Harvey Weinstein scandal (Mod warning in op.)

Mokuba

"Why would she lie" is not a valid defense against anything and can be used in any walk of life, to defend anybody from anything.

pitifulgod

Mokuba wrote: »

"Why would she lie" is not a valid defense against anything and can be used in any walk of life, to defend anybody from anything.

You have no credible reason to make the claim, it's clearly something that she also told people at the time. The reason she came forward was because she was concerned that the individual was still in the industry and abusing people. Were you responding like this when Savile was exposed at the time? I remember a hell of a lot of people who said the exact same thing in relation to those who came forward at time..

weldoninhio

pitifulgod wrote: »

What conceivable reason would she have to make it up? She told more than one person at the time about it. Seems more like effective measures weren't taken against the man at the time unfortunately. So yep I have no issue believing her. Terry Crews called out an agent for groping, it was also a guy who called out Kevin Spacey. So there are male victims that have come out.

Also in all likelihood not the only person abused by him so bringing it out into the open and will most likely make other victims more willing to come out.

Yup, why would someone do that??

Mokuba

Its his word against hers and you have no reason to believe either side. Both have said that they have people who can back them up.

People are automatically told to believe women for no reason other than they are women.

I'm not saying of it did or didn't happen, but everyone has already decided that he did despite it being one persons word against another.

There should be an investigation where he is given the right to due process.

What is happening at the moment is ridiculous and dangerous.

pitifulgod

weldoninhio wrote: »

Yup, why would someone do that??

This has been corroborated by her on set guardian at the time too. They reported it at the time apparently. So everyone is making this up? It shows what a warped perspective that certain people seem to direct toward survivors of abuse. Were you also claimed that victims of the clergy or Savile were making it up?

http://people.com/movies/eliza-dushkus-molestation-claim-backed-by-on-set-legal-guardian-joel-kramer-is-a-pedophile/

Mokuba wrote: »

Its his word against hers and you have no reason to believe either side. Both have said that they have people who can back them up.

People are automatically told to believe acwomen for no reason other than they are women.

I'm not saying of it did or didn't happen, but everyone has already decided that he did despite it being one persons word against another.

There should be an investigation where he is given the right to due process.

What is happening at the moment is ridiculous and dangerous.

Backed up by guardian now, plus there's other people she informed at the time. I have absolutely no reason to believe that the accusations are untrue. It's more indicative that people in authority failed her at the time.

Mokuba

pitifulgod wrote: »

This has been corroborated by her on set guardian at the time too. They reported it at the time apparently. So everyone is making this up? It shows what a warped perspective that certain people seem to direct toward survivors of abuse. Were you also claimed that victims of the clergy or Savile were making it up?

http://people.com/movies/eliza-dushkus-molestation-claim-backed-by-on-set-legal-guardian-joel-kramer-is-a-pedophile/

You do not know if she is a survivor of abuse. You are continually failing to grasp the fact that you do not know what happened. You are assigning guilt in a he said she said case.

Believing one sex over the other or believing someone on the basis of "why would he/she lie" is stupid to the extreme

pitifulgod

Mokuba wrote: »

You do not know if she is a survivor of abuse. You are continually failing to grasp the fact that you do not know what happened. You are assigning guilt in a he said she said case.

Believing one sex over the other or believing someone on the basis of "why would he/she lie" is stupid to the extreme

Do you think at age 12 she constructed this story of abuse? Then has come out about it all over again, decades later. It's nothing to do with gender as you're claiming and the biggest disgrace here is that it wasn't investigated at the time. It was reported by the guardian on the set at the time and nothing was done.

Mokuba

And I just want to clarify that if he did it he is a disgusting and vile monster. I'm not defending him. I'm simply defending his right to some sort of due process.

ceadaoin.

Mokuba wrote: »

You do not know if she is a survivor of abuse. You are continually failing to grasp the fact that you do not know what happened. You are assigning guilt in a he said she said case.

Believing one sex over the other or believing someone on the basis of "why would he/she lie" is stupid to the extreme

She told people at the time, at 12 years old. Do you think it's likely that she made it up knowing that she could wait until the right time in the future to get the guy fired?

Nice though that you would assume a child was making false allegations if they confided in you.

Mokuba

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Nice though that you would assume a child was making false allegations if they confided in you.

Was wondering how long it would take for a comment like this to come along.

Because god forbid someone has the audacity to believe in somebody being innocent until proven guilty.

pitifulgod

Mokuba wrote: »

Was wondering how long it would take for a comment like this to come along.

