jerryhung

Rape, and unwanted sexual advances/touching is harassment and criminal assault.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...-their-stories

jerryhung

Not to say your wife isn't cool, but not sure it's comparable.

I think the difference here is the clear power imbalance, each scenario was similar: the woman was "baited" or "procured", and she would think it is a professional setting/context - then faced with .... - anyway just read the New Yorker mag.

jerryhung

Exactly.

jerryhung

Seems to be the case.

He was grovelling to studio agents/CEOs before he got fired. If you google it the headlines are he "grovelled" for his job.

None backed him up

& his wife is leaving him

Jingsamichty

I agree that if there were threats, that would be different. But I'm sure Hollywood is rife with encounters that aren't so explicitly threatening, more along the lines of what I said, "I can help you in this business, would you like to come back to my room to see how we can help each other..."

For every creep like Weinstein, there is someone on the other end who will do whatever it takes to get ahead. Not defending him at all by the way, but I think it's wrong to go after him like he's the bad apple in a barrel... the whole barrel stinks.

Almost Canadian

The issue there would be: whether the "duress" negated the "consent."

I am, however, mindful of the Ghomeshi and Cosby trials and the fact that he hasn't actually be charged with anything yet. One would assume that, if there was such a mountain of evidence against him, he would have at least been questioned by the police.

I shook my head when Ms. Aldred appeared on TV the other day.

If he has done all that he is alleged to have done, he deserves everything that is coming his way. But I am also mindful of the fact that some crying wolf can wreck someone's life, particularly in the social media sphere, without ever having to suffer consequences if the accusations are unfounded.

Shard

That's a bit more shocking than I thought.

jerryhung

Did you even read the reports, or are you just a sex assault defender? Every OJ has his lawyer I guess. Bizarre.

jerryhung

Yes. The accusations are piling up, and it's no small issue anymore. It's assault, rape, coercion.

Interesting how the Manhattan DA, who received $ from Weinstein, decided not to prosecute. The fact is it shows a system of corruption or people who look after themselves. Is this point so different in any part of society? I think we have to ask ourselves that question.

Here is another take on why the power imbalance was frightening from the WaPo:

It wasn’t just the complicit silence around Harvey Weinstein’s sexual harassment that made it so dangerous.

It was the opposite of silence, too.

It was the public humiliation that could be used to retaliate against alleged victims who spoke out.

Weinstein used the media like a bludgeon to keep his alleged victims in line, by many accounts. He did it skillfully — and with plenty of help.

“

<<<SNIP>>>

http://wapo.st/2i1En4U?tid=ss_mail&u...=.cdca233c46b2

You have to give it to Ashley Judd and the others who came out first - very brave of them.

Colin Firth just gave a statement yesterday, in effect, saying that Weinstein is a powerful and frightening man, and Ben Affleck has been outed lying i.e. he knew about it but never did anything and is now making the obligatory "responsible" remarks.

As much as it's interesting watching Hollywood's orb, I can't see how this is different to any part of society i.e. cowards and self beneficiaries looking out for their own and too scared to take down the powerful/corrupt

jerryhung

From the New Yorker article, a female exec tries to do the right thing now, despite the risk of losing hundreds of thousands of dollars...

Several of the former executives and assistants in this story said that they had received calls from Weinstein in which he attempted to determine if they had talked to me or warned them not to. These employees continued to participate in the article partly because they felt there was a growing culture of accountability, embodied in the relatively recent disclosures about high-profile men like Cosby and Ailes. “I think a lot of us had thought—and hoped—over the years that it would come out sooner,” the former executive who was aware of the two legal settlements in London told me. “But I think now is the right time, in this current climate, for the truth.”

Shard

No one is a sex assault defender. Some, however, question whether what happened was a assault or consensual. To some extent, this type of scenario goes with the Hollywood territory, and there are many claims that it was common inside knowledge. Having said that, and read the NY article you posted, Weinstein seems to have been so systematic and persistent in his behaviour it seems likely that non-consensual activity took place on many occasions.

jerryhung

That's the point - just because it happened in Hollywood doesn't mean it isn't wrong.

It's not like you say, oh it's so common that we forget the rules of engagement/decency

As to sex assault, given you'd actually read the New Yorker article, I'm surprised you didn't see it for what it is.

Men (some) are idiots.

Almost Canadian

Virtually every sensible jurisdiction in the world relies upon, "Innocent until proven guilty." which, I believe, is sensible. If it wasn't, you would be guilty simply because someone accuses you. That should frighten you.

Whether you like it or not, OJ was not guilty.

Shard

Who knows what it is? You'd need a trial for that. If the industry is known for this kind of behaviour, people in it are to some extent complicit. Like the actress who complained she felt sexually obligated because he was paying for her nanny, well, hello, there are other options. It's more of a grey area than you make out.

Oakvillian

I don't know how you can argue this. A man in a position of power - who effectively, in this case, holds a veto over a woman's career - is obligated not to abuse that power for his own sexual gratification. Even if there may have been occasions when that abuse of power did not constitute a crime by the strict letter of the law, you seem to be saying that "they all do that" is a reasonable excuse for inexcusable behaviour.

What other options, pray tell, were available to the actress you mention? Should she have sacked her nanny? Should she have turned down a role? Should she have wrecked her career? Should she have given up in disgust and waited tables and lived off the tips for the rest of her life? That's what you seem to be advocating - that the little woman should just curl up and do whatever she's told to by the big swinging dick.

Even if what Weinstein did did not always cross the line into illegality, I hope there will now be sufficient evidence to convict him based on the times that it did.