October 10, 2017

Interest in sexual harassment was suppressed to protect Bill Clinton: Is that part of why Harvey Weinstein got away with his abuses?

The 1990s began with a heightening of interest in sexual harassment as liberals tried to defeat the confirmation of Clarence Thomas. The refrain in the fall of 1991 was "You just don't get it," as Democrats lambasted anyone who resisted taking sexual harassment in the workplace seriously. But in 1998, when the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke, Democrats reversed the message. In the biggest sellout of feminism I've seen in my lifetime, sexual harassment turned into just sex, and those who wanted to take it seriously were derided as prigs.

Now, I'm reading the NYT article "Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie and Others Say Weinstein Harassed Them/'This way of treating women ends now,' Ms. Paltrow said as she and other actresses accused the producer of casting-couch abuses," and I'm wondering why only now? Why not earlier? What stood in your way?

My hypothesis is that liberals — including nearly everyone in the entertainment business — suppressed concern about sexual harassment to help Bill Clinton. Giving him cover gave cover to other powerful men, and the cause of women's equality in the workplace was set back 20 years.

So I'm looking at the new NYT article and trying to see what the dates are. They're kind of obscure! I'm seeing vague phrases like "in the late 1990s" and "accounts of sexual harassment going back to the 1990s." I am seeing a couple clear dates. First, 1999...
Even as Ms. Paltrow became known as the “first lady of Miramax” and won an Oscar for “Shakespeare in Love” in 1999, very few people knew about Mr. Weinstein’s advances. “I was expected to keep the secret,” she said.
... and 1996:
In 1996, the French actress Judith Godrèche said she was invited up to Mr. Weinstein’s suite, where he asked to give her a massage. After she said no, she recalled, he argued that casual massages were an American custom.
I just want to put this hypothesis out there and encourage people to correlate allegations about Weinstein with the great knowing-and-forgetting process that happened in the 1990s — 1991 and 1998 were the key dates — as the issue of sexual harassment was crushed into whatever shape worked in the interest of Democratic Party power.

Are these allegations coming out now because Hillary Clinton lost the election and the time for covering for Bill Clinton is over at long last?

***

"I just want you to know how much Bill and I appreciate the things you do for him. Do you understand? Everything you do."/"What really went through my mind at that time is 'She knows. She knew. She's covering it up and she expects me to do the very same thing.'"

273 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 273 of 273
The Godfather said...

It's a mistake to compare the way the press treats a "sex scandal" involving a Hollywood mogul with a "sex scandal" involving a major political figure, e.g., WJClinton. Many people, not only in the media but out there in the real world were committed to Bill Clinton because of the policies he articulated, and weren't prepared to accept "dirt" about him as long as they could blame it on his opponents. Weinstein doesn't have that going for him, even though he's a big supporter of liberal and Democrat causes. No feminist is going to offer Harvey a blow job in thanks for keeping abortion legal, because that's not something Harvey can get credit for. So don't compare Weinstein to Clinton (either one), or any of the Kennedys; compare him to Cosby. The lesson is that eventually the old lion grows weak, and the young lions attack.

Gahrie said...

Well....if the Vatican standard is 'don't kill your baby", and everyone else's standard is "we're fine with killing babies"....I think I'll go with the Vatican standards.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Nina and many other leftists, worship at the alter of Bill's diseased old shriveled penis, and abortion on demand.

Ray said...

Hollywood early days scandals:

http://filmstarfacts.com/2016/01/13/the-casting-couch/

n.n said...

[class] Diversity politics. In this case the class is sex. The female chauvinists placed their pursuit of wealth, pleasure, leisure, narcissistic indulgence, and Democratic leverage, before babies, men, and women, too.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Just five months ago, Harvey Weinstein was hanging out with Hillary Clinton at Planned Parenthood’s 100th anniversary gala:

We all understand why CA voted for Hillary.


exiledonmainstreet said...

"And Puritan, too! "

Nope, that's your manhating campus SJWs who see rapists everywhere.

And they're not conservatives.

