Harvey Weinstein scandal (Mod warning in op.)

Biggest lickspittle on boardz · 14-10-2017 10:01PM

Following on from my earlier posts, here is another angle for you to research.

So far, we've seen a few big names mentioned, but little about the power behind the throne who allegedly does the procuring of young girls for paedophile networks.

So let's bring a big Hollywood spotlight onto Ghislane Maxwell, daughter of dead newspaper tycoon and suspected Mossad agent, Robert Maxwell.

Yes, that is Prince Andrew on the left, with Ghislane Maxwell on the right. The girl in the centre is underage sex trafficking victim Virginia Roberts:

Ghislane was named as one of the madams who would 'talent scout' young girls and procure them for Jeffrey Epstein's notorious 'Lolita Airways', where a private jet would take young underage girls to the Caribbean Islands.

It might interest you to know that a detailed list of the passenger logs who flew on Lolita Airways includes names such as Bill Clinton, Kevin Spacey, Donald Trump, and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz. Model Naomi Campbell is also listed as having flown on the airline.

The log book can be viewed online here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1507315-epstein-flight-manifests.html

Of course, we must also take into consideration that the lifestyles of the rich and famous are very different to our own, and private air transport is a perk that few would refuse.
There could well be very innocent explanations for some of the people named. I certainly haven't run a background check on every friend of a friend who offered me a lift somewhere. But at the same time, if I even heard a sniff of a rumour that one of them was involved in anything sinister, I'd be running a mile in the other direction...

But nevertheless, there is enough concern raised for us to dig deeper into the matter too, so we can try to establish exactly what was going on.

Say whatever you want about the Daily Mail, but they've been one of the very few newspapers to persist with the story and dig where nobody else wants to:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363444/Jeffrey-Epstein-Robert-Maxwells-daughter-Ghislaine-hired-girls-paedophile.html

Virginia Roberts took a legal case against Ghislaine Maxwell, where the case was settled out of court:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4539434/Jeffrey-Epstein-sex-slave-Virginia-Roberts-settles-suit.html

Would you have recognised Ghislaine Maxwell if she had approached you and your daughter until I had told you about her?

This is what I mean by information warfare, Ladies and Gentlemen.

Forewarned is forearmed.

Wibbs · 14-10-2017 10:20PM

anna080 wrote: »

Anyway, De Niro is very quiet in all of this isn't he? He's best buddies with Weinstein.

He is indeed and he's not the only one with long time connections with oul Harvey. Tarantino took his sweet time to make a statement, though is apparently trying to "process" it and will make a statement in due course. Streep took her sweet time too and now she[insert damage control flunkey here] claims it was because she was "off grid" in Croatia. A modern European nation with a free and vocal press and three plus million interwebs users out of a population of four million. While she was surrounded by cast and crew, people in the film business who would have had more than a little interest in a story that was rocking their industry. But no, she didn't hear about it. :rolleyes: Like I said earlier, maybe that works as an excuse to a couch shaped hick in Arkansas who once visited Missouri and felt it a bit "foreign", but it smells like the finest bullsh1t to anyone else.

Lest we forget, this slow witted muppet(for that is the best conclusion I can come to) expressed sorrow that the convicted purveyor of drugs, rape and buggery of a 13 year old girl was in gaol and applauded his winning of an Oscar for The Pianist in 03(shoe in as it was a tragedy. They do so love a tragedy. Milking the obscenity that was the Holocaust for box office a bonus. If they could have shoehorned in a stoic and stock "cripple" into the mix, they'd cream themselves).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXnNOBj26lk

Watch if you will the spontaneous standing ovation for Polanski from this den of vipers, attention seekers and plain bastards. And not just Streep. Keen eyes will spot oul Harvey in one shot, grinning away. No doubt recently back from a shower... And Harrison Ford(who I expected far better off TBH) "accepts the award on his behalf". Well he had to as Polanski would be facing a long prison sentence if he was actually there. A sentence for the fcuking drugging and raping of a 13 year old girl.

If ever you wanted to gauge the cultural mentality of this gilded group of preened and painted morons, you would be bloody hard pressed to find a better example of what they laughingly see as their moral compass.