Because god forbid someone has the audacity to believe in somebody being innocent until proven guilty.

The reality is that nobody made any effort to investigate it at the time. Thereby endangering countless children. Pretty amazed this isn't your first reaction rather than saying it wouldn't be treated as fact if a man said this. Which it would.

ceadaoin.

Mokuba wrote: »

Was wondering how long it would take for a comment like this to come along.

Because god forbid someone has the audacity to believe in somebody being innocent until proven guilty.

So you would assume that a 12 year old child is lying then? That's what it boils down to doesn't it?

RabbleRouser2k

pitifulgod wrote: »

Backed up by guardian now, plus there's other people she informed at the time. I have absolutely no reason to believe that the accusations are untrue. It's more indicative that people in authority failed her at the time.

Same, I believe she was failed at the time. Those, like Jamie Lee Curtis, who are saying 'our eyes have been opened' are very much coming across as idiots. This was known for a long time, Curtis was Hollywood 'royalty' in that her parents were Vivian Leigh and Tony Curtis. She was possibly protected at the time, but for her to say she didn't know is bogus.

Just an example, Amanda Petersen was a teenage actress in the 80s. She starred in movies like Explorers, and Can't buy me Love. Around the time of the latter being filmed, she was raped by a film producer. She was 15 years old. But she couldn't come forward to report it because she feared for her career.
She bottled it up, it led to a drug addiction, and by the time she was 22/23, her career was finished-her drug addiction took over. and she died in 2015, aged 43, drugs took over, but Hollywood stole everything from her. She didn't even get a short lived comeback like Corey Haim did (Crank, Dickie Roberts). She was forgotten.

Patty Duke spoke of an molestation attempt (by a man and woman)that ended before it truly started because she vomited on them.

And let's not forget Corey Feldman's repeated attempts to stop pedophilia. Outisde of Corey Haim's own tragedy. But only 'now' Hollywood heard? Yeah right.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Its not based on gender though is it?Famous photographer Mario testino has been banned from working for Vogue after allegations he took advantage of male models.

And Terry Richardson too. I think 16 models have come forward against Testino, but people have known about Richardson for a decade or so. He's constantly been called out on his crap. But he had more defenders than Testino.

Ya know, the more I think about it, the more I feel the 'reveal' of the wrong best picture nomination was sort of symbolic of Hollywood. It led to a major unraveling within their institution, the proverbial 'looking behind the curtain' and not seeing someone manning the controls, but instead seeing a whole slew of corruption and exploitation.

Off topic to this post, but seems Kevin Spacey was a notorious racist too. Dang.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5258853/Security-House-Cards-accuses-Kevin-Spacey-racism.html

AudreyHepburn

ceadaoin. wrote: »

So you would assume that a 12 year old child is lying then? That's what it boils down to doesn't it?

The thing is though children, and adults for that matter, can and do lie. It happens every day and there are a myriad of reasons why someone chooses to do it.

That’s not say she is lying of course but ‘Why would she lie’ and ‘children don’t/can’t lie’ simply aren’t valid defenses in the real world.

ceadaoin.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

The thing is though children, and adults for that matter, can and do lie. It happens every day and there are a myriad of reasons why someone chooses to do it.

That’s not say she is lying of course but ‘Why would she lie’ and ‘children don’t/can’t lie’ simply aren’t valid defenses in the real world.

Speaking of the real world, you do know how prevalent child abuse is right?
It's far more likely that a child would be abused than would lie about it

pitifulgod

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Speaking of the real world, you do know how prevalent child abuse is right?
It's far more likely that a child would be abused than would lie about it

Plus bringing it up again over 20 years later. It clearly having been reported and ignored at time. I'm honestly finding it fascinating that people are more intent on saying Dushku is lying over the fact that no effort was made to investigate and protect others from abuse.

AudreyHepburn

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Speaking of the real world, you do know how prevalent child abuse is right?
It's far more likely that a child would be abused than would lie about it

Of course I do and once again I am not saying I disbelieve Dushku. I’m simply saying that children can’t lie or that there’s no reason for them to lie is nonsense.

As it happens I do believe her but the current scandal seems to be based on ignoring the principle of innocent until proven guilty and we need to be cared not fall into that way of thinking.

ceadaoin.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Of course I do and once again I am not saying I disbelieve Dushku. I’m simply saying that children can’t lie or that there’s no reason for them to lie is nonsense.

