To ask: Why did it take so long for people to talk about The Weinstein in the room?(15 Posts)
Why were the Oscar BAFTA crowd so obsessed with Donald Trump's failings - which were largely anecdotal - while many of them had first experience of a much worse monster, with a proven record of abuse.
Can anyone explain please?
Turning a blind eye is an institutions response to a stink that wont go away. No one wants to out themselves either as being complicit in his carry on by not taking him to task sooner.
For further evidence of this look at The Catholic Church moving their collection of predators round various parishes. The BBC ignoring JS. Not just not having enough proof, but actively ignoring complaints and the open secret in the corporation.
Its what happens when one person is given too much power, money and arse lickers around them.
I dont know if its an explanation but it seems a pattern.
And I have a prediciton that DT will find his audio about his behaviour will haunt him just as soon as The Republican Party have enough shit on him to bring him down. It will serve its purpose then and will have sod all to do with the women he molested.
I am sure HW has come to the end of his powers/influence or some such and now these accusations actually ahve some leverage but were insignificant enough in the past as were of no practical use at the time.
Because he was the extreme form of a culturally accepted practice? Because he carried out behaviour that was facilitated by a wide range of social, cultural and political norms? Because his behaviour was predicated on imbalances of power - particularly the lesser power of women in relation to men? Because, in fact, there was in actual practice no way to stop him/speak out? Because those who tried found out that their actions were individualised, then either dismissed or prevented because the existing power strucutres didn't permit them to stop it? Because every time someone did try and stop him/speak out, what happened to those people was - in fact - widely known, and served as an object warning to others?
Because it has taken a quite significant shift in prevailing attitudes - social, political, cultural - and a slow build in the actual, real power of women, to stop him/gain the power to speak out?
Because it has long been an accepted part of the culture of the industry.
I also think so many women haven't spoken out because they chose the casting couch instead of obscurity but dare not admit it as it would ruin their reputation/career so they have to keep the secret.
Now it has come out and they will be identified as victims so they can come forward.
If more women had the confidence to walk away from the casting couch it would soon lose cultural acceptance. Unfortunately I fear that many women looking for fame are lacking self worth and look to others to validate them which makes them vulnerable to this treatment.
Let's not forget that this isn't limited to women, there have been plenty of vulnerable boys finding themselves in a similar situation.
The Cat Hollywood is too cynical to respond to the rising power of women as the essential root of this scandal. The place is still male top heavy, the roles women get are still the same in essence though women may be starting to make up more of the target audience that the studios want to access.
This whole scandal might well be a power move on behalf of another operator with which to bring down a tyrant so another, not disimilar power source can fill the void.
It might be cynical of me, but the attitudes of society towards victims of abuse is still so low down of the list of things they care about as to be nigh on invisible. So, we hear all the uproar, some more skeletons will clatter out of cupboards but things will go back to same old same old in a few weeks.
I think TheCatFromJapan has it right. I know about an organisation at this moment where it is widely known that abuse is taking place, but the people at the top are refusing to acknowledge it, and no-one else in the organisation feels they can achieve any change. It's baffling and scary how powerless you can find yourself.
loloflores has nailed it. It wasn't needed before.
Thank you for this, @lolaflores and @thecatfromjapan
Obviously I'm not qualified to judge, being in the wrong country, industry and gender, but I do wonder about some of this.
Is it really culturally acceptable?
Were / are women really that down-trodden? How come all these people were brave enough to have a go at the President, but not a film producer? There are pictures of Emma Thomson gazing lovingly at Mr Wankstain - at some ghastly black tie event where the rich and powerful celebrate themselves. She didn't look too disgusted with him then.
Obviously, I've never been in that situation and I never will, so I can't judge. It all seems a bit odd though.
Are women really that downtrodden?
Please take a look at actual guilty charges against men accused of rape in direct proportion to reports of rape.
Try even being listened to in meeting with men present.
Take a measurement of the gender pay gap.
In fact, if you measure the disparity between men and women on any number of scales, then it is pretty obvious how women lose out time and again to the other 50% of men.
There are unseen, unspoken attitudes that maintain these differences. They have gone on since time began and will continue to do so.
One picture of Emma Thompson standing beside HW does not build a case of complicity against her. She had bussiness dealings with him and I don't think shed be his type what with her being in a slightly less deferential position.
OK, I apologise if I sound like i'm defending the injustices, which I'm not.
I'm just asking questions, because I don't know what it's like. My only worry is that there are generalisations being made because of one awful man. (A man who apparently got away with it with the complicity of a lot of people)
Hollywood sounds like a dreadful place to work, but I'm not sure it's typical.
I think guilty verdicts, in proportion to reports of rape, might not be a contentious way of judging men. How do we know what proportion of the figures is accounted for by guilty men who got away with it, how much is caused by the incompetence of police and the judiciary and how much by people making false accusations of rape?
As for Hollywood (A world I\m not personally familiar with) it sounds to me like you only have to make a deal with the devil (in the form of Weinstein) if you want to make a box office blockbuster. When you are already fabulously rich and well connected, you can probably survive without making a blockbuster.
Emma Thomson has the power to get money from vast array of sources, and she could easily fund a film through other channels. Why would she need this awful man? She has the clout to be an independent film maker.
Mind you, independent film makers find it hard to make box office gold. But surely, as an artiste, she's not purely in it for the money is she?
I wonder if Harvey Weinstein's contributions to the Clinton Foundation had any bearing on events.
Hollywood actresses and directors must be pretty powerful. They have money and reputations that open doors, surely.
I agree with you that it's hard to get ideas accepted in meetings. That's not exclusive to women though. I hated corporate life so I got out. There are women who are equally gobby as men, although they are much rarer.
I am speaking from a position of ignorance, I admit, so I apologise for that.
Yes. You are speaking from a place of ignorance. As a man, you will never ever have the sinking feelig of walking past a group of men and having to deal with that from the time your body starts to develop or in some cases earlier.
Developing a radar for untrustable men early in life. Not cos anyone told you, but because things have happened that wise you up. For instance, Uncle Bob who displays a jolly charm and warmth, but the strange change that comes over him when the other adults leave.
Fathers of friends. Colleagues at work. Flatmates. Men in pubs or clubs who don't take no for an answer.
All these men. and I mean all of them are fathers, brothers, uncles, sons etc. Doesn't matter what political party they donated to.
They are, to a man, abusers. They get away with it because women know better than to speak outl
Because excuses are concocted about how they got away with it such as donations to politcial parties. Women were complicit because it suited them. Women liked it. Women didn't speak up for other women. The police messed up the evidence. Not enough rapes are reported...
Yep. Heard them all before.
BOttom line is. Men have got away with this forever, because they can and that isn't going to change anytime soon.
Has that helped any?
Haven't many of the males involved been accused of similar ('lesser') behavior? The aflecks brothers for example. If the speak out against HW they may have to face their own guilt &culpability or perhaps dob't speak out because as they are sexual harrassers also they don't view hos behaviour as unacceptable?
Thank you. Sorry I was flippant. I apologise.
This Popbitch excellent article talks about the issue of how the press often know what's going on but can't or won't report on it.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now »
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.