Celebrity Allegations, #MeToo etc

Castia said:
Rose McGowen going mad on Twitter, told Affleck to feck off and branded him a liar saying he told her ''Goddammit I told you not to do that!'' about coming out with the accusations.

The scary part to me in all this is the amount of people who know about what's happening but aren't doing anything to stop it. Huge triple A mega stars keeping quiet while co workers are getting sexually assaulted and worse, it's fecking crazy.
Click to expand...

I think there are multiple factors. One will be the casting couch tradition that both normalises abuse and makes people cynical about it. Victim blaming is indeed live and well, particularly when it comes to things like this.

There will be successful men and women who think that it's just a procession of silly (or even conniving) women who sold themselves to get a job. All the while congratulating themselves that they got away, didn't allow it to get that far, or even victims who saw it as a trade-off in their own career.
 
Because if he never did anything to you then obviously he never did anything to anyone. Right, Lyndsay?
 
Lindsay Lohan is so off her meds, it's not even worth bringing her up as a news story.
 
I'm going to refrain from having an opinion on this until I know what Amanda Bynes thinks about it.
 
It’s a sad sign of society that this issue is being politicized. It shouldn’t be about pint scoring but about what’s right and wrong. Still even happening in this thread
 
Its worth noting she mentions Charlie Sheen's name as well. Heard some rather unsavoury things about him in the past.
 
Seen lots of victim blaming calls made, and it's easy to just fling that buzzword about, but they aren't entirely blameless in this case. They made the decision of continued wealth over morality and safety of others. It's not like someone forced to accept it, on a low pay job that will struggle to look after their kids and pay their mortgage if they get fired or singled out. They let it continue to happen until now.
There's obviously enough of them to band together too, and they all move in similar circles so will know that. Maybe society wasn't ready to take it seriously enough though.

Credit to those that have brought this to light now.
 
I don't think anyone in their right mind would defend Weinstein after what we've learned about him in the last few days. He's clearly a scumbag who used and abused women and has been getting away with it for a long time. Don't think anyone is surprised at the fact that Hollywood is a snakepit filled with hypocrites. Decades ago someone like him would never even get punished for such behavior because it was the norm.

My problem with all this is though that some of these actresses clearly got a big break in their careers through Harvey. After the 'episodes' they've experienced they kept going to the same parties and premieres, where he went, chatted with him, smiled and posed for pictures with him, and some even kept working with his company. What I mean is, they profited and advanced their careers by staying silent on the issue. Some won an Oscar doing the movies he produced. When we talk about this powerful and detestable bully who was known for his ability to 'make or break' an actor's career, well, he did 'make' some of them, right? If so, haven't at least some of them made a pact with the devil, so to speak, to get ahead in the bussiness and become a success? Also, I may be a cynic, but somehow I don't buy into the stories of these now well-known actresses that they all refused his advances. Some did, I'm sure, but not all. What about others, the starlets that were actually willing to get in bed with the powerful Hollywood player to get a part in a hit movie? I bet they won't admit that now, unless they are too portrayed as victims.

This guy expresses it pretty clearly.

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ein-scandal-exposes-hypocrisy-left-and-right?

"That brings me to the one group that has understandably been spared any criticism at all: the victims. I don’t condemn their silence when young and powerless. But there’s a real problem: Many stayed silent for decades, happily pocketing money from people they were willing to denounce only after it was safe — or even profitable — to do so. That hypocrisy may be the most dangerous, because it sends the signal to young women that such compromises pay off and you can buy indulgences after you’re successful. That’s not a message I want my teenage daughter to hear."
 
That audio was pretty harrowing. He seemed like he was ready to snap at any moment there.

Must have been petrifying for that woman.
 
Deflection from the misdemeanours of the actual culprit is unbecoming at least, not to mention increasingly predictable; how many of us have glossed over bad behaviour by our bosses? Many, I imagine. Think twice before you so glibly accuse others of hypocrisy.
 