This liberal ditz just can't keep herself from hopping into bed with Trump voters - perhaps because the liberal pencil-necked dweebs she knows are so unappealing:

https://www.glamour.com/story/hooking-up-with-trump-voters-essay

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Is rape legal -

Is rape rape if it's not prosecuted? Let alone convicted?

In right-wing land, accusations are reality.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Gahrie said...
Well....if the Vatican standard is 'don't kill your baby", and everyone else's standard is "we're fine with killing babies"....I think I'll go with the Vatican standards.

10/10/17, 9:42 PM

As I said earlier about Fat Teddy, of course old lechs are going to be all gung-ho for abortion. They have a vested interest in not seeing unborn babies as babies.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

No - in leftwing land, fake news and false accusations are reality.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Well....if the Vatican standard is 'don't kill your baby"...

Does this look like a "baby?" Or do you take many things that look like this home to mama, to feed and nurture, and burp and change diapers and coo at and rock to sleep?

If you do, you're a fuckin' weirdo. Like even weirder than those kids assigned to care for a hard-shell chicken egg for a week. Much, much weirder. Of course, that's because you're right-wing. But I repeat myself.

YoungHegelian said...

Do you know who Harvey Weinstein reminds me of, more than Clinton & more than Cosbie? He reminds me of Pete Rose.

Now, Rose was never the possible rapists & all-around woman oppressing pervert that Weinstein, Clinton, or Cosbie are, but he was a wild man for his time. The press, the league, & his team always covered for him. The Reds management would routinely pay off some creep who come in with a photograph of Rose with a naked black prostitute on his lap, or something else of a like nature.

And then came the straw that broke the camel's back, something that could not & would not be covered up, i.e. his betting on his own team while still a player/manager. The rules changed on that day for Pete Rose. All those folks who had covered up for him for so long were no longer inclined to do so, & his world fell in on him.

Now, I'm much more inclined to forgiveness for Pete Rose than Harvey Weinstein, but the media dynamics of their falls from grace strike me as very similar. For both men, one day they woke up & the world around them had suddenly become a lot less indulgent of their bad habits.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

They have a vested interest in not seeing unborn babies as babies.

And you have a vested interest in seeing to it that the sum total of human interaction looks like this.

Just a stepping stone on your dream to make human rearing look like this.

Cogs in a wheel. That's the right-wing dream. Economy over humanity. Parts in a machine.

Gahrie said...

Does this look like a "baby?"

I don't look like a baby either..does that mean it's OK to kill me?

exiledonmainstreet said...


"And you have a vested interest in seeing to it that the sum total of human interaction looks like this. "

Like a zygote? Well, that makes no fucking sense, since guess what, genius, they don't stay that size. They develop little arms and legs and lungs and if they're conservatives they also develop brains. That's kinda the point of the pro-life movement.

Of course, you want to pretend that babies with functioning organs are the same as zygotes and the being who is a child the second it passes though the birth canal is a non-person one minute earlier.

This the future you prefer:

http://imgarcade.com/aborted-fetus-24-weeks.html

walter said...

TTR,
Where on the life continuum do you view a pre-born as life?
Or does it have to pass your burp and shit test to qualify?

Sally327 said...

"Do you know who Harvey Weinstein reminds me of, more than Clinton & more than Cosbie? He reminds me of Pete Rose.

Now, Rose was never the possible rapists & all-around woman oppressing pervert that Weinstein, Clinton, or Cosbie are, but he was a wild man for his time. The press, the league, & his team always covered for him."

Well, there is that whole under age girl thing, some 14 year old he had a relationship with back in the 70s. But Rose didn't try to extort favors, sexual or otherwise, by threatening to use the power of his position to destroy someone's career if they didn't go along.

That's what I think pushes Weinstein from just being a garden variety perv to complete monster. It makes me think he wasn't especially interested in sex with these women, which really he could have gotten that easily enough from willing partners, he got off on the chance to bully and terrify.

Ray said...

I am amazed the Harvey Weinstein story still is front page news after 6 days.

Why? The left is doing its best to discredit it as Trump is worse. Ailes! OReilly! Etc. None of that is working.