I'm not saying they don't. I'm saying that the probability is way higher that they actually were abused. Children generally don't just make that **** up. Also, given that we know that many child actors working in Hollywood have been abused, the probability is even higher that she is telling the truth.

Who has come out to corroborate Kramer's denial? Didn't he claim that others could verify his account?

weldoninhio

pitifulgod wrote: »

This has been corroborated by her on set guardian at the time too. They reported it at the time apparently. So everyone is making this up? It shows what a warped perspective that certain people seem to direct toward survivors of abuse. Were you also claimed that victims of the clergy or Savile were making it up?

http://people.com/movies/eliza-dushkus-molestation-claim-backed-by-on-set-legal-guardian-joel-kramer-is-a-pedophile/

Sorry, I think we have crossed wires. I was talking about Aziz Anzani’s accuser.

RabbleRouser2k

weldoninhio wrote: »

Sorry, I think we have crossed wires. I was talking about Aziz Anzani’s accuser.

There's debate about Anziz on twitter, those who say 'you cannot put a jerky douche in with the likes of Spacey or Weinstein', but I'm conflicted there. This was a first date, by all accounts. He sounds like he was very aggressive, and clearly didn't enquire about how she felt. It seems a bit odd.

But this twitter comment is just dangerous logic.

https://twitter.com/Rrrrnessa/status/952923357930053642?ref_src=twcamp%5Eshare%7Ctwsrc%5Em5%7Ctwgr%5Eemail%7Ctwcon%5E7046%7Ctwterm%5E3

Also, more women has come forward accusing Joel Kramer of inappropriateness, as in oral rape and raping a minor. Though he alleges it was consensual.

http://www.indiewire.com/2018/01/joel-kramer-accused-sexual-misconduct-stunt-coordinator-laura-albert-1201917560/

RabbleRouser2k

Interesting dissection of the Aziz accusations. The writer, a woman and feminist, claims that the only thing Anziz is guilty of is not being a mindreader.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/15/opinion/aziz-ansari-babe-sexual-harassment.html

The article is dividing people on twitter. Personally, I think it's an interesting analysis, whether I choose to believe Aziz is a rapist, however, is another story.
Intriguing analysis of how 'the movement' has now come to see any form of contact as 'rape culture'.

kunst nugget

Margaret Atwood seems to be getting it in the neck for defending the notion of due process.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jan/15/margaret-atwood-feminist-backlash-metoo

Neyite

From your link Rabble Rouser:
"Aziz Ansari sounds like he was aggressive and selfish and obnoxious that night. Isn’t it heartbreaking and depressing that men — especially ones who present themselves publicly as feminists — so often act this way in private? Shouldn’t we try to change our broken sexual culture? And isn’t it enraging that women are socialized to be docile and accommodating and to put men’s desires before their own? Yes. Yes. Yes.

"But the solution to these problems does not begin with women torching men for failing to understand their “nonverbal cues.” It is for women to be more verbal. It’s to say: “This is what turns me on.” It’s to say “I don’t want to do that.” And, yes, sometimes it means saying piss off.
The single most distressing thing to me about Grace’s story is that the only person with any agency in the story seems to be Aziz Ansari. Grace is merely acted upon."

I find this account of the date very troubling if I'm honest. I think to expect that men can understand non verbal cues or lack of enthusiasm on a first date is troubling.

She participated in sex acts with him and never verbalised her wish to stop but when she did, he stopped immediately, suggested they get dressed and they watched Seinfield and chatted for the rest of the evening. The next day, he was polite and when he found out that her experience was not enjoyable for her, was very apologetic. He's guilty of being a non-observant and possibly selfish lover but not of assault.

As a feminist, I fully agree with Atwood and the author here. We women have agency and we need to use it. I'm the first to defend a person's right to be believed. There are lots of scenarios that could be construed as non-consentual, or scenarios where a woman may freeze, or feel fearful and feel unable to verbalise consent or lack of but I'm really struggling to see it here.

From the very beginning of the date she sounded passively silent in every single aspect of the date and then when it is not the kind of date she envisaged happening, expresses disappointment and alleges assault afterwards, but does nothing to fix it or address it at the time. Where is her agency here? And even then, when she does decide it's assault, she does not go to the authorities as one should when one has been assaulted, but instead he gets a public trial-by-twitter that's more than likely a career killer over it, while she hides behind anonymity. That can't be right.

Neyite

Neyite wrote: »

From your link Rabble Rouser:
"Aziz Ansari sounds like he was aggressive and selfish and obnoxious that night. Isn’t it heartbreaking and depressing that men — especially ones who present themselves publicly as feminists — so often act this way in private? Shouldn’t we try to change our broken sexual culture? And isn’t it enraging that women are socialized to be docile and accommodating and to put men’s desires before their own? Yes. Yes. Yes.