While I think people seeing this as definitive proof are looking too much into it, but it does indicate that it's been a known thing.
I find it hard to comment on any of the victim blaming, as I have no idea how it would be to be in such a situation myself. I'm simply incapable of putting myself in such shoes. That said, I do think coming forward so the sleezebag can't keep on with it for 30 more years is a good thing, and even if they would have chosen a career before over it, they've done right now.

I faintly remember Rose McGowan being "taken out" of Hollywood, and that she didn't go quietly. She spoke up about the problems there, but it seems no one would listen.

As for Meryl Streep, I have no fecking clue who she is, but I do find the stuff I've read about her to be dodgy as hell in comparison to her now trying to wash her hands, whether they were dirty or not.

On another note, there was a interview done by libertarian David Rubin on his youtube channel The Rubin Report with Candence Owens where they slightly touched upon the subject, amongst the corruption of the media today. I found it interesting.
I quite enjoy watching debates/people present their views from "the other side" so I don't alienate them to simple spin-words but can actually say why i want it differently, disagreeing is after all perfectly fine, despite still having my feet firmly planted on the far, far left from a political standpoint.
 
Unless you've been through this yourself I don't see how you can understand what a victim goes through and how difficult it is to come out and say something. Money and continued fame may not be the driver at all. Perhaps they feel guilty, vulnerable, or dirty for allowing this to happen to them.
 
I've experienced this first hand in the fashion industry with photographers and the like, and its not always men doing it. It's pretty common across these types of industries. I always ignored it but i know lots and lots of people who didn't.

These kinds of people know they hold the power, and a lot of the women (and sometimes men) don't have the talent to break into the industry otherwise. He's not the first and he won't be the last, and there will always be those willing to do literally anything to make it in Hollywood. I don't see it going away anytime soon in what is an incredibly sexually charged working environment.

The real shocking thing for me is how hypocritical Hollywood is being about it all. I think most casual observers knew he was a scumbag years ago.
 
Donk87 said:
Oh great, the "don't believe your lying eyes" defence. Your posts are there for everyone to see and I can't be bothered to go through this again with you. I think most people in this thread have an idea of what's been going on. Even Buchan gets it.

You've clearly got a brain but people with such overt predilections for syllables, flowery prose and absurdly verbose contributions (DYSWIDT?) tend to be those who have insecurities about themselves and in particular their intellects. This might be you, this might not, but you really need to take your foot off the gas. By all means flex your vocabulary and entertain us with a delicious turn of phrase when appropriate but in general tone it down. Seriously. Less is more.

As for the following:



You're either trolling like a trooper or are genuinely next level batshit crazy. If the former I've got some great news for you. At some point in the future you'll grow up a bit, mature, and realise you've wasted a lot of time. If the latter, and you really do have one arm in the straitjacket, then I heartily recommend you go and do some reading on John Anthony West and his theories on alternative history. You'll love it. He's the L Ron Hubbard of Egyptology.

Feel free to respond but I'm not going to be taking this thread off-track anymore. I'm done with pivots and partisan lenses. It's time to focus on the real issues this story raises.
Click to expand...

That's very ad hominem. But, I agree, it's time to move on.

Hope the Latin wasn't too verbose for you.:smirk:
 
antihenry said:
This guy expresses it pretty clearly.

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ein-scandal-exposes-hypocrisy-left-and-right?

"That brings me to the one group that has understandably been spared any criticism at all: the victims. I don’t condemn their silence when young and powerless. But there’s a real problem: Many stayed silent for decades, happily pocketing money from people they were willing to denounce only after it was safe — or even profitable — to do so. That hypocrisy may be the most dangerous, because it sends the signal to young women that such compromises pay off and you can buy indulgences after you’re successful. That’s not a message I want my teenage daughter to hear."
Click to expand...
Is it any different than when any story breaks about long running abuse that was covered up? It seems to me that the people with the strongest opinions on the victims, the ones who focus on judging their reaction more closely than that of the perpetrators, are the ones who can't fully grasp the idea of being a victim. It's not cut and dry, it's not a clean, compartmentalized experience. There's often a considerable amount of trauma that, unless you've experienced it yourself, I don't think we can fully grasp through just our imaginations. So for some random writer to focus on the victim's hypocrisy, to me, it's obnoxious and pigheaded. It suggests such a high opinion of yourself that there can't possibly be situations or experiences beyond your understanding. "The hypocrisy may be the most dangerous" - no, it's definitely not hypocrisy of victims that's the most dangerous. If he's so concerned - won't somebody thing of the children?!? - maybe focus on teenage sons and the lessons they should be taking away from this.

