BERIGAN

Harvey Weinstein story in New Yorker...truly shocking

231 posts in this topic

yeah, it was a "scandal" when it was just about one guy (or a series of "one guys"). But the #metoo started up and that got noticed for like, one news cycle.

It's always easier to go after "one guy" than it is a culture in general. People like to have faces that they don't really know better than ones they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, page said:

Well.. believe it or not, it is not an easy subject to talk about. It may take many years to tell anyone about what happened, even a loved one. It is easy to say "I would speak up straight away" or "I would never go along with anything like that'', but can you really state that when you've never been in a similar situation? It happens in every line of work to a certain extend and not just to women. It has to do with abuse of power, being in a position dependant on someone else. I think the most important thing is creating an atmosphere where people feel like they cán speak up and object instead of wondering how come it took some a long time before they did. That shouldn't be an issue in my opinion.

Only, in Paltrow's case she supposedly told Brad Pitt and as the story is told, he claims to have threatened a "Missouri whooping" if Weinstein continued. So....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, catesta said:

Only, in Paltrow's case she supposedly told Brad Pitt and as the story is told, he claims to have threatened a "Missouri whooping" if Weinstein continued. So....

 

I have no idea what you're trying to say, catesta. Could you perhaps explain with more than an ellipsis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, lipi said:

I have no idea what you're trying to say, catesta. Could you perhaps explain with more than an ellipsis?

I can't speak for a 'Missouri whooping' but in Australia I guess it would translate this way...that Pitt was 'gonna punch the shit out of the sad ****'.

At the very least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, lipi said:

I have no idea what you're trying to say, catesta. Could you perhaps explain with more than an ellipsis?

Oh come on ....

Google is your friend too (and answers the question for anybody half-curious enough to do a search ... ;))

https://www.riverfronttimes.com/artsblog/2017/10/11/brad-pitt-once-threatened-a-missouri-whooping-on-harvey-weinstein

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Big Beat Steve said:

Oh come on ....

Google is your friend too (and answers the question for anybody half-curious enough to do a search ... ;))

https://www.riverfronttimes.com/artsblog/2017/10/11/brad-pitt-once-threatened-a-missouri-whooping-on-harvey-weinstein

 

I apologize: I was unclear. I understand exactly what Brad Pitt said. What I do not understand is how that relates to Page's post. Whether Brad Pitt threatened Weinstein or not is not relevant to the point that talking about sexual harassment and abuse is notoriously difficult. That Paltrow told one individual (Pitt) doesn't change that. So I ask again: what is the "So..." supposed to mean, catesta? Are you saying "look, she told someone"? (Because if so, yes, that's true, but you are missing the point entirely.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I don't think he is. She told someone and apparently there was someone who then took action (regardless of whether he would have followed through or not if that unshaven character had carried on ... this we don't know ...). So there WAS a way to get the word out and make it understood that this is not glossed over everywhere and by everyone.  So IMO this is ONE aspect that does relate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Big Beat Steve said:

No, I don't think he is. She told someone and apparently there was someone who then took action (regardless of whether he would have followed through or not if that unshaven character had carried on ... this we don't know ...). So there WAS a way to get the word out and make it understood that this is not glossed over everywhere and by everyone.  So IMO this is ONE aspect that does relate.

I disagree that telling a person who might be a personal friend is the same as "getting the word out". The original point still stands: it's hard to talk about sexual abuse in general, and there's tremendous pressure not to. The whole "well, look at all these women suddenly talking, why didn't they talk before?" question is naive and, frankly, offensive.

Catesta replied to a post in which page, I believe, was trying to say just this: "it's hard to talk about being sexual abused, and many people choose not to". Responding with "but Paltrow told this one guy and he said something about it to the perpetrator" doesn't negate that point. It merely shows the profound lack of understanding and empathy surrounding the issue.

Apologies if I come across as harsh in this thread. It truly is rather upsetting to me to see some of the arguments people are making here. (And for the record, I despise Paltrow. I think she's an idiot who endangers women's health with her silly workshops and "Goop" line of products and her jade eggs and whatever else. And I am not making an argument about whether she spoke up or not, or about whether she was abused or not. This is about the lack of empathy displayed here for victims, or potential victims, of sexual abuse and the trials and tribulations they face.)

Rant over. On a different note: jazz is great. I'm listening to some right now and it makes life better. (Right now Ella, 1938 recordings with Webb's orchestra. Great stuff.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there were a "Like" function I'd like this post lipi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, lipi said:

I disagree that telling a person who might be a personal friend is the same as "getting the word out". The original point still stands: it's hard to talk about sexual abuse in general, and there's tremendous pressure not to. The whole "well, look at all these women suddenly talking, why didn't they talk before?" question is naive and, frankly, offensive.

