasn’t acceptable. They had already done that. The problem is with the studios who didn’t give a shit and wanted to work with Weinstein anyway because he had the perceived winning formula.
There were multiple problems and causes. Corrupt systems always have many villains and enablers.
CHRIS: I take great offense at that, because it is a gross and unfair characterization. What commenters say or opine are not “this blog.” I am “this blog.” You cannot find a single sentiment or opinion ever written by me on Ethics Alarms that defends sexual harassment or denies that it is a systemic problem, particularly about this system, Hollywood, and show business generally, which, I will remind you, I have worked in professionally for decades.
What I have written, because it’s true, is that people can either become a part of a corrupt culture, change it, or leave it. The first option may be lucrative, but it is not ethical. The second is very difficult, and takes sacrifice and courage. The last is a lot better than the first.
You can send a retraction and apology to my e-mail address, or you can write one here. Until you do, I’m not posting any more of your comments. I have fought against sexual harassment and discrimination in every area of my career, and been punished for it. I’m not allowing you or anyone to say that “this blog” denies the systemic problem. That is a lie.
I am referring to the community that has been created through this blog. I will not apologize for saying that my feelings have been hurt — that is ludicrous. Ban me if you must.
Reread what I wrote and explain to me why you are taking this personally. I should be the one demanding an apology. You can send a retraction and apology to my e-mail address, or you can write one here.
Nesting problem, Spartan! My comment is directed at Chris, who wrote, “This blog is denying a systemic problem while confirming it.”
That’s a lie.
I just now added his name to the comment so nobody else is confused. I write my replies in a master screen in which I see all comments with signatures in time sequence, not as they appear on the blog. I wasn’t addressing you. If you look closely, you can see that. I didn’t even know your comment was near his.
I take no umbrage at anything you have written in this thread. As my last ACTUAL comment to you suggests, however, I do think you are identifying with some of the actresses when the two cultures, law and Hollywood, are materially different.
Jack, I do apologize for being unclear, as I’ve left my comment open to misinterpretation and caused you to feel as if I’ve accused you of something you haven’t done.
The “systemic problem” I was referring to was not sexual harassment and discrimination, which you correctly note you have addressed is a systemic problem, and have not denied. The systemic problem I see perpetuated here is the problem of disbelieving women when they reflect on their experience of sexual harassment and discrimination, and rushing to hold women responsible for circumstances beyond their control.
Thanks, apology accepted.
Accusations from women should be treated exactly the same as any allegations.
Here’s a personal example: I never witnessed sexual harassment by one of my bosses at a major DC association, but I had heard lots of rumors and seen some things that were suspicious in context. Eventually he was sued (he didn’t deliver on an expected promotion to one woman who had agreed to what she thought was a quid pro quo deal.). The woman involved had worked for me briefly, and was a habitual, manipulative liar. My boss’s lawyer asked me to give a deposition for his defense. I was asked if I regarded the woman as trustworthy and credible. I said I did not. Then the idiot asked this: “She has a alleged that at a convention, she was asked by my client, her supervisor, o come to his hotel room and engage in sexual activity. Do you find her claim credible? My answer: Absolutely, based on my knowledge of your client.
That ended the defense; by boss agreed to quit and forfeit his pension. The women received a settlement.
Thank you for accepting my apology, Jack.
I agree with you that allegations should be given equal weight regardless of gender…but that’s not exactly what I’m talking about. I haven’t seen anyone say the allegations against Weinstein aren’t true. I haven’t seen anyone question Spartan over whether the incidents she says happened actually happened. Instead, she’s been questioned over her reactions to what happened.
I’m talking about the disbelief many men have expressed over women’s reactions to abuse.
Chris wrote, “I’m talking about the disbelief many men have expressed over women’s reactions to abuse.”
Can you please translate into what you actually mean as opposed to what you actually wrote?
I was going to ask Spartan WHAT “posts”? You know, you have been harping on one inartful phrase as if nobody has written anything else. I just looked at the thread. It’s ridiculous. Some comments go too far. Anyone who judges the blog by individual commenters (and who doesn’t have the wit or guts to knock down comments she objects to) is a arrogant jerk.
My position is and has been, as I stated above, “it’s always a horrible situation when doing what is right may cause oneself pain and hardship. This is the definition of an ethical dilemma.The idea is to choose ethics over non-ethical considerations, the welfare of others over ones own interests.” That’s a theme of this website. And ethics itself.
I will ask this, though. The casting couch, which I know a great deal about, since it still exists, has been exploited in the past by many starlets who chose to “sleep their way to the top.” It worked. Meanwhile, more principled actresses who refused lost parts—to the ones who didn’t.