My guess:

- The audio recording proved it true
- Once The NY Times opened the door, on the scandal, some others who had been holding back finally spoke up.
- The fame of the Miramax stars, many of them knew about it.
- The Democratic Party saying all rape victims should be believed, and then silence on this.
- Accusations are getting worse, from the poor plant to rape.


William said...

Warren Beatty disputes the numbers, but, for sure, he slept with hundreds and possibly thousands of women. I think there might have been a power imbalance in many of his relationships. He probably used some combination of fame, good looks, or charm to get over. So far as I know, no one is criticizing him, but what he did was to act out the words Trump said in that tape. It's ok for some celebrities to be louche and horn dogs but not for others.......If you wish to sleep with hundreds of women, it is important to be good looking, good natured, and in favor of liberal causes--and try not to make money off it in the way Hefner did. DiCaprio seems to have mastered the knack.

Lucien said...

Now I Know! did you get the refund? Let us know how it's going.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"Now, I'm much more inclined to forgiveness for Pete Rose than Harvey Weinstein, but the media dynamics of their falls from grace strike me as very similar. For both men, one day they woke up & the world around them had suddenly become a lot less indulgent of their bad habits. "

That's a good observation, YH. Remember, Rose started his mlb career when Mantle was still playing and Mantle's whoring and boozing was covered up by the press, just as they had once covered up Ruth's philandering and drunken escapades. Mantle was the Golden Boy of baseball and Rose undoubtedly expected the same treatment. The baseball establishment was furious at Jim Bouton for writing "Ball Four" (very tame by today's standards) and spilling the beans about Mantle's drinking and skirt-chasing.

Mike Sylwester said...

walter at 9:41

Hmm..was the big Lewenski a case of sexual harassment?

The entire controversy began with Paula Jones' accusation that she had been sexually harassed by Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton.

chickelit said...

Winestain does a Polanski -- flies to Europe to avoid rape charges. Future headline "Winestain to fight extradition to US. France celebrates legendary film director."

William said...

I don't think the wish to sleep with hundreds of women is totally admirable, but neither is it especially evil. Harvey's true aim was not to have sex with all those women but to humiliate and discomfit them......I envy guys like Heffner and Beatty. They had a sweet ride through life. There's nothing about Harvey I envy. I like my life better.

anti-de Sitter space said...

"We all understand why CA voted for Hillary."

I didn't follow the link, but I'm assuming there was some research re the correlation (maybe even causation) re stars and bars on pickup trucks per capita and votes re HRC v DJT.

Right?

YoungHegelian said...

@exile,

That's a good observation, YH

And, do you know what makes it so apropos to our discussion here? This brilliant observation came to me in the shower. How fitting, sez I.

anti-de Sitter space said...

YH TMI.

Kelly said...

I don’t think it has anything to do with Clinton. I think it’s the story of Hollywood. No one is safe. Men, woman and children. Terry Crew just said a high ranking executive groped him last year in front of his wife for Gods sakes!. I remember reading that Shirley Temples mother watched her like a hawk. Only once did she slip and leave the set for A short time and the director pounced. Maybe this is finally the end.

Lucien said...

So wait - did Now I Know! get a refund or not?

And anti-de Sitter space, pay your subscription or STFU. We don't want to hear you bitching about how you don't get what you want from the blogging, the way Now I Know! does.

anti-de Sitter space said...

"Weinstein does a Polanski"

Sorta like doing a Podolsky (as in EPR) with an entanglement/extradition thing-y.

walter said...

Mike Sylwester said...The entire controversy began with Paula Jones
--
Fair enough. It should be framed as such then.

exiledonmainstreet said...

" This brilliant observation came to me in the shower. How fitting, sez I."

I will not ask if you had anybody watching you.

Sam's Hideout said...

I wonder if Harvey Weinstein had always acted as such or did he develop these habits later on after he became a relative movie heavyweight? Before Disney acquired Miramax, Miramax was primarily a distributor, picking up indies and foreign films, rather than a production studio. They were supposedly in some financial difficulty in the early 90s until they got a relatively big hit with The Crying Game in 1992, grossing $62 million. In comparison, Miramax released Reservoir Dogs earlier in 1992, which was a moderate success for them...having grossed $2.8 million. Disney paid the Weinstein brothers $60 million in mid-1993 for Miramax, keeping them on.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Where on the life continuum do you view a pre-born as life?