What's also noticeable is that those women and men commenting and reporting the abuse are overwhelmingly women and men who are out of the current crop of "big stars". People who can feel safe to say something now the floodgates are opened. What about the current crop? Where are their voices, where are their stories of causing couches and other current greasy bastards that I guarantee are still in play to one degree or other.

And where are the other names, particularly the men, who were attached to Weinstein in projects going back twenty plus years? Many of whom were repeat performers and regularly around this creep.

Dr Niro was shouting awfully loud about his hatred of Trump during the election.

Of course. He was following the script of "acceptable critique". The Oompa Loompa muppet with the combover in the White House was fair game, because they backed their war mongering muppet in the race. It was OK to (rightfully) question Mr Grab her by the pussy, but when someone closer to home is a pussy grabbing machine that they bloody well knew about? Hmmmm. A little too off script. Now watch that sorry lot of moronic hypocrites scramble for better writers than them to rush out pink pages to that script as they try and claw back some high moral ground they're so intent on transmitting and lecturing to the rest of us. Degenerate ****.

markodaly · 14-10-2017 10:30PM

Is this the end of Hollywoods being something to aspire to for your average American? For years conservatives in American have complained that Hollywood was a bastian of liberals which was a cold house to anyone with Republican or conservative leanings. True to form over the last decade we have seen it become a paragon of virtue signalling which each oscar winner outdoing each other in an attempt to win virtue signalling points with their ever smaller masses, all the while middle America switched off year after year as they saw that Hollywood is become a parody of itself.

Now, we have this scandal come to the fore, which shows that there is a sick and evil underbelly within Hollywood, with powerful people like Ben Afleck, George Clooney and Meryl Streep, who are always quick to tell us all how to think about issues of the day, remain silent for years and sexual abuse of women, girls, boys goes on behind the scenes.

Put it this way, If Harvey Weinstein had been as big a Republican donor as he was a Democratic donor, would he have gotten away with his abuse for as long as he did? Hell no!!

That is all you need to know about Hollywood and their faux liberal values.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz · 14-10-2017 10:32PM

Wibbs wrote: »

...Of course. He was following the script of "acceptable critique". The Oompa Loompa muppet with the combover in the White House was fair game, because they backed their war mongering muppet in the race. It was OK to (rightfully) question Mr Grab her by the pussy, but when someone closer to home is a pussy grabbing machine that they bloody well knew about? Hmmmm. A little too off script. Now watch that sorry lot of moronic hypocrites scramble for better writers than them to rush out pink pages to that script as they try and claw back some high moral ground they're so intent on transmitting and lecturing to the rest of us. Degenerate ****.

Chompsky had a lot to say about this, there's a famous quote we see from time to time on the same matter:

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....”

― Noam Chomsky, The Common Good

Which supports my view that the media has been infiltrated, subverted, and controlled for the best part of 50 years now.

It's only with the relatively recent popularity of the internet that the controlled narrative is starting to break down.

It really is extraordinary to see the Overton window shifting right before our eyes.
Before last week, claiming that there was organised paedophilia and high powered rapists in Hollywood would have you firmly relegated to the David Icke tin foil hat conspiracy theory brigade.

Not any more.

And this is only the beginning of the mass 'red pilling', to use the pop culture term.

FI-36.3-Boghossian.png

strandroad · 14-10-2017 10:34PM

Wibbs wrote: »

What's also noticeable is that those women and men commenting and reporting the abuse are overwhelmingly women and men who are out of the current crop of "big stars". People who can feel safe to say something now the floodgates are opened. What about the current crop? Where are their voices, where are their stories of causing couches and other current greasy bastards that I guarantee are still in play to one degree or other.

Well Brie Larson distanced herself from Casey Affleck (who had to pay off two women from his crew he creeped on, including getting into one's bed) when she was presenting his Oscar, and she got a lot of flak for it too because how dared she ruin his moment with her third wave feminism posturing.

14-10-2017 10:38PM

Not really following this whole topic but Hollywood is so ugh. UGH. For decades the antics of this sleezebag have been widely known - didn't somebody mention it in a 2005 Oscars speech? - and all of a sudden in October 2017 the leading snakes of Hollywood power decide to make him a persona non grata.