This is a good read by a current female Hollywood screenwriter, who is very clear about her own failings in such a situation where she didn't "do the right thing"

And yet, when something like Harvey Weinstein’s behavior comes to light, the same arguments are repeated over and over again: Why did the women wait so long to report it? Why did they take money and sign nondisclosure agreements? Why did they keep working at the company? Why did they accept roles? Why did they stay friends with him? Why didn’t they kidnap Harvey and lock him in an S&M harness like the ladies in 9 to 5? I don’t know. Maybe they decided they wanted to keep working, keep supporting themselves, keep doing the thing they loved. Maybe they were ambitious and angry, and, yeah, maybe they wanted some money for having to deal with all of it. This kind of thing doesn’t only happen to heroes. It happens to normal women — women who are cowards, ambitious jerks, talented artists, lonely girls, girls who put out, girls who don’t, girls who don’t like being called “girls,” wonderful and complicated and still-forming creatures who are forced to make impossible choices that follow them forever. Life isn’t a Miramax movie. Life is a mess. Yes, I am a coward, but let’s be clear: The man in the hotel room is to blame.
Click to expand...

https://www.thecut.com/2017/10/im-a-coward.html
 
Buchan said:
Link?

Regarding the Hollywood community now banding together, it's too late for that. It's been four days since the story was published (years since it Tinseltown's most 'open secret') and he's already been sacked. In typical self-centred fashion, the Hollywood community waited until they were sure there'd be no reprisals before public condemnation, as well as none of them willing to put their heads above the parapet until it was known what the 'party line' was.
Click to expand...

this is all i was thinking about when the story was breaking, really really depressing scenes.
 


Becoming more and more clear that they all knew.
 
jojojo said:
Look at what they are alledging though. He had a quick grope when no one was looking and when they stopped him he moved on to his next target.

The casting couch idea has been famous for generations, and the idea that men, particularly ones who've just bought the meal, plied you with drinks, think they can try it on, is even older - and happens at all levels of society, and ranges from just a misunderstanding to an assault depending on how insistent the man is. It's not the basis of a court case, except one that might see the woman charged with libel and defamation.

Jolie herself says that she tried to warn others afterwards. The thing the women have going for them now, that makes it easier to come forward, is sheer weight of numbers. Up until that point, many will feel the weight of embarrassment, guilt, the sensation that somehow they invited it by being too friendly, too flirty. Some will even feel that in their attempt to sell only their talent, they did trip his response.

And that's before we even talk about the impact a man with power, money and clearly a whole network of influence could have had on their careers.
Click to expand...

Is that an acceptable excuse, given that other women were in clear and present danger?

Angelina Jolie has been a powerful player in Hollywood for more than a decade. Other Weinstein victims went on to fame and fortune. Why didn't such well-established women take collective action to bring Weinstein down? Their public testimony could have done so at any time.

Being harsh, there was a certain lack of moral responsibility. The word cowardice springs to mind.
 
Will Absolute said:
Is that an acceptable excuse, given that other women were in clear and present danger?

Angelina Jolie has been a powerful player in Hollywood for more than a decade. Other Weinstein victims went on to fame and fortune. Why didn't such well-established women take collective action to bring Weinstein down? Their public testimony could have done so at any time.

Being harsh, there was a certain lack of moral responsibility. The word cowardice springs to mind.
Click to expand...

Harsh or not, that's my position on this scandal, too. Many opportunities arose - through victims, friends of victims, other prominent Hollywood individuals, media outlets who spiked the story years ago, the Weinstein Company themselves - to bring this scandal to a head but, repeatedly, it wasn't. Better late than never, of course, but it appears many were happy to look the other way as long as the big cheques were still being signed.
 