Where on the life continuum do you you view sperm and egg as not-living?

Not all human life consists of actual people, genius.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Like a zygote? Well, that makes no fucking sense, since guess what, genius, they don't stay that size. They develop little arms and legs and lungs and if they're conservatives they also develop brains. That's kinda the point of the pro-life movement.

Like a 24-week fetus? Well, that makes no fucking sense, since guess what, genius, they don't stay that size. They develop almost as little arms and legs and lungs and if they're not conservatives they also develop brains. That's kind of the point of the pro-human movement.

Of course, you want to pretend that babies with functioning organs are the same as zygotes and the being who is a child the second it passes though the birth canal is a non-person one minute earlier.

Of course, you want to pretend that functioning people with functioning organs are the same as zygotes and that the feeling, talking, crawling or walking human that formed from it earlier should die on the street due to lack of food, medicine or shelter. Only if there's a uterus that it can be kept wedged into do you care about it.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Sexiled on Manstreet lost her virginity at a frat house so she's very into the fetishization of pregnancy.

Kevin said...

Apparently NBC is still playing by the old rules. Maybe "it's a New York thing" means "my bosses in New York told me not to do it".

Farrow discussed his story Tuesday evening on MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show,” and there’s good reason: He started the story under NBC’s auspices.

Asked why the story ran in the New Yorker rather than on NBC, Farrow told Maddow, “You would have to ask NBC and NBC executives about the details.”

“I will say that over many years, many news organizations have circled this story and faced a great deal of pressure in doing so,” he continued. “There are now reports emerging about the kind of pressure news organizations have faced. That is real. And in the course of this reporting, I was threatened with a lawsuit personally by Mr. Weinstein.”


The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Conservatives with brains. That's hilarious. You'd almost think they're pro-reason, or something.

Right around when a fetus develops a brain is about the time when they think it's on it's own and they stop caring about it, actually. Especially if there isn't a vagina nearby into which it can be stuffed and involuntarily incubated. You've been born, you say? Hey, fuck you! You're on your own! This is the party that wanted to END the children's health insurance program (CHIP). They actually WANT kids to die!

https://newrepublic.com/article/145084/gops-struggles-re-authorize-chip-devastating-indictment

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a12765019/republicans-childrens-healthcare-program/

Kevin said...

Lindsay Lohan is chiming in from Dubai and still using the Bill Clinton talking points:

“I feel very bad for Harvey Weinstein right now,” she said in the Instagram story, taken from her home in Dubai. “I don’t think it’s right what’s going on.”

Lohan also said that Weinstein’s wife, Georgina Chapman, who intends on filing for divorce, needs to “take a stand and be there for her husband.”

Lohan added of Weinstein: “He’s never harmed me or did anything to me – we’ve done several movies together.I think everyone needs to stop – I think it’s wrong. So stand up.”

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

The Republican position on abortion is never inconsistent, either.

Amadeus 48 said...

Lindsay Lohan is a sad train wreck of a real talent. I think she is a little out of touch. She is trying to be loyal, but the market in loyalty has collapsed.
Harvey's "friends", they are turning on him after turning away from what he did. Shakespeare wrote a play about it, Timon of Athens.
Althouse has never turned away from the debasement of feminism by its tribunes to defend Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party's interests. The Clinton presidency was when anyone that was paying attention saw that NOW and NARAL and Emily's List were not for women, they were for Democrats. Then came the Bush and Obama years, when feminists continued to draw lines which did not always match reality. Unmarried women tended to vote D; married women tended to vote R. The issues of empowerment and mutual respect were buried by partisan politics.

Sad.

Molly said...

Replying to Walter at 9:41 pm.