What would you call the conduct of actresses who said, when offered stardom in exchange for sexual favors, “Yes. Deal.”???
We aren’t talking about that. We are talking about actresses who REFUSED to sleep with Weinstein but still kept quiet until now. You are shifting goal posts.
Regarding starlets who sleep their way to the top, I wonder how many did so eagerly? Or how many were forced and then later convinced themselves that it was somehow worth it just to remain sane. Look at the kids who were abused. Shirley Temple claims that she had encounters with pedophiles — I wonder if she was unethical in not reporting it immediately.
Chris is talking about that when he’s obsessing about the use by one commenter of the term “prostituted.” As you know, the women who cave to this illegal abuse of power are also victims, who ones just make what they feel is a pragmatic decision, and become part of the currupt culture that victimized them. It is understandable. It’s not admirable.
There is a breaking child abuse scandal in Hollywood as we speak.
Jack Marshall wrote, “There is a breaking child abuse scandal in Hollywood as we speak.”
I can’t find anything about it, where should I look?
https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/bill-donohue/its-time-drain-hollywood-cesspool
Wood had spoken up in May, then backed off. The Weinstein scandal has refocused attention on his comments and those of other child actors.
Still Spartan wrote, “Funny you should say that. I’ve had some female friends who read this blog comment to me privately that these posts have caused them to abandon Ethics Alarms.”
I think that abandoning Ethics Alarms is the wrong approach; either you stand up for what you believe in or accept the fact that the beliefs you oppose will end up dominating you.
I encourage these female friends of yours to open an account here, read the blog/comments more, think about things that are challenging, and comment as they see fit. No one is forced to participate but these blogs and conversations can help solidify things that may not be rooted on solid ground. Choose to grow instead of remaining stagnant.
We are all adults; challenge others and expect to be challenged, that’s how things change. Whether people want to believe it or not, there are also consequences for choosing to do nothing.
Wait, you are comparing your father’s refusal to commit a crime to a woman standing up to a sexual harasser? Are you serious? One of these involves an overt criminal act and the other involves being the unwilling victim of a criminal or civil violation.
I feel like this is an LSAT problem used to screen out those who should not be admitted to law school.
I will leave the Auschwitz analogy alone, because that’s just embarassing….
Chris, I did say: “Whilst the scale of the crime is different …”. Perhaps I should have said ‘vastly different’ or ‘monstrously different’.
The analogy was that they were, in both cases, complicit by their inaction if nothing else, not a comparison of the scale or nature of the guilt. It’s fair to say I should have found a less loathsome example.
The most surreal thing about this is how everyone is pretending that Weinstein is some kind of outlier. The entertainment industry is hedonistic to the point that they are in rare space up there with porn producers and drug lords. Child actors passed around like candy, wife-swapping, orgies, nothing should surprise anyone. Ten-fold platinum-selling artist R. Kelly was found to be keeping a personal six-pack of sex slaves in his house, and in the entertainment world that’s called Tuesday.
From (of all places) HuffPo.
”How Top NBC Executives Quashed The Bombshell Harvey Weinstein Story”
”Reporter Ronan Farrow ultimately took the piece to The New Yorker after facing months of opposition at his home network.”
To his credit, Farrow ended up paying a film crew to finish up what he had started, and which NBC wanted to just disappear.
”How does a ‘courageous’ news network that posed in 2016 as the defender of women against sexist pussy-grabbers end up refusing to pay for (filming) a woman’s allegation of rape against a powerful Hollywood mogul?”
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nbc-harvey-weinstein_us_59de5688e4b0eb18af059685?qj7
Et tu, Huffpo?
Here is the truth about the word prostitute.
Prostitute
Noun A person who engages in sexual activity for payment.
Verb Offer someone for sexual activity in exchange for payment.
The noun side of this argument is that the women in question could be considered/called a prostitute because they engaged in sexual activity and received something in return. From that narrow point of view they are reasonably correct.
The verb side of this argument is that since the women in question didn’t go to these men and physically offer sex to the men in return for favors/payment then they are not prostitutes. From that narrow point of view they are reasonably correct.
Both of these arguments are reasonably correct so stop arguing about it and move on.
I firmly believe that bringing the word prostitute into this discussion turned out to be a huge deflection and it’s plainly obvious by the obsession surrounding the use of the word.