Not surprised at the most fake place on earth being like this but it's still ugh on the sincerity front.

Ulysses Gaze · 14-10-2017 10:39PM

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

Chompsky had a lot to say about this, there's a famous quote we see from time to time on the same matter:

― Noam Chomsky, The Common Good

Which supports my view that the media has been infiltrated, subverted, and controlled for the best part of 50 years now.

It's only with the relatively recent popularity of the internet that the controlled narrative is starting to break down.

It really is extraordinary to see the Overton window shifting right before our eyes.
Before last week, claiming that there was organised paedophilia and high powered rapists in Hollywood would have you firmly relegated to the David Icke tin foil hat conspiracy theory brigade.

Not any more.

And this is only the beginning of the mass 'red pilling', to use the pop culture term.

Which is exactly why the likes of Obama and Merkel were talking about reining in freedom of the Internet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Biaq5srhBJ8

strandroad · 14-10-2017 10:40PM

markodaly wrote: »

Put it this way, If Harvey Weinstein had been as big a Republican donor as he was a Democratic donor, would he have gotten away with his abuse for as long as he did? Hell no!!

Eh please. Bill O'Reilly, 20 years (documented, he's almost 70 so who knows how many really). Multiple lawsuits paid off.

gw80 · 14-10-2017 10:43PM

Does anyone else think that there is already someone in Hollywood writing up a script for a movie about his life,

On a different note, there must be some very nervous people in Hollywood right now as he must have a lot of dirt on some rich, famous and powerful people

markodaly · 14-10-2017 10:43PM

strandroad wrote: »

Eh please. Bill O'Reilly, 20 years (documented, he's almost 70 so who knows how many really). Multiple lawsuits paid off.

Yea, another creep but did he have the red carpet of the Hollywood elite call him a 'God'? Nope, do not think so. There is a definite hypocrisy here. It seems that your political leanings can let you get away with much more.

Hande hoche! · 14-10-2017 10:53PM

gw80 wrote: »

Does anyone else think that there is already someone in Hollywood writing up a script for a movie about his life,

On a different note, there must be some very nervous people in Hollywood right now as he must have a lot of dirt on some rich, famous and powerful people

Would be impressed if they managed to crank out a lifetime film next year.

Wibbs · 14-10-2017 10:54PM

markodaly wrote: »

Put it this way, If Harvey Weinstein had been as big a Republican donor as he was a Democratic donor, would he have gotten away with his abuse for as long as he did? Hell no!!

If he was as big a money maker keeping the greasy till ringing? I'd bet the farm he'd be left well alone. Politics has eff all to do with it M, beyond the surface fashionable cause de jour. Currently it's "liberal" and "feminist", yet look at how women are treated, even though the message on screen is "you go girl!!". If it sells they'll be on it. Back in the 50's they were hounding out liberals as damned commies.

Clint Eastwood is a conservative/republican/libertarian, Stallone is a conservative/republican, as is Bruce Willis and Mel Gibson and they're not the only ones. Hollywood has always had "conservatives" as well as "liberals" They all make money and so long as they make money. Look at Mel. He went OTT with his drunken rant about Jews in Hollywood. The ultimate sin one might think and yes he spent his time in the wilderness and mainstream stuff was off the table for a time, but as a director(and a bloody good one IMHO) he made huge money off flics like The BSDM Passion of the Christ and the like. He's still bankable and will get projects green lit because of it.

Go beneath the surface and it is all about the money and power and many of these flip flopping degenerates will go with the flow, so long as the money keeps coming in and they stay in power.

Look at Weinstein. He had the money. In a big way. And the power in his business. From my reading of his "exploits" it's much more about power than sex. Watch me shower. Give me a massage. Let me **** while you stand there. Aimed at women in the business. All about power. In his position he could have any number of actually willing women, or paid willing women to satisfy his sexual needs. But that wouldn't be enough. He wanted power over unwilling women, women not paid to be disgusted by him. Add in the risk involved if he picked on the wrong unwilling women. That risk and power is IMHO what is going on with him. Not the sexual part. He may even have got off on the rejection. It seems it happened a lot. Maybe women who acquiesced were less of a turn on? I'd not be surprised if that were the case.

nacho libre · 14-10-2017 11:21PM

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

Of course, we must also take into consideration that the lifestyles of the rich and famous are very different to our own, and private air transport is a perk that few would refuse.
There could well be very innocent explanations for some of the people named. I certainly haven't run a background check on every friend of a friend who offered me a lift somewhere. But at the same time, if I even heard a sniff of a rumour that one of them was involved in anything sinister, I'd be running a mile in the other direction...