Where we were headed after the Clarencee Thomas confirmation was toward a general agreement that "power imbalances" -- such as between supervisor and employee, or professor and student, or movie producer and actor -- made meaningful consent impossible, or at least impossible to confirm after the fact. So with that as a basis for judgment, yes Clinton-Lewinski was harassment, or use some other term, but make it clear that the term implies social, cultural, and perhaps legal disapprobation. this has certainly been the evolution of thinking in academia. When I finished my graduate studies in the 1980s, I could see three or four cases of professors dating and in some cases marrying their students. Since the 1990s, we now take a mandatory "course" (a one hour on-line tutorial) on impermissible behavior that makes it clear that professor - student sexual encounters are strictly forbidden by university policy.

David Baker said...

No longer possible to ignore the obvious, now it's everywhere. A virtual orgy.

cornroaster said...

Hmm..was the big Lewenski a case of sexual harassment?

My understanding of the gospel of feminism is that a woman is never able to consent to any sexual activity with a man in a position of power - the man is always guilty of sexual aggression. There is no such thing as seduction by a woman of inferior social or power status. Therefore, by their own definitions, the Clinton-Lewinsky relationship had to be, at best, sexual harassment.

exiledonmainstreet said...

So abortion just fine is just fine because a GOP lawmaker is a hypocrite?




BUMBLE BEE said...

Preceding Bill Clinton's presidency there was a burgeoning awareness of the impact of the dysfunctional characteristics the alcoholic family. The entire media industry focused on the therapeutic recovery movements addressing the attendant behaviors. Movies, talk shows, magazines and newspapers shouting examples of the alcoholic family malfunction were everywhere.
Bill Clinton's run for presidency brought media to a lockstep screeching halt.

Brent said...

I can only think over and over of one thing in all of this from Clinton to Weinstein and everyone in between:

How does that much mocked and excoriated Vice President Pence "never alone with any woman other than his wife" rule look now?

Bad Lieutenant said...


The Toothless Revolutionary said...
Sexiled on Manstreet lost her virginity at a frat house so she's very into the fetishization of pregnancy.


Achilles, is this comment what you mean when you talk about people flushing their souls down a toilet?

Ritmo, I could understand posting something like this if she had stabbed you, otherwise not so much. Just being angry isn't a sufficient excuse. Though it may be an explanation.

Back in 2000 when those reservists got torn apart by the mob in Ramallah, I asked my cousin the neurologist aren't they mentally ill? They are raising their hands to the camera and showing the blood on their hands! They are playing with corpses! He said no, they're just really angry. Are you that angry?

tim in vermont said...

If they held that pose on Drudge for 15 seconds, he could have rubbed one out.

Rusty said...

"They are playing with corpses! He said no, they're just really angry. Are you that angry? "

Prolly needs to get laid.
Still thinks girls are ....icky.
Or they think he's creepy.

MadisonMan said...

Drudgereport as a website didn't start until 1997

But he was all over alt.showbiz.gossip before that.

PaddyO at 9:18 PM and Molly at 9:27 PM last night I think captured the essence of this topic perfectly.

gravityhurts said...

Imagine what SNL could have done with a Weinstein imitator and a potted plant in the same room.

dda6ga dda6ga said...

yes, next question...

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Leftism is theocracy.

Cato Renasci said...

There is another point to consider in the timing of this: many in the Democratic party, especially those on the further left (but I repeat myself) have been saying it was time for Hillary to go away.

What better way to make Hillary go away but to stop indirectly and directly protecting Bill from his gross sexual harassment of women going back decades!

Consider that her relationship with Bill, and Bill's charisma (such as it still may be in certain circles), is the only reason Hillary was every considered for anything in politics to begin with. Cut that off at the knees and there is literally nothing left except a particularly shrill and unlikeable and unattractive old scold.

Getting Weinstein, who has been widely acknowledge as very close to Bill and Hillary (not to mention Obama) is an easy way to bring Bill's behavior back to public scrutiny in the event Hillary doesn't agree to go away quietly.

Make no mistake, the Weinstein takedown is a message to the Clintons that it's time to close the show, fold the tent, and retire to the sun.

Gahrie said...

Not all human life consists of actual people, genius

Hmmm...wasn't that Hitler's thesis?