"But the solution to these problems does not begin with women torching men for failing to understand their “nonverbal cues.” It is for women to be more verbal. It’s to say: “This is what turns me on.” It’s to say “I don’t want to do that.” And, yes, sometimes it means saying piss off.
The single most distressing thing to me about Grace’s story is that the only person with any agency in the story seems to be Aziz Ansari. Grace is merely acted upon."

I find this account of the date very troubling if I'm honest. I think to expect that men can understand non verbal cues or lack of enthusiasm on a first date is troubling.

She participated in sex acts with him and never verbalised her wish to stop but when she did, he stopped immediately, suggested they get dressed and they watched Seinfield and chatted for the rest of the evening. The next day, he was polite and when he found out that her experience was not enjoyable for her, was very apologetic. He's guilty of being a non-observant and possibly selfish lover but not of assault.

As a feminist, I fully agree with Atwood and the author here. We women have agency and we need to use it. I'm the first to defend a person's right to be believed. There are lots of scenarios that could be construed as non-consentual, or scenarios where a woman may freeze, or feel fearful and feel unable to verbalise consent or lack of but I'm really struggling to see it here.

From the very beginning of the date she sounded passively silent in every single aspect of the date and then when it is not the kind of date she envisaged happening, expresses disappointment and alleges assault afterwards, but does nothing to fix it or address it at the time. Where is her agency here? And even then, when she does decide it's assault, she does not go to the authorities as one should when one has been assaulted, but instead he gets a public trial-by-twitter that's more than likely a career killer over it, while she hides behind anonymity. That can't be right.

Spot on, Neyite. And she devalues the movement to expose abuse by claiming victimhood for what was an unpleasant, but clearly not criminal encounter.

Ansari sounds like a pest and an inconsiderate oaf, but not the abusive criminal he's being painted as.

Ulysses Gaze

kunst nugget wrote: »

Margaret Atwood seems to be getting it in the neck for defending the notion of due process.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jan/15/margaret-atwood-feminist-backlash-metoo

And so the Left continues to devour its own....

Dyr

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

And so the Left continues to devour its own....

Are those third wave inter-sectional lunatics the left? They always struck me as the standard issue neurotic puritans that the upper classes seem to pump out

kunst nugget

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

And so the Left continues to devour its own....

The left isn't some homogeneous lump and these loolahs don't represent the views of most on the left in just the same way that I wouldn't think that fanatical Trump supporters are representive of the broad spectrum of opinions on the right.

A hypothetical....so you've had a nice night with some girl and when she gets home, you get a naughty suggestive txt of say, her in her undies with a wish you were here caption. several txt later, being a bloke you send your Knob!! cos that's what we think with in such circumstances.

In the real world, she says OMG too much to soon ha ha!! and deletes it and we move on all red faced safe in the knowledge, nobody died here and the lesson is learned..........BUT, you're a celebrity, with money and all of a sudden it's sexual harassment this, and rape culture that and #metoo please!!!! the other.

I agree, some people are taking the mick completely...why not tell him to PISS off exactly... It's amazing these women are shouting to the universe via the internet, and yet they're mutes on the night in fact and as far as the cops are concerned thereafter.

optogirl

rusty cole wrote: »

A hypothetical....so you've had a nice night with some girl and when she gets home, you get a naughty suggestive txt of say, her in her undies with a wish you were here caption. several txt later, being a bloke you send your Knob!! cos that's what we think with in such circumstances.

In the real world, she says OMG too much to soon ha ha!! and deletes it and we move on all red faced safe in the knowledge, nobody died here and the lesson is learned..........BUT, you're a celebrity, with money and all of a sudden it's sexual harassment this, and rape culture that and #metoo please!!!! the other.

I agree, some people are taking the mick completely...why not tell him to PISS off exactly... It's amazing these women are shouting to the universe via the internet, and yet they're mutes on the night in fact and as far as the cops are concerned thereafter.

Often there is fear of things escalating if you rebuke with force or fighting words - it's self preservation.

optogirl

optogirl wrote: »

Often there is fear of things escalating if you rebuke with force or fighting words - it's self preservation.

I get that alright and I agree with a lot of cases, i.e how does a woman fight Vin diesel off on the night, without risking a worse outcome. So even after they're out of Danger, it's straight to the police NO? not to Twitter!