Harvey Weinstein
#211
Re: Harvey Weinstein
Any hoot, I think (as Tom Hanks posited in an interview) the name Weinstein is going to become synonymous with sexual predation. Probably best for all such news gossip to be filed under this thread. Pity the poor people who share this surname though.
#212
Forum Regular
Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 232
Re: Harvey Weinstein
The odd thing is that with accusations like that and more flying around about Seagal, an article saying he did nothing more than talk about himself over a long dinner with buxom blondes (one of whom's cleavage he found distracting) would likely be something to say in defence. "Creepy but not dangerous" sort of thing.
Bit strange really.
They opened comments on the article by mistake - or that's what they said when every single comment posted was a negative (but not defensive or enabling) one, along with very high "recommends".
Glad I'm not the only Guardian reader with a few reservations on how they're approaching all this.
Bit strange really.
They opened comments on the article by mistake - or that's what they said when every single comment posted was a negative (but not defensive or enabling) one, along with very high "recommends".
Glad I'm not the only Guardian reader with a few reservations on how they're approaching all this.
#213
Forum Regular
Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 232
Re: Harvey Weinstein
Er why did he mention her looks in a supposedly professional letter?
All these examples are examples of men ogling and treating women as sexual prey. They are valid examples of how male dominated culture works.
Again, trading on your looks does not mean that you have to put up with leering stares. To paraphrase, She was not asking for this. Does a woman wearing a low cut dress mean that you can stare,leer, and comment? No it does not.
Once again I'm going to drop out of this male dominated thread.
All these examples are examples of men ogling and treating women as sexual prey. They are valid examples of how male dominated culture works.
Again, trading on your looks does not mean that you have to put up with leering stares. To paraphrase, She was not asking for this. Does a woman wearing a low cut dress mean that you can stare,leer, and comment? No it does not.
Once again I'm going to drop out of this male dominated thread.
I reckon BristolUK is ultimately well intentioned though, some are downright chauvinistic.
#214
#215
Re: Harvey Weinstein
I was contrasting the seriousness of that incident (and those of the same type) with others like a guy talking about himself and how equal prominence is given to both.
#216
#217
Forum Regular
Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 232
Re: Harvey Weinstein
Untrue, as much as you wish it to be. I disagreed with BristolUK with no change in perception of him. People who disregard rape and sexual assault with "just doing it for a favor so stop whinging" though are clearly chauvinistic and unsympathetic creatures - pity the woman who come in front of them.
#219
Forum Regular
Joined: Jun 2017
Posts: 232
Re: Harvey Weinstein
Oh I see. I didn't read that Guardian article because it seemed lightweight. I only remember hearing Julianne M's version - that was ick enough. Based on what you say of the article in this thread, I suppose the author is talking about Seagal being a bit of a pervert. Perverts can do worse things than perv, some do some don't (or can't).
#220
Re: Harvey Weinstein
Untrue, as much as you wish it to be. I disagreed with BristolUK with no change in perception of him. People who disregard rape and sexual assault with "just doing it for a favor so stop whinging" though are clearly chauvinistic and unsympathetic creatures - pity the woman who come in front of them.
#221
#223
Re: Harvey Weinstein
Apologies for repeating myself but I was checking something in my posting history in the guardian today and came across the following. It came from the fashion pages but it was on the main page for all to see - as I don't go on the fashion pages.
Note the humorous reference to "of course three of us had to go" and the disappointed three references to him not being in trunks.
I can read this with a smile to myself. But try reading it as if it were a female icon where, of course, all the male correspondents just "had" to attend in the hope of seeing her with the minimal covering of a bathing costume.
How would this be reported if this was, say, an over heard comment among three men about a woman? Or, indeed if it was a similarly nudge, nudge, wink, wink, article in the newspaper.
I think it would make the front pages as an example of what we've been reading. The writer(s) would likely lose their jobs.
I really don't like double standards.
So there your faithful fashion reporters were, dutifully attending the pool party thrown by David Beckham to launch his swimwear range for H&M. (And yes, since you ask, it definitely was professionally necessary for three of us to attend.) A balmy summer evening, on the roof of Shoreditch House … we're going to be honest and admit we were hoping Beckham would be in trunks. Or maybe a sarong. So imagine our disappointment when he emerged in … a knee-length black coat, over a black T-shirt, black trousers and chocolate brown chelsea boots. A well-known menswear expert in attendance said of the look, under cloak of anonymity: 'That jacket. Cool and Saint Laurent if you're 20. Shane Richie if you're 40.' Which is harsh. But we still think he should have worn trunks
I can read this with a smile to myself. But try reading it as if it were a female icon where, of course, all the male correspondents just "had" to attend in the hope of seeing her with the minimal covering of a bathing costume.
How would this be reported if this was, say, an over heard comment among three men about a woman? Or, indeed if it was a similarly nudge, nudge, wink, wink, article in the newspaper.
I think it would make the front pages as an example of what we've been reading. The writer(s) would likely lose their jobs.
I really don't like double standards.
#224
limey party pooper
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 9,982
Re: Harvey Weinstein
Apologies for repeating myself but I was checking something in my posting history in the guardian today and came across the following. It came from the fashion pages but it was on the main page for all to see - as I don't go on the fashion pages.
Note the humorous reference to "of course three of us had to go" and the disappointed three references to him not being in trunks.
I can read this with a smile to myself. But try reading it as if it were a female icon where, of course, all the male correspondents just "had" to attend in the hope of seeing her with the minimal covering of a bathing costume.
How would this be reported if this was, say, an over heard comment among three men about a woman? Or, indeed if it was a similarly nudge, nudge, wink, wink, article in the newspaper.
I think it would make the front pages as an example of what we've been reading. The writer(s) would likely lose their jobs.
I really don't like double standards.
Note the humorous reference to "of course three of us had to go" and the disappointed three references to him not being in trunks.
I can read this with a smile to myself. But try reading it as if it were a female icon where, of course, all the male correspondents just "had" to attend in the hope of seeing her with the minimal covering of a bathing costume.
How would this be reported if this was, say, an over heard comment among three men about a woman? Or, indeed if it was a similarly nudge, nudge, wink, wink, article in the newspaper.
I think it would make the front pages as an example of what we've been reading. The writer(s) would likely lose their jobs.
I really don't like double standards.
Men's comments on, about, toward women are laden with sexual innuendo and threat. There's a power behind the threat, whether it's about getting or keeping a job, a threat of reputation, a physical threat of assault or rape.
Making simple comparisons doesn't address the whole problem.
#225
Re: Harvey Weinstein
Making simple comparisons doesn't address the whole problem.