Catesta replied to a post in which page, I believe, was trying to say just this: "it's hard to talk about being sexual abused, and many people choose not to". Responding with "but Paltrow told this one guy and he said something about it to the perpetrator" doesn't negate that point. It merely shows the profound lack of understanding and empathy surrounding the issue.

Apologies if I come across as harsh in this thread. It truly is rather upsetting to me to see some of the arguments people are making here.

Disregarding the fact for a moment that "offensive" is one of those terms used in such an inflationary manner these days (particularly in AMERICAN English) that its essence and content are getting lost more and more through "one-accusation-fits-all" overuse, I am not even sure there is such a huge difference of opinion on this. I totaly agree that it IS difficult to talk about these things in public and that those who decided not to cannot be blamed (particularly if the perpetrator is one who had some sort of control about their professional lives and careers - which is bad enough anyway). But I still feel that below the threshold of public accusations there are steps that can be taken in that direction - like Paltrow and Pitt did when Pitt stepped up and told the perpetrator in no uncertain terms (which is way more than apparently can be said of other male actors who now all of a sudden feel soooooo shocked). And apparently it did have some effect on the addressee (if the stories accessible on the web are to be believed). So the perpetrator knew the word was out and he'd better watch his step there. A bit like the case of that old "If ya don't clean up yer act we're gonna hafta send da boys round". One FIRST step of taking action. But of course it takes friends with guts to help in such cases.

On a side note: This is creating splashes everywhere over here too and again it seems like this is getting out of focus and out of hand. Sexual harassment is a strict no-go and should never be tolerated, but this "metoo" business is turning more and more hysterical. Where do you ACTUALLY draw the line betwen what sexual harassment is and what is just an attempt at trying to be nice and showing an minimum of politeness in everyday life? Forums over here are full of complaints about workplace situations where simple, innocent-enough remarks like "Good morning - oh, you look great today" invariably elicit fits of hysteria about "I feel INSULTED! He is reducing me to my outward appearance and is ignoring my professional competence and his remark turns me into a sex object!" whine ... whine .... Similar case if you hold the door open for a woman to pass through when you enter a building "Hey, I can do that myself!" nag, nag .... How ridiculous can you get and isn't THIS the TRUE insult of those ACTUALLY suffering from sexual harassment? (BTW, I'd probably set the threshold of what might be considered making an unwanted sexual pass at someone lower than others would - but not THAT low!) Yes I know it will be difficult to get points like this across to those living in the more puritan parts of the US of A but this IS a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater!

So focus on where the REAL problems are and tackle THEM, but don't go overboard in fits of hysteria in those cases that can and should be solved easily by sheer common sense. Remember this is a door that swings BOTH ways!

Edited by Big Beat Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jazzbo said:

If there were a "Like" function I'd like this post lipi.

I agree with this sentiment 100%!!! 1000%, even. 

Lipi seems to be the only one here that is truly getting it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean to say there is a WIDESPREAD opinion around HERE that all those women ought to have spoken up that much, much earlier, come what may and that it discredits them speaking up only now?

Well, not on my part, for example. And from what I have read in this topic I cannot see very many others who think that way. So what's the bone of contention, really?

But - again - the range of possible options of how to deal with it is not all black-and-white in the way you react. Because all in all I still feel Pitt's reaction was better and gutsier than that of Affleck (cf. what Rose McGowan accused Affleck of). Because at least it was a START of a reaction (even though I of course would not expect everyone affected to have someone on hand to stand up for her. But if someone did, then what's wrong with it?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi lipi, you did understand my comments correctly, thanks for your elaboration.

 

Edited by page

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Big Beat Steve said:

 Where do you ACTUALLY draw the line betwen what sexual harassment is and what is just an attempt at trying to be nice and showing an minimum of politeness in everyday life? Forums over here are full of complaints about workplace situations where simple, innocent-enough remarks like "Good morning - oh, you look great today" invariably elicit fits of hysteria about "I feel INSULTED! He is reducing me to my outward appearance and is ignoring my professional competence and his remark turns me into a sex object!" whine ... whine ....