Which supports my view that the media has been infiltrated, subverted, and controlled for the best part of 50 years now.

d.

Perhaps the others are innocence, but
it stretching credulity that Bill did not know what Epstein was up to. Bill would have access to intelligence on every prominent
individual he came into contact with.
If a paedophile ring in a small town in Ireland can stay hidden for years, its very plausible that the rich and powerful in the states can ensure there activities remains hidden. Saville and Clifford got away with their crimes for so long because they had the dirt on others establishment figures in the uk. With this in mind it's likely Harvey Weinstein has a lot of secrets...
Harvey won't talk though.

The reality is a lot of these scum will never be held to account for their crimes.

mzungu · 15-10-2017 12:14AM

Wibbs wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXnNOBj26lk

It's worth noting the crowd applause for Polanski was not even slightly muted. One casts their mind back to 1999 when Elia Kazan accepted his honorary oscar, half of the audience stayed seated and refused to acknowledge it. The crime being that Kazan had informed on fellow members of the Communist Party back in 1952 during the height of the "Red Scare".

While it was bad move to inform on his (ex)comrades, his crime was nowhere near as bad as Polanski's. Yet four years later Polanski wins his oscar, and there appears to be no appetite from the audience to make a statement like they did with Kazan.

Wibbs wrote: »

If ever you wanted to gauge the cultural mentality of this gilded group of preened and painted morons, you would be bloody hard pressed to find a better example of what they laughingly see as their moral compass.

For further proof, look at the "rehabilitation" of Mike Tyson as a comedy film star. That town was always the epitome of sleeze and moral bankruptcy.

JupiterKid · 15-10-2017 01:19AM

The "liberal" values of Tinseltown are so fake and shallow anyway, as the whole sordid Weinstein affair has shown. Preach to America and the world that women are equal yet, behind the cameras, treat young up and coming actresses as sex toys, tell America that lesbian and gay people are equal but have several A list actors in the closet (because being out wouldn't be bankable...), preach to the world about saving the rainforest and the evils of global warming whilst zipping around the world between your many dwellings in private jets and having a carbon footprint the size of a small city per A list actor.

Yup...utter hypocrisy. It's all about the money. That's the bottom line. Always has been, always will be.

I briefly visited Hollywood with some friends when I was living in San Francisco in the mid 90s on my J1. The place is a kip and very fake, a real let down. A couple of streets, the pitifully tiny Chinese Theatre, the walk of the stars and that sign a couple of miles away on a hillside. Most of the studios aren't even in Hollywood proper. But then, I detest LA anyway. Sprawling kip of a place.

Anyhow, I've heard that China will soon overtake the USA as Hollywood's biggest box office market and Chinese money is going to come in to buy up the big film companies. Things will get pretty interesting then.

Junkyard Tom · 15-10-2017 01:40AM

What's Weinstein getting treatment for? Being an abusive cunt? If he had an 'addiction' to sex he could have sated it by using prostitutes.

Weinstein was addicted to frightening the fuck out of women and abusing his power over them. Weinstein was getting a thrill out of his power to make, or destroy, the career of an aspiring actor via his sexual gratification or refusal of it.

There is no treatment for being an utter bastard.

15-10-2017 03:52AM

mzungu wrote: »

For further proof, look at the "rehabilitation" of Mike Tyson as a comedy film star. That town was always the epitome of sleeze and moral bankruptcy.

Downright bizarre that one is. The lead actors from The Hangover had no problem working with Tyson on the first movie. Then, at least one of them protested heavily against working with Mel Gibson for the second movie and had Gibson dropped from it.

One guy is a convicted rapist - "Yeah that's fine, when is the first script reading with him?"