Moving on…
Another part of this argument that’s not defined by the word prostitute is the women in question that have claimed that they were actually raped. Rape is a violent criminal act and falls completely outside the above discussion. Those that were actually raped had a moral obligation to the future women that they knew good and well would be subjected to the abusive presence of the rapist; they were morally obligated to report the rape to authorities, not to just tell their best friend or their boyfriend and then drop it.
I don’t think anyone participating in this conversation will disagree that what Weinstein has been accused of doing is a blatant abuse of power and that this abuse of power culture seems to run throughout the entertainment industry in Hollywood. The women associated with this culture of abuse needed to stand up against the culture of abuse when it happened, their “acceptance” of the abusive culture at the time it happened showed a sincere lack of character and the “ends justifies the means” level of moral bankruptcy; that’s not to say that standing up against the abusive culture now is a bad thing, it’s better late than never to change an abusive culture.
What do the women that were abused years ago by this abusive culture say to the women that were abused a year ago, a month ago, a week ago. Consider; what if you were one of the abused women from years ago, you shrugged it off as “ends justifies the means”, did nothing to change the abusive culture and the consequences of you doing nothing is that your daughter was abused last week? How do you reconcile with your daughter after she finds out that you knew it was happening, it happened to you, and you did nothing to stop it and now she too is a victim of that same abusive culture?
I have little respect for women that accepted this abusive culture because “ends justifies the means”. That said; it does take real moral courage for these same women to jump on the social justice bandwagon and stand up today to change an abusive culture knowing full well that their previous acceptance of the “ends justifies the means” shows their own moral bankruptcy past and that their “acceptance” did in fact contribute to the continuation of the abusive culture. I say to these women, stand your ground today and do what it takes to change the abusive culture regardless of how people will look at what you didn’t do in the past.
As a friend of mine says after writing a post like this that will likely rub absolutely everyone wrong in some way….
Let the Zoltar bashing begin.
I am not going to bash you, I am going to weep for you because you don’t get it.
“Consider; what if you were one of the abused women from years ago, you shrugged it off as “ends justifies the means”, did nothing to change the abusive culture and the consequences of you doing nothing is that your daughter was abused last week?”
As I have said, I have been subject to sexual harassment over most of my career — some could easily be shrugged off, other events were far more serious.
I don’t say, “The ends justify the means.” I say, “My God, if I reported every single instance of a man acting inappropriately, I would have to file dozens and dozens of complaints. Since this behavior exists EVERYWHERE, my choice is to somehow develop a thick skin and shrug at least the most ridiculous behavior off, or choose not to work anywhere and starve.”
I belong to a private FB group of 9,000 female lawyers. Over the past week, they have all been sharing their stories of harassment (not discrimination, just harassment) by other lawyers. Lawyers. You know, the people we hire if we have been discriminated against. It is depressing.
So, what will I teach my daughters? Well, I will tell them the same thing that I have told my clients in the past. “Your employer violated your rights. We can do X,Y, and Z in response. The likelihood of succeeding on those claims based on your evidence ____ %. The cost of pursuing these claims will roughly be $______. I will do everything in my power to see that you prevail, but it is ultimately your decision and there are no guarantees. If you do not want to pursue this, you might want to consider finding new employment.”
What I would never say is, “You don’t have any proof, and you are not going to win. But it is your duty to women everywhere to pursue this anyway, even if it means that you will never work in your chosen field again.”
Spartan wrote, “…you don’t get it.”
This part of your comment suggests that I’m wrong but yet I can’t find the part of your comment where you explain how I’m wrong. Please explain what part of the comment you quoted, or my comment as a whole, is wrong and therefore worthy of of your weeping.
Spartan, my request really wasn’t rhetorical. I see you’ve moved on to replying elsewhere; how should I read your silence?
You can read my silence as not trying to be unnecessarily cruel. I can’t help you with reading comprehension.
Let ‘er rip Spartan, I’m an adult and I can take criticism in just about any form just as well as deliver it; I’d really like an explanation. Don’t copout on me now.
I did explain. Reread what I wrote. I even quoted you.
Damnit Spartan I have reread your reply multiple times. I don’t ask for clarifications such as this when things are clear – ask Chris if you don’t believe me. Either try again or don’t but don’t go down this path you’ve chosen.
2010. An open joke
Yes. 30 Rock had a similar joke. This is what I have been yelling about all week. Everyone knew about it but the studios chose to work with him anyway. Actors, actresses, people behind the scenes — they don’t have much say in the matter if the studios are giving the green light.
So the joke goes something like this:
“Hahah! We have a major sex for opportunity to work problem here! Nothing we can do about it!” -90% of us
That how it goes?