James Graham said...

What power do NDAs really have?

If a woman who signed one of Harvey's ten years ago were to tell all now what recourse would Harvey's lawyers have?

Sue her to get the money returned?

Sure and get another ton or two of bad publicity.


tastid212 said...

"Mr. Weinstein, if you are killed or captured, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge..."

bflat879 said...

I always had the hope that, when the Democrats successfully stopped Clinton from being convicted in the Senate, there would be some repercussions from that. Actually, we got a twofer on it. The first was Donald Trump successfully took away Hillary's misogyny card away by putting out the crimes of her husband. When that happened, NBC had no alternative than to leak the Access Hollywood tape that accomplished little and, in reality, made them look terrible.

Now comes Harvey Weinstein. It's amazing how the Democrats, who supported Clinton and said it was just about sex, and derided people like Kathleen Wiley and Juanita Broaderrick when they made accusations, have suddenly recognized sexual misconduct is a serious thing. Apparently it pays to be a liberal and support the Democrats because you can go for years breaking sexual harassment laws and have people cover up for you, just like they did with Bill Clinton.

The one reason Republicans seldom do this stuff is because they don't have a press corps willing to cover for them. If Republicans try this stuff, it will be out the next day. Something to be said for that, too bad the liberals don't have to think about that problem.

tim in vermont said...

Funny how the Clinton enablers always want the focus on the victim, Monica, where the coercion was largely theoretical, rather than the forcible rape of a supporter WJC inviegled to meet alone in a hotel room.

Can't blame them.

Dexter Van Zile said...

This is the best analysis I've seen. Good job, Ann.

Ken B said...

2015 http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2015/04/10/no-charges-for-harvey-weinstein-following-groping-allegations/

n.n said...

It's a Pro-Choice, Pro-Choice, Pro-Choice, Pro-Choice legal and religious/moral climate.

Daniel Jackson said...

Perhaps this entire situation has nothing to do with Hillary, Bill, or any "political" entity. Maybe, just maybe, we are watching the continuation of the anti-establishment movement that elected Trump, tea-party folk; a counter reaction to too much excess. The bulk of American culture is rather straight and stiff. Americans are not like the French who after 1200 years of Frankish rulers taking any woman they wanted and the men were all the more gracious for it.

Objectification of the female form has reached outrageous proportion especially in the music industry, where the excesses far surpass anything Harvey and Bill could imagine or even do. It might be more difficult to tackle rap music that is broadcast like Chinese or French radio propaganda EVERYWHERE.

Show business has always been about competition and people will do ANYTHING for a break.

But let's be fair here. There are true scumbags who prey and fawn on innocent babes; but, there are women who act the part to take the advantage.

And this is not just in Politics or The Couch of Casting. Professors in universities have long been known for their "leaping lord" tendencies with both boys and girls just as there are many boys and girls who have cuckolded weak professors for grades and personal gains.

It's not going to go away.

It would be nice if people stopped accepting this practice as normal, regardless of profession and lieu, and put an end to it NOW. Or, moderate its volume considerably.

I would suggest that it is time to call much of RAP music offensive and not just because most of it is Black. It's because such bullshit, like Bill Clinton, Harvey, Hillary, and other rock stars, pulls us all down whether we want it or not.

It's been a long time since horseshit was allowed to befoul city streets. Let's get rid of the bullshit.

Chag Somayach

Bad Lieutenant said...

Chag Sameach, Dan. It's already lost in the smoke, but I don't think it was The American People who outed HW, it was the NYT for their own reasons, which likely have little enough to do with the best interests of The American People.

Assrat said...

>There's nothing about Harvey I envy. I like my life better.

I'd like his money, but I'm a very shallow person.

Otherwise, yes. Sure, he had sex with a lot of beautiful women, but how many of them hate him now? Not worth it.

BigFire said...

Yes, water is wet.

walter said...

