CA - Harvey Weinstein trial on Sexual Harassment #metoo *Guilty in CA, NY Appeal*

[kaen]

So interesting you would bring this up. I'm currently reading a book about Frankie Stewart Silver. She was hanged for murdering her (most likely) abusive husband back in 1831.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankie_Stewart_Silver

No way to know what really happened, but I truly believe Charlie beat the crap out of Frankie regularly and was trying to kill her and their baby that night. If he had, he wouldn't have suffered any punishment. Frankie and their daughter, Nancy, would have been considered his "property."

Or, in modern days, when a woman is firing a warning shot to stop her husband from beating her, with a defense of the FL Stand Your Ground Law, was sentenced to 20 years in prison. "She claimed that he broke through a bathroom door that she had locked and grabbed her by the neck. She said she tried to push past him but he shoved her into the door, sparking a struggle that felt as if it went on for an "eternity." She was finally released for a new trial after an appellate judge ruled the jury instructions wrong...http://abcnews.go.com/US/florida-wo...eleased-prison-thanksgiving/story?id=21042225 (seems that Stand Your Ground is okay in the Trayvon case, but not when a woman is being beaten and is in fear for her life from her abuser husband. )

 

[Wyle_E_Coyote]

BBM

Where did you get that from? I'm not the enemy here.

We know that criminals will continue to do what they do until they are arrested. If you are a victim of a criminal activity, and you chose to remain silent and negotiate financial compensation with the criminal, you are in fact leaving the door open for more people to be victimized.

I have mentioned sexual assault, not rape. Did you miss this article: Harvey Weinstein Paid Off Sexual Harassment Accusers for Decades

"Mr. Weinstein has reached at least eight settlements with women"

Victims can be part of the problem, or part of the solution. Were victims who chose to remain silent, and who accepted money in exchange for sexual harassment, part of the solution?

To draw some comparisons, Otto, I think what you are saying is better suited for a Michael Jackson situation, where so-called parents were willing to turn a blind eye for financial gain.

What others are saying, is that the power differential, historically, has made the social, legal, and financial costs of reporting sexual assaults so high that few women were able and/or willing to pursue legal charges, especially when there was often little repercussions for the assailant.

One might liken it to black woman in a small town in Alabama in 1920 accusing the white mayor of rape. Sure, she could go to LE, but odds are she would suffer for it and nothing would be done.


http://www.vulture.com/2014/09/michael-egan-bryan-singer-lawsuit.html

http://www.pajiba.com/celebrities_a...ollywoods-most-acclaimed-sexual-predators.php

http://variety.com/2017/film/featur...exual-harassment-harvey-weinstein-1202589895/

https://jezebel.com/5864438/hollywo...worst-fears-about-child-actors-and-pedophilia

https://www.law360.com/articles/642192/hollywood-lawyer-made-client-virtual-sex-slave-suit-says

https://www.salon.com/2015/09/14/th...or_salvas_return_to_the_hit_horror_franchise/

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/10/...-why-women-dont-report-sexual-harassment.html


Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[otto]

To draw some comparisons, Otto, I think what you are saying is better suited for a Michael Jackson situation, where so-called parents were willing to turn a blind eye for financial gain.

What others are saying, is that the power differential, historically, has made the social, legal, and financial costs of reporting sexual assaults so high that few women were able and/or willing to pursue legal charges, especially when there was often little repercussions for the assailant.

One might liken it to black woman in a small town in Alabama in 1920 accusing the white mayor of rape. Sure, she could go to LE, but odds are she would suffer for it and nothing would be done.


http://www.vulture.com/2014/09/michael-egan-bryan-singer-lawsuit.html

http://www.pajiba.com/celebrities_a...ollywoods-most-acclaimed-sexual-predators.php

http://variety.com/2017/film/featur...exual-harassment-harvey-weinstein-1202589895/

https://jezebel.com/5864438/hollywo...worst-fears-about-child-actors-and-pedophilia

https://www.law360.com/articles/642192/hollywood-lawyer-made-client-virtual-sex-slave-suit-says

https://www.salon.com/2015/09/14/th...or_salvas_return_to_the_hit_horror_franchise/

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/10/...-why-women-dont-report-sexual-harassment.html


Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

By contrast, the introduction of the birth control pill in the 1960's marked the beginning of women's liberation and control of their reproductive systems. Two decades later, that independence translated to equal job opportunities and equal rights. Four decades after that, women are using social media to 'out' men who wronged them three decades earlier.

If social media had been available three decades ago, would those same women have chosen the same option to report their stories? That is, does social media make it safer to report sexual assault? Is this current trend solely about women finally finding their voice, or is this more about women finding a way to tell their story that gathers social momentum to support their story, essentially bypassing the justice system?