How about when you're at work, you keep things professional?  If you wouldn't say it to a male  fellow employee, don't say it to a female fellow employee.  It doesn't seem that difficult to me.  Of course, if your first reaction is to demean the woman for complaining, this might be something new to consider.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#metoo is necessary, imo. Many men have acted badly towards women at least once in their life. I know I have. It's often a part of immaturity meeting unrealistic expectation based on fantasies fueled by generation of "men's entertainment" that plant the seed of "hey, it's worth a shot" and "nothing ventured, nothing gained". That's wrong, but in terms of evolution, hopefully one does not get too caught up in it and realizes that it's bullshit, it's unacceptable, and the people on the receiving end of it probably don't feel the "necessity" of such type exploration nearly as urgently as you do. But too many men don't grow up that way, and some actually feel that that sort of aggression is a part of who they are, that it makes them some kind of alpha male or some shit. Having the #metoo thing out and about should remove any doubt that predatory behavior of any level is not appreciated by most women. Seduction, sure, wonderful. Mind games, hard-wired into the species on all sides. But just getting naked without an invitation, or pulling out your dick expecting a Penthouse Forum letter to break out....no.

And really - women do need to be loud on this for as long as it takes, because most men, if they're inclined to be a dog at all, will be as much of a dog as they feel they can get by with. And watch out for the man who thinks there's something wrong with women who have standards about what they will and will not tolerate. A man who is not willing to evolve won't evolve, and like the kids say, evolve or die. A dying animal is a dangerous animal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jazzmoose said:

How about when you're at work, you keep things professional?  If you wouldn't say it to a male  fellow employee, don't say it to a female fellow employee.  It doesn't seem that difficult to me.  Of course, if your first reaction is to demean the woman for complaining, this might be something new to consider.

A point that's often been made in those forums and to quote one long-gone noted comedian from here, "Everything's been said on it, except that it's not yet been said by everybody." :g And I am only half-surprised that this has come up straight away from the USA now as a first reply to my post as no doubt the example I quoted would have been found exceeeeeedingly non-P.C.-ish in many quarters (expats have story or two to tell at times, no matter how restrained they acted in their office work, having been cautioned before in a way that at times made them shake their heads in disbelief), even if it definitely was only meant in an appreciative way (and no, DEFINITELY no phone numbers asked ...)

Of course each case depends on the actual situation and demands to be handled accordingly, and usually things like this ARE handled individually and decently, depending on what kind of relationship and interaction colleagues have at the office (which can be icy cold or just cordial without going overboard or into the closet - or anything in between). But as long as there are women out there who keep winking at the "good looking new office guy next door" and comment on the way HE dresses (which DOES happen not much less often than to women, by all accounts) there is no fundamental difference in which gender is allegedly worse than the other.

In short, don't blow things out of all proportion unless you insist on slighting those who REALLY have reason to complain about true sexual harassment or even abuse (because the more of these non-incidents you lump in the more you downplay the really problematic cases that NEED to be addressed).

Edited by Big Beat Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow...

Now you're reducing your argument to a rather absurd eqivalency. 

You may want to stop digging. You're going to drown in the water table if you go much further. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JSngry said:

#metoo is necessary, imo. Many men have acted badly towards women at least once in their life. I know I have. It's often a part of immaturity meeting unrealistic expectation based on fantasies fueled by generation of "men's entertainment" that plant the seed of "hey, it's worth a shot" and "nothing ventured, nothing gained". That's wrong, but in terms of evolution, hopefully one does not get too caught up in it and realizes that it's bullshit, it's unacceptable, and the people on the receiving end of it probably don't feel the "necessity" of such type exploration nearly as urgently as you do. But too many men don't grow up that way, and some actually feel that that sort of aggression is a part of who they are, that it makes them some kind of alpha male or some shit. Having the #metoo thing out and about should remove any doubt that predatory behavior of any level is not appreciated by most women. Seduction, sure, wonderful. Mind games, hard-wired into the species on all sides. But just getting naked without an invitation, or pulling out your dick expecting a Penthouse Forum letter to break out....no.

And really - women do need to be loud on this for as long as it takes, because most men, if they're inclined to be a dog at all, will be as much of a dog as they feel they can get by with. And watch out for the man who thinks there's something wrong with women who have standards about what they will and will not tolerate. A man who is not willing to evolve won't evolve, and like the kids say, evolve or die. A dying animal is a dangerous animal.

Sure, but where do you draw the line between what is "seduction" as you describe it (others might call it gallantry, even thought that's a term - and way of acting - apparently terribly old-fashioned now ;)) or outright sexual abuse or harassment? Some women seem to be all too touchy about what you correctly refer to as "hard-wired mind games"  (while on the other hand they are not IN THE LEAST above trying to use their own hard-wiredness when it is to their ADVANTAGE, starting with soliciting little favors that - if they were being stringent with themselves - were a strict no-no to any self-respecting emancipated female able to take care of herself throughout!). Evolution has to take place on BOTH sides.