Buchan said:
Harsh or not, that's my position on this scandal, too. Many opportunities arose - through victims, friends of victims, other prominent Hollywood individuals, media outlets who spiked the story years ago, the Weinstein Company themselves - to bring this scandal to a head but, repeatedly, it wasn't. Better late than never, of course, but it appears many were happy to look the other way as long as the big cheques were still being signed.
Click to expand...

You talk about it like it's an accounting scandal, not rape and sexual harassment.

Just out of curiosity - do you feel the same way about, say, Jimmy Saville's victims who didn't speak out until recently?
 
shabadu84 said:
You talk about it like it's an accounting scandal, not rape and sexual harassment.

Just out of curiosity - do you feel the same way about, say, Jimmy Saville's victims who didn't speak out until recently?
Click to expand...

Jimmy Savile's victims were predominantly underage and not benefiting to the tune of millions of dollars due to keeping quiet.

Not at all a fair analogy.
 
Cara Delevingne is another victim to go public.
 
HTG said:
Cara Delevingne is another victim to go public.
Click to expand...


Associates of Weinstein, the female actors yet to speak up, are obviously the ones Delevigne is referencing here when Weinstein said he's slept with loads of stars and made them what they are.

I wonder will there be any backlash against these women when this scandal is all said and done. Will they be ostracised within the industry?
 
Buchan said:
Jimmy Savile's victims were predominantly underage and not benefiting to the tune of millions of dollars due to keeping quiet.

Not at all a fair analogy.
Click to expand...
Classical Mechanic said:
Savile preyed on the most vulnerable in society not the most elevated.
Click to expand...

The issue is that you don't see them as victims at all, but rather as opportunists. Of course this also ignores the myriad of other reasons people keep quiet. Fear? Shame? Nah, he had a reputation, they should have known better - too bad.

It's exactly that attitude that makes these long-running abuse cases possible. You ask why abuse victims don't come forward - you're illustrating it perfectly. "No one will believe you" they're always told. Does having money make you less able to be a victim of a predator? What's the net worth at which you're not allowed to have basic human feelings? At what age are you no longer "vulnerable" when you're being violated? Were Saville's older victims less vulnerable than the younger ones? When you try to categorize these victims on a scale of legitimacy, you end up delegitimizing them all.
 
shabadu84 said:
The issue is that you don't see them as victims at all, but rather as opportunists. Of course this also ignores the myriad of other reasons people keep quiet. Fear? Shame? Nah, he had a reputation, they should have known better - too bad.

It's exactly that attitude that makes these long-running abuse cases possible. You ask why abuse victims don't come forward - you're illustrating it perfectly. "No one will believe you" they're always told. Does having money make you less able to be a victim of a predator? What's the net worth at which you're not allowed to have basic human feelings? At what age are you no longer "vulnerable" when you're being violated? Were Saville's older victims less vulnerable than the younger ones? When you try to categorize these victims on a scale of legitimacy, you end up delegitimizing them all.
Click to expand...

Beautifully put.
 
shabadu84 said:
The issue is that you don't see them as victims at all, but rather as opportunists. Of course this also ignores the myriad of other reasons people keep quiet. Fear? Shame? Nah, he had a reputation, they should have known better - too bad.

It's exactly that attitude that makes these long-running abuse cases possible. You ask why abuse victims don't come forward - you're illustrating it perfectly. "No one will believe you" they're always told. Does having money make you less able to be a victim of a predator? What's the net worth at which you're not allowed to have basic human feelings? At what age are you no longer "vulnerable" when you're being violated? Were Saville's older victims less vulnerable than the younger ones? When you try to categorize these victims on a scale of legitimacy, you end up delegitimizing them all.
Click to expand...

I never said that they were not victims. I certainly don't see them as opportunists.
 
Ben Affleck himself apologizing after condemning Weinstein first.

 
Last edited:
Hollywood must be drowning in the sweat of panicking executives and creatives right now. You can almost smell the fear in some of those statements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.