One guy drunkenly did a racism - "Either he goes or you can find yourselves a new lead"

Hollywood.

markodaly · 15-10-2017 04:31AM

Wibbs wrote: »

If he was as big a money maker keeping the greasy till ringing? I'd bet the farm he'd be left well alone. Politics has eff all to do with it M, beyond the surface fashionable cause de jour.

Not sure about that Wibbs. Hollywood is a cold house with anyone with conservative values. Can you imagine if a twenty something young aspiring actor came out in favour of Trump. You can imagine their opportunity for auditions to be curtailed overnight. So, even if they did hold those views, they would be wise to shut up about it as to not harm their career. Not exactly a open industry.

Those people you mention are all established stars, the youngest of which Mel Gibson at 61. Bruce Willis is 62, Stallone is 71 and Eastwood is 87! They were established long before Hollywood became so entrenched. Are we going to see a time in a decade or two, when these guys kick the bucket that there will be no openly conservative A-lister?

Can you name any twenty something or thirty something A-lister who would identify as a GOP supporter? Even one? I cannot think of any, yet could reel off a dozen of the top of my head without the help of Google who would be supporters of the Democrats. Hollywood is all for diversity except for political diversity.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-conservatives-hollywood-20170311-story.html

Ardillaun · 15-10-2017 04:39AM

It is a disturbing but inescapable reality that sexual relations have a transactional aspect, albeit within certain boundaries. Weinstein decided early on that the normal rules, like consent, did not apply to him. In movies he was a force for excellence - I nearly always found something to admire in any film he was associated with - and he pursued his darker obsession with similar devotion and ingenuity, bribing and threatening journalists and their bosses when the stories inevitably emerged. Apparently, one tactic was to offer the hacks an even juicier piece of gossip about somebody else in return for silence. We shouldn't blame the actors for not speaking up because, after all, they are essentially empty vessels, photogenic props who recite the ideas of others. We project all sorts of illusions on them but they are very easy to manipulate and highly vulnerable to a boss who would abuse his power. 'Don't touch the girls (or boys)' is a good rule for strip clubs, movie sets or any place of work. He wants a second chance; he used that up decades ago.

Ardillaun · 15-10-2017 05:02AM

I would guess that Weinstein's immunity arose largely from his own ability to provide glamorous movie roles, invites to A-lister parties, discreet contracts for skint journalists, and the Hollywood equivalent of brown envelopes on the carrot side and the opposite with knobs and lawyers on for those who did not get the message. Once success begins to fade, disloyalty inevitably sets in as any crime boss can tell you.

Wibbs · 15-10-2017 08:48AM

markodaly wrote: »

Not sure about that Wibbs. Hollywood is a cold house with anyone with conservative values. Can you imagine if a twenty something young aspiring actor came out in favour of Trump. You can imagine their opportunity for auditions to be curtailed overnight. So, even if they did hold those views, they would be wise to shut up about it as to not harm their career. Not exactly a open industry.

Leaving aside the current obsession with polarised US politics for the moment, it never was. It flip flops back and forth on politics and philosophy.

At the creative end yes there are more "liberals" than "conservatives"*, but creatives wherever you find them are more likely to be liberal anyway and studies have borne this out. But as the article you linked notes:
Some believe that deep down, corporate Hollywood is politically agnostic and that profits supersede partisanship. If it sells they will make and promote it. It's all about the bottom line and if support for [insert politic/philosophy here] affects that bottom line they will avoid it.

*in an American context.

silverharp · 15-10-2017 09:41AM

Wibbs wrote: »

Leaving aside the current obsession with polarised US politics for the moment, it never was. It flip flops back and forth on politics and philosophy.

At the creative end yes there are more "liberals" than "conservatives"*, but creatives wherever you find them are more likely to be liberal anyway and studies have borne this out. But as the article you linked notes:
Some believe that deep down, corporate Hollywood is politically agnostic and that profits supersede partisanship. If it sells they will make and promote it. It's all about the bottom line and if support for [insert politic/philosophy here] affects that bottom line they will avoid it.

*in an American context.

it would be interesting to compare the average personal behaviour of Hollywood versus the Republican party?