There's another political social shift that is happening, and which is not yet fully realized: challenging the hierarchical political system with a bottom-up system. That is essentially what has happened here. The justice system is a critical element of the traditional hierarchical government system. The bottom-up model is the collective wifi voice of individuals making snap decisions based on limited information. In this case, the hierarchical model has been completely bypassed, and the justice system has been excluded from decisions about the facts, guilt or innocence, and punishment. To some degree, this shift represents a return to social interactions of more than a century ago [in Western countries and excluding race relations in the USA], where villagers would react with emotion to attack someone whom they perceived had wronged one of their own. The benefit of the doubt is a construct of the hierarchical government system, but that is completely bypassed with the bottom-up model.

In this case, it seems that the bottom-up collective wifi voice of judge and jury has it right, but what happens when they get it wrong? How many destroyed lives will pave the roads before this conflict between hierarchical and bottom-up governance is sorted out?

 

[Miss Magnolia]

As an older woman, I and all the other other female employees over many years watched in my very high profile office, as one young woman after another came through the doors and because of sexual favors, they we're treated very well and promoted. It always started off the same way, a pretty young woman got the chance of a lifetime working for my then well known boss, and within weeks they would be in the library having drinks in the afternoon and hearing laughter. We all got used to this scenario. Many years later, and so far, not one of these young women have come forth with a grievance, most likely because these young women got promoted into high paying jobs while secretaries with 30 plus years had tow the line. After talking to many women over the years, this happens often in many workplaces even outside of Hollywood

 

[otto]

As an older woman, I and all the other other female employees over many years watched in my very high profile office, as one young woman after another came through the doors and because of sexual favors, they we're treated very well and promoted. It always started off the same way, a pretty young woman got the chance of a lifetime working for my then well known boss, and within weeks they would be in the library having drinks in the afternoon and hearing laughter. We all got used to this scenario. Many years later, and so far, not one of these young women have come forth with a grievance, most likely because these young women got promoted into high paying jobs while secretaries with 30 plus years had tow the line. After talking to many women over the years, this happens often in many workplaces even outside of Hollywood

That is exactly the point I've been making, yet many who comment here would have us believe that it is a myth that women use sexuality for their own benefit. A court of law would sort out the finer details of whether a woman who goes to a man's hotel room for a "business" meeting is conscious of what is happening when he answers the door in a bathrobe and the most prominent piece of furniture is a bed, or whether as a fragile powerless female she believes that is how real business meetings are conducted. Courts would sort out whether a proposition is an assault, and whether a rape victim would invite her alleged rapist into her home.

Granted, some of the recent allegations are very likely valid, but are all of them criminal activities?

 

[anonypotomous]

It’s nice to see a fair debate here with some critical thinking skills in place, as opposed to the oft seen knee jerk feminist reactions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[otto]

It’s nice to see a fair debate here with some critical thinking skills in place, as opposed to the oft seen knee jerk feminist reactions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would take it a step further and suggest that real feminists do not interpret male/female identity characteristics and behavior exclusively through an emotional lens.

 

[bluesneakers]

It’s nice to see a fair debate here with some critical thinking skills in place, as opposed to the oft seen knee jerk feminist reactions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Stuff like this wouldn't be in the news and victims wouldn't be getting any justice if not for "feminist knee jerk reactions." Who do you think is leading this fight? Not predators, not men, not women who think women are asking for it if they drink or let men into their apartments or wear short skirts. Nope. We have feminists to thank for this.

 

[otto]

Stuff like this wouldn't be in the news and victims wouldn't be getting any justice if not for "feminist knee jerk reactions." Who do you think is leading this fight? Not predators, not men, not women who think women are asking for it if they drink or let men into their apartments or wear short skirts. Nope. We have feminists to thank for this.

Feminists do not value justice by social media.

 

[bluesneakers]

Feminists do not value justice by social media.

What?

 

[otto]

What?

I mean what I say - that real feminists work within the constructs of established law to advocate for social change and equality. They do not use public shaming and social media to establish, or advocate for, guilt and punishment. Real feminists give the benefit of the doubt and wait to hear all the facts before leaping to uninformed conclusions.

“Being a feminist for me means recognising that men and women should be, can be, must be equal and secondly, that we still have an awful lot of work to do" he told a crowd gathered for a United Nations (UN) youth empowerment campaign in New York."

~ Prime Minister of Canada

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...en-sexism-canada-prime-minister-a7960196.html

 

[bluesneakers]

Feminists support and believe victims.

Feminism vs. Weinstein

NOW:
National Organization for Women urges Hollywood to ‘end the silence that surrounds sexual abuse’

National Organization for Women Calls for Harvey Weinstein to Lose Academy Membership

Hollywood Doesn’t Have a Harvey Weinstein Problem: It Has A Male Power And Privilege Problem

The Motion Picture Academy did the right thing by revoking Harvey Weinstein’s membership. The National Organization for Women was one of the first to call for the Academy to remove Harvey Weinstein from their membership roster, and we are gratified they faced their responsibility today. But Hollywood still has a pervasive problem with the systematic abuse of women by powerful men who believe their power and privilege will always protect them.