BTW, referring to where you live: How is this problem handled with those parts of the population with a Hispanic background, I wonder? Don't tell me their own culturally conditioned "hard-wiredness" has all gone down the drain by now throughout. Or is this harassment thing starting from such a low level maybe more of a WASP problem? ;)

 

Edited by Big Beat Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Week three, and still no formal charges against Harv. Keep digging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Big Beat Steve said:

 Evolution has to take place on BOTH sides.

 

Indeed it does, but you can't force evolution on others, they have do it themselves. So, take care of your own business, teach the kids, and relax and let it happen, you know you want it, you'll like it! #geraldwigginspredatorypositivelpcover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve, when was the last time you told a male co-worker how nice he looked? Did you use words like "beautiful", "cute",  or "amazing"? 

Edited by Scott Dolan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JSngry said:

Indeed it does, but you can't force evolution on others, they have do it themselves. So, take care of your own business, teach the kids, and relax and let it happen, you know you want it, you'll like it! #geraldwigginspredatorypositivelpcover

Not being able to force evolution on others - duly noted, but by that yardstick, what makes the exponents of the current discussion think, then, that the female gender can force evolution on the male gender?? Again, this is a door that swings both way too. And as long as women are "guilty" of the same "offense" (i.e. in these low-level "office" settings alluded to above that all of a sudden are lumped into the actual and real problem), even though admittedly to a lower degree, there is work to be done on BOTH sides.

You know, what galls me in these discussions is that below the level of Weinstein and his ilk hypocrisy becomes evident, and OTOH sometimes all this rather amuses me because there are moments when I almost feel like an outsider looking in, wondering about how worked-up you can get (on both sides) about petty things because trying to dig up bad intentions that alren't really there if your're being honest really are way too much effort. Maybe this is because I think my own evolution in this matter has taken place a good while ago and I have no problems treating persons of the "other sex" I know in either a correctly distanced or just buddy-like manner (or anything in between, depending on who she is and how close we are). You know, if you have spent four and a half years at a university where the students throughout the faculty were made up of about 85 to 90% women then you INVARIABLY get to see the other sex as some sort of NEUTRAL GENDER-LESS SOMEBODY or SOMETHING where the fact that "she" is from the "other sex" after a while just does not enter into the equation anymore and outside your very personal, private life you just interact with them like "human beings of indefinite - because irrelevant - sex" (and no, in case you're wondering - they weren't all that ugly that you'd not notice that they ARE attractive femmes, but still, you just couldn't care less going beyond a certain limit ... ;))

2 hours ago, Scott Dolan said:

Steve, when was the last time you told a male co-worker how nice he looked? Did you use words like "beautiful", "cute",  or "amazing"? 

Wrong equation. The equivalent would be the women who make remarks to that effect towards a MALE co-worker. Happens everyday, everywhere. Hard-wiredness. On BOTH sides.

As for me, this has been irrelevant for the past 28 years, being self-employed in a 2-person office (my colleague and office partner IS female, BTW, and even through these years such remarks happen every once in a blue moon, in both directions ...) But at the office I was employed at before that I did in fact made appreciative remarks every now and then (when appropriate and merited) and they were appreciated throughout (you know even a "wow" in appreciation sometimes is sufficient). And this never kept me from working together in a strictly professional manner. Maybe it is the TONE that sets the music, you know ... (see my reply to Jim Sangrey above), even in other situations in everyday life because interaction with other human beings (of BOTH sexes) involves much more than just work hours and if you are rash enough you can get into trouble even elsewhere (or particularly there). ;)

Edited by Big Beat Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Big Beat Steve said:

Not being able to force evolution on others - duly noted, but by that yardstick, what makes the exponents of the current discussion think, then, that the female gender can force evolution on the male gender??

See, you're missing the point. Women are not forcing evolution on us. They are offering us the opportunity to evolve.

Time will tell how that works out on a large scale over a longer window of time, but that's true of everything. Resistance may or may not be futile, but honestly, wouldn't you like to live in a world where suspicion of men in general is not a well-deserved norm? I would. Thus, you have an opportunity to evolve. Use it or lose it, right?

Also remember this - no matter how it works out, you will still have your genitals, and, hopefully, your mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The waitress at the diner just called me a honey, and a cashier at the gas station mentioned that she liked my hair. Do I feel violated, lost and hurt...or what? Help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.