Billy86 · 15-10-2017 09:43AM

If Bill Oreilly and the rest of the goings on at fox news are anything to go by, the truth is probably not a lot better if any at all.

retro:electro · 15-10-2017 10:53AM

markodaly wrote: »

Not sure about that Wibbs. Hollywood is a cold house with anyone with conservative values. Can you imagine if a twenty something young aspiring actor came out in favour of Trump. You can imagine their opportunity for auditions to be curtailed overnight. So, even if they did hold those views, they would be wise to shut up about it as to not harm their career. Not exactly a open industry.

Those people you mention are all established stars, the youngest of which Mel Gibson at 61. Bruce Willis is 62, Stallone is 71 and Eastwood is 87! They were established long before Hollywood became so entrenched. Are we going to see a time in a decade or two, when these guys kick the bucket that there will be no openly conservative A-lister?

Can you name any twenty something or thirty something A-lister who would identify as a GOP supporter? Even one? I cannot think of any, yet could reel off a dozen of the top of my head without the help of Google who would be supporters of the Democrats. Hollywood is all for diversity except for political diversity.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-conservatives-hollywood-20170311-story.html

Well yea they'd be told to shut up and not publically support a known pussy grabber sure we can't have that can we. He's their target, and whose actions they publicly condemn in order to promote their perceived morality, and supposed superiority.

They'd be encouraged to keep in line with the status quo and don't rock the political boat- "for the sake of your career". Money is numero uno. Don't compromise your pocket and ours. Believe what you want in private, just don't alienate yourself from the public sphere and say something out of line with the hypocritical Hollyweird groupthink.

Money over morals.

arayess · 15-10-2017 10:57AM

Deleted User wrote: »

See - it's easy to say it when you're not in that situation. But if I were in one of absolute and total fear of the consequences, then I don't know what I'd do, truth be told.

while I see your point I don't agree.
There seems to be a disconnect between hollywood and the real world not in terms of the stars themselves but in how the plebs hold the stars accountable.

We have seen situations where more junior politicians would have been coerced into looking the other way or taking a bribe by more senior folks.
They knew it was either "play the game" or have their career derailed.
nobody has sympathy for the average Fianna Fail Councillor who took Liam Lawlors cheques or knew of the carry on but said nothing.
And rightly so there is no sympathy.....but the consequences would have been similar - a career derailed had they spoken up.

On another front , I see no outpouring of sympathy when witness are jailed for refusing to give evidence at trial. In fact, the media poured scorn on them and the chattering classes are always outraged...
A case in point the murder trial when Liam Keane walked free...the victim's best pal was jailed for refusing to give evidence...clearly he was in fear of his life (and there were others) where was his pity party....?
he got nothing other than jail and contempt in the media

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/man-gets-year-in-jail-for-amnesia-trial-perjury-26326138.html

..he was expected to risk his life to give evidence but these celebrities aren't expected to risk their careers.
one law for the rich and famous and another for the council estate yet we are all supposedly equal.

Fcuk sake. It's straight forward those that knew valued their career more than morality.

Neyite · 15-10-2017 10:58AM

What I've noticed about workplace politics over the years is that it's as rare as hen's teeth for someone to stick up for you if you are being bullied or harassed unless they too are a victim. Add into the mix the complication of being the new hopeful intern being bullied or harassed by the CEO, in a highly specialised field where he has influence on the entire industry. Nobody will stick their head above the cubicle farm of the open plan office to help that young wan out.

It's the same situation here.

Someone I know works in a specific area of science. The job opportunities are limited enough. She's in her late twenties now and is stunningly beautiful. She's also very talented at her job, with her thesis winning awards and breaking new scientific ground.

One day a senior colleague in her new job asked her out for lunch. He's co-authored books and studies and is a well known name in the field. A celeb in his field I suppose. It's going to look good on your CV if you worked with him. It guarantees an interview anywhere in the world. He also has a reputation for meeting his girlfriends through work, and at the time he asked my friend out, was divorcing his third wife. She's not exactly an intern, but she was very aware of how it could back fire on her career to turn down the lunch invitation.

In the end she did go to the lunch, after a LOT of discussion with her friends, but heavily name dropped a non-existent boyfriend. And luckily while her senior colleague liked the ladies, he was also smart enough to back off romantically with that signal. He was nice enough to not abuse his power to Wienstein levels. But it was clear that to him, his status entitled him to ask out all the women he worked with and it was their problem how to navigate the request. Not his.