Blogger Molly said...
we now take a mandatory "course" (a one hour on-line tutorial) on impermissible behavior that makes it clear that professor - student sexual encounters are strictly forbidden by university policy.
--
Not surprised..but Unis have typically been way out "ahead" of other workplaces on such things.
Is it forbidden in the Federal government?
It may be inadvisable..but that's a far cry from "harassment".

FIDO said...

I know that some pharma CEO could maybe hit on a cute girl in accounting, but what executive could pull the shit Harvey did.

To be fair, your Phrama CEO can only offer her a bump in pay of maybe $10 an hour and an executive key. While if she rats him out, she may make millions.

If Gwyneth Paltrow selectively opens and shuts her mouth properly, she can become an A list starlet who jumps from 'eating ramen in an apartment with roommates' to 'net worth of $140 million'.

Because while she could be a whistle blower since she never needs to worry about eating ramen again, every studio has that casting couch...and she will never work again in her life. And she luvs that spotlight.

And let's not forget the added incentive in silence: Gwyneth does not want her image to go in image from "Perky Pepper Potts" to "Twenty-something girl on her knees servicing Harvey the Hutt".

Because that is the logical take away: if Weinstein is this 'horrible domineering figure who is vindictive and entitled', is he going to just roll over and give these starlets a leg up in life when they say 'no'? Sorry Gwyneth...there are a lot of blondes from Minnesota who can do exactly what you do. So one has to take all these whistle blowers who stridently deny rolling over with a grain of salt.

FIDO said...

And whatever we might think of his behavior with Monica, she was a willing participant in the affair.

And that is another very inconvenient possibility: the girls know what time it is. You see this EVERYWHERE in life. The CEO gets his jokes laughed at a lot. The girl may pop open a button to just 'catch his eye'. A few girls...were willing participants.

Let's just say I am imagining Weinstein, in a few cases (not all), cursing at his television as some actress engages in some wild revisionism of what actually was threatened...and who 'put themselves out there'. Let's just say some girls gave it their all to get a part. (And considering how well they 'act'...this is far more credible than I care to think about. How did Jennifer Lawrence ever get a job acting?)

Cause he can't credibly refute it. He's a man. And women NEVER lie about sex or join a bandwagon. Sure they don't.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Also remember Gwyneth Paltrow was coming up 20 years ago. 20 years ago Harvey Weinstein was 45. He probably looked a lot better than he does now.

Maybe HW is Lucius Atherton. You know what he sounded like to me on that tape? Donald Sterling with that horrid b**** who taped him!

Pat said...

If suppressed, it would be because the pattern is one of misuse of power once achieved. It is an old, and ugly tradition of how persons who gain power abuse it frquently. There is no such thing as a beneficent dictator, monarch, President, Prime Minister, or Commander in Chief. PResident Trump said it all in his declaration of "it's his attitude that counts in the dilemma of North Korea (and presumably, every thing else), "that's the system, and how it works...."

Such attitude needs rules that do not exist, and why every person in power is more likely to abuse it than not. From Nero to Napoleon, to Hitler, Weinstein, etc. absolute power corrupts absolutely, wherever it is found. It's why the founders created limited power as the design for democracy. How many abuses of power have been subject to studies, and research on how to curtail it? Kim Yong Jun shares the same affliction of abuse of power, and why he provokes the U.S. And keeps his people down, so he won't lose his power. Putin shares the attitude, and it's what makes him so dangerous.

Few restrictions on power has always been the problem of bullies and corrupters.

Lloyd W. Robertson said...

I'm late to this thread, but: I'm still puzzled as to why Weinstein breaks now. Our host may have a good answer to the question: why not earlier? Protect the Clintons, pretend sexual harassment and abuse are a Republican problem. But why now, or at all? It's almost as if some liberals have decided to be good reporters after all, or they really do believe in trying to improve the workplace for women ... sooner or later. When Mel Gibson got in trouble for screaming crudely at a female police officer, whom he identified (rightly or wrongly, I don't remember) as Jewish, the joke was: the only sin in Hollywood is insulting and/or pissing off your Jewish bosses. What was Weinstein's real or ultimate sin? Getting old,so his grossness was more and more gross? Similar to Bill Cosby?

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 273 of 273   Newer› Newest»