|
Post by onebluestocking on Aug 25, 2018 23:18:52 GMT
As soon as the person in power demands sexual favors for that career advancement, that is sexual harassment. The victim's reaction to it does not change that fact.
Wikipedia says: "In most modern legal contexts, sexual harassment is illegal. Laws surrounding sexual harassment generally do not prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or minor isolated incidents—that is due to the fact that they do not impose a "general civility code".[4] In the workplace, harassment may be considered illegal when it is frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim's demotion, firing or quitting). The legal and social understanding of sexual harassment, however, varies by culture. Sexual harassment is a form of illegal employment discrimination. "
So yes, they are a crime victim. Also, in most of the HW cases I read, nobody "chose to exchange" anything. He often tricked them by setting appointments in public parts of the hotel, then when the women arrived they were told there was a schedule change and escorted to a suite instead. The seating area would have work-related material such as scripts on the table, and a female staffer would attend to put the actress at ease. The meeting would start out as all-business (HW was a successful producer, presumably he did have some actual professional meetings that did not end up in bathrobes in his career, so it's understandable if an interviewee thought it was one even if they had heard rumors about him.) Some HW staffers reported that calming down upset women afterward was part of their jobs. Another technique was to start the meeting in the restaurant downstairs, where waiters had standing orders to spike womens' drinks with alcohol even if they did not order anything alcoholic, then move upstairs under a pretense such as looking for paperwork.
I probably read 20 of these stories at least, and it's notable that a grand total of one woman was over 30. There's a reason he targeted young, naive girls who were easy to bully, not confident, experienced older women.
The argument "why didn't they just give up their careers if they didn't want to sleep with HW?" misses the point that he was breaking the law by requiring this, and is used to excuse the harasser. HW probably justified his actions this way to himself.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Aug 26, 2018 2:55:44 GMT
It’s a complex situation and harassment is indeed one of the most difficult crimes to prove. That’s why is recommended to record things (as that Italian model did with HW) and saving messages, photos, etc. (as apparently happened to Asia Argento and if those message are true then maybe she also has proofs of extortion).
I think the problem with Weinstein is that it was something that was part of a system. That’s why I think it’s possible that people in Hollywood didn’t see him as a criminal until the words rape and harassment were openly mentioned: yes, he was disgusting but women were there because they wanted something in change, they thought. And I’m sure it was true in some cases (sadly it seems that was the case with the woman who sued him and he “unmasked” in court.I think there could be abuse but clearly she took advantage of her relationship with him for years, too) and the problem is that even if they wanted it there is still a big problem with the system. A problem that without doubt opens the door to harassment and sexual abuse.
But the main point is that an effective movement needs to demand useful things and needs to have smart mentally stable leaders. Asia Argento and Rose McGowan are not that!
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on Aug 26, 2018 3:54:21 GMT
The problem with having only mentally “stable” people leading a movement like this is that they’re not the likely ones to be abused. Just because someone is mentally ill, or excitable, ambivelant, or whatever doesn’t discount their experiences at the hands of an abuser. People like to discount them b/c they’re not being “professional,” or “rational,” about what happened to them, but suppose the abuse is what made them that way. It’s kind of like asking disabled people to step aside and have only abled people plead their cause for them, don’t you think?
I mean, yes, people make judgements based on how people appear in public, but I think we also need to have a conversation about that.
|
|
|
Post by onebluestocking on Aug 26, 2018 4:40:18 GMT
Yes, unfortunately they keep seeking the #metoo spotlight, and the more stable victims are just putting out one statement and dropping the matter.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Aug 26, 2018 10:29:17 GMT
I know harassment is a crime and I’m really not defending HW, he’s a truly dreadful individual.
My only question is re the women in the documentary I saw. If you were in a room with a man thinking you were there for a job interview or career discussion and he then appeared naked but for a dressing gown and asked you to massage him would you do it.? Especially knowing there was nothing stopping you walking out the door. That’s what I mean by choice. There was a choice - either go along with him or leave.
As for giving up their careers, HW was not the only film producer in Hollywood.
I know it’s a complex issue and I’m not condemning the women, I’m just quite puzzled by their behaviour.
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on Aug 26, 2018 14:27:12 GMT
Ellie, I didn’t see that documentary, but maybe you could allow that in that moment, some women felt like they didn’t have a choice? No matter what you would do, how you understand things to be, some of those women obviously felt there was no other option.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Aug 26, 2018 17:59:27 GMT
Ellie, I didn’t see that documentary, but maybe you could allow that in that moment, some women felt like they didn’t have a choice? No matter what you would do, how you understand things to be, some of those women obviously felt there was no other option. Thing is QZ, I got the impression from the interviews that they did know they had a choice but elected to go down that route because they thought it would help their career. That does not mean that I think HW is any less guilty. Regardless of their reactions what he did was still wrong. It just means I’m slightly less sympathetic towards those women. I will of course concede that I may be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on Aug 27, 2018 0:53:04 GMT
I don’t know if it’s a matter of right or wrong. People have all kinds of experiences and do all kinds of stuff. Sometimes it’s a decision, and sometimes it’s a patterned response. Im just not sure it’s helpful to judge others and think less of them for not doing what (we believe) we would have done. 😃
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Aug 27, 2018 1:28:51 GMT
The problem with having only mentally “stable” people leading a movement like this is that they’re not the likely ones to be abused. Just because someone is mentally ill, or excitable, ambivelant, or whatever doesn’t discount their experiences at the hands of an abuser. People like to discount them b/c they’re not being “professional,” or “rational,” about what happened to them, but suppose the abuse is what made them that way. It’s kind of like asking disabled people to step aside and have only abled people plead their cause for them, don’t you think? I mean, yes, people make judgements based on how people appear in public, but I think we also need to have a conversation about that. But that’s not true. There is a lot of much more stable people than those two that were a victim! I’m thinking, for example, in Samantha Geimer, Polanski’s victim. I’m not sure she see herself as an activist but it’s amazing how objective she can be with this themes even when she was there. She also talks about healing and it’s against movements that take advantage of the victim hood of abused people. I agreed that people could be gravelly affected by abuse but having someone who hasn’t healed as a leader of a political movement is not a good idea and it will end bad. It’s not their fault. She or he not just would be scrutinized and probably damaged even more but it also would affect the movement. I just read another “accusation” against Argento. It was by a comic and it was actually taken from an old podcast from last year. Someone just found it and tabloids are, of course, exploited it. Apparently she send unsolicited semi-nude photos to him. He complained to her about it and she got angry saying she always do that with her friends and that it wasn’t something sexual. He also said something very smart: I believe her but I think she is not the right person to be a spokeswoman of #MeToo.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Aug 27, 2018 1:43:42 GMT
|
|