So it happens in every industry to some extent I think.

Assetbacked · 15-10-2017 01:52PM

Weinstein is an easy scapegoat, being physically repulsive and not known generally among the public. But I cant help but think those men who express surprise at the revelations are hypocrites.

In addition, and this is to complete an overall attack against the Hollywood great and good, holier than thou elite, how many women are accusing Weinstein of taking advantage of them but not more attractive and famous actors and directors? Again, it smacks of hypocrisy and agenda peddling.

Assetbacked · 15-10-2017 01:56PM

Neyite wrote: »

What I've noticed about workplace politics over the years is that it's as rare as hen's teeth for someone to stick up for you if you are being bullied or harassed unless they too are a victim. Add into the mix the complication of being the new hopeful intern being bullied or harassed by the CEO, in a highly specialised field where he has influence on the entire industry. Nobody will stick their head above the cubicle farm of the open plan office to help that young wan out.

It's the same situation here.

Someone I know works in a specific area of science. The job opportunities are limited enough. She's in her late twenties now and is stunningly beautiful. She's also very talented at her job, with her thesis winning awards and breaking new scientific ground.

One day a senior colleague in her new job asked her out for lunch. He's co-authored books and studies and is a well known name in the field. A celeb in his field I suppose. It's going to look good on your CV if you worked with him. It guarantees an interview anywhere in the world. He also has a reputation for meeting his girlfriends through work, and at the time he asked my friend out, was divorcing his third wife. She's not exactly an intern, but she was very aware of how it could back fire on her career to turn down the lunch invitation.

In the end she did go to the lunch, after a LOT of discussion with her friends, but heavily name dropped a non-existent boyfriend. And luckily while her senior colleague liked the ladies, he was also smart enough to back off romantically with that signal. He was nice enough to not abuse his power to Wienstein levels. But it was clear that to him, his status entitled him to ask out all the women he worked with and it was their problem how to navigate the request. Not his.

So it happens in every industry to some extent I think.

Hospitals are terrible environments for young female doctors and nurses to try and work in. The attitude is rife among senior, older doctors and young female doctors and nurses feel uncomfortable when asked to accompany them to dinners and conferences.

meeeeh · 15-10-2017 02:05PM

Assetbacked wrote: »

In addition, and this is to complete an overall attack against the Hollywood great and good, holier than thou elite, how many women are accusing Weinstein of taking advantage of them but not more attractive and famous actors and directors? Again, it smacks of hypocrisy and agenda peddling.

Casey Affleck had to settle with two women who accused him of sexual harassment. This is not about looks, it's not like women want to sleep with any attractive man.

Xaracatz · 15-10-2017 02:34PM

You know - just for anybody giving out about the women who didn't come forward earlier - it's not always so easy.

I was in a perhaps similar situation to some of them. Was living in London, and was on my way home from school (in fairly bad form as it happens, after an argument I'd had that morning with my aunt).

Some guy pulls up in a nice car and asks if I model. He told me a few things about himself, including that he worked in recruiting people for soaps like Eastenders, and said he would like to trial me for his agency and left me with his business card.

It cheered me up, and I rang him after a few days, and we met. Talked for a while, and went to his house so that he could "take some headshots", where he gave me a brandy and then held me down and raped me.

I wasn't ashamed afterwards, I think. Rather, I couldn't process the whole thing. The creepy fcuker texted me then to say I had left my bracelet behind (yeah, it was torn off), and that he would bring me back to his house so that I could get it.

Sooooo - went to a pharmacy and got a couple of packs of Paracetamol and downed them with some gin. Kinda hilarious seeing as how the brandy from yer man was the first time I had tried spirits. Woke up in hospital with some bad reaction to something which had me spasming like my head was trying trying to touch my back.

Anyhow - I never told anybody what happened. Didn't want anybody to know. Not my mum, not my friends, not my classmates, my teachers. This was a long time ago, and I don't think about it. Except this thread has brought it all back.

It's weird enough typing this anonymously in an online forum. Coming out into the public eye and telling everybody what happened - I can't even imagine.

Harvey Weinstein scandal (Mod warning in op.)

Comments