Ms. Magazine:
The Harvey Weinstein Allegations Are More Than a Scandal—They’re a Call to Arms

Women in Hollywood Have Had Enough

Will 2017 Be the Year of Hollywood’s Feminist Reckoning?

B*tch Magazine:
Predatory Men Like Harvey Weinstein Are Running Hollywood

B*tch Tapes: After Weinstein

The dominoes are falling, and predatory men are being exposed in droves: Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Mitchell Sunderland, Brett Ratner, Michael Hafford, and James Toback are just a few of the abusive men who’ve been exiled after their victims came forward—and were (surprisingly) believed.

Hollywood is Full of Creeps

But Weinstein isn’t the only powerful man in Hollywood whose patterns of predatory sexual behavior have been an open secret for years. They’re all over the place and Hollywood’s silence and willingness to tolerate heinous behavior from powerful men empowers them to keep finding victims.

 

[otto]

Feminists support and believe victims.

Feminism vs. Weinstein

NOW:
National Organization for Women urges Hollywood to ‘end the silence that surrounds sexual abuse’

National Organization for Women Calls for Harvey Weinstein to Lose Academy Membership

Hollywood Doesn’t Have a Harvey Weinstein Problem: It Has A Male Power And Privilege Problem


Ms. Magazine:
The Harvey Weinstein Allegations Are More Than a Scandal—They’re a Call to Arms

Women in Hollywood Have Had Enough

Will 2017 Be the Year of Hollywood’s Feminist Reckoning?

B*tch Magazine:
Predatory Men Like Harvey Weinstein Are Running Hollywood

B*tch Tapes: After Weinstein


Hollywood is Full of Creeps

I sure hope those hollywood feminists take a real stance going forward and refuse all acting roles that sexualize women and portray them as silly bimbos. Case in point: American Beauty.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Abusive power, per definition:

“Abusive power and control (also controlling behaviour and coercive control) is the way that an abusive person gains and maintains power and control over another person, as a victim, in order to subject that person to psychological, physical, sexual, or financial abuse.”

The definition doesn’t change just because “the other wants to gain something.”

If a rape victim attempts to blackmail the rapist, that’s a separate issue. And a separate crime. But we’re not talking about blackmail. None of the alleged perpetrators mentioned so far in this thread say they are being or have been blackmailed. Zero. So blackmail is irrelevant, if that’s the point you’re getting at.

Coming to a financial settlement to avoid trial or to reduce additional trauma or to silence a victim isn’t blackmail. It’s mediating a legal agreement agreed to by both sides. A settlement, BY DEFINITION, is “an official agreement intended to resolve a dispute or conflict.” It’s called civil law.

To extend your supposition, to be opposed to civil agreements (settling lawsuits) means you’d be opposed to suing for restitution in a civil court, too? ... Since a civil case wouldn’t necessarily mean “reporting” to law enforcement authorities for the gamble of possible prosecution through the courts?

I’m trying to understand where you’re coming from, Otto.

Anyone reading this thread might think that manipulation is not possible when one person is in a position of power and the other wants to gain something.

[emoji202]MOO

 

[otto]

Abusive power, per definition:

“Abusive power and control (also controlling behaviour and coercive control) is the way that an abusive person gains and maintains power and control over another person, as a victim, in order to subject that person to psychological, physical, sexual, or financial abuse.”

The definition doesn’t change just because “the other wants to gain something.”

If a rape victim attempts to blackmail the rapist, that’s a separate issue. And a separate crime. But we’re not talking about blackmail. None of the alleged perpetrators mentioned so far in this thread say they are being or have been blackmailed. Zero. So blackmail is irrelevant, if that’s the point you’re getting at.

Coming to a financial settlement to avoid costly trials or to reduce inflicting additional trauma or to silence a victim isn’t blackmail. It’s a legal agreement made by both sides. A settlement, BY DEFINITION, is “an official agreement intended to resolve a dispute or conflict.” It is what’s legally defined as a “civil agreement.”

To extend your supposition, to be opposed to civil agreements (settling lawsuits) means you’d be opposed to suing for restitution in a civil court, too? ... Since a civil case wouldn’t necessarily mean “reporting” to law enforcement authorities for the gamble of possible prosecution through the courts?

I’m trying to understand where you’re coming from, Otto.
[emoji202]MOO

BBM

I like that definition. The first person who comes to mind is Anna Nicole Smith. She used sexuality to gain and maintain power and control over a 89-year-old oil tycoon J. Howard Marshall II in order to subject him to financial abuse, and potentially other forms of abuse.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

BBM

I like that definition. The first person who comes to mind is Anna Nicole Smith. She used sexuality to gain and maintain power and control over a 89-year-old oil tycoon J. Howard Marshall II in order to subject him to financial abuse, and potentially other forms of abuse.

Thank you, Otto.

The US Supreme Court disagrees with your take on the Anna Nicole Smith case, however. SCOTUS determined she had a right to seek part of Marshall’s estate. She died before the case was settled.

(Years later, a lower court denied Anna’s estate lawyer’s request to sanction Marshall’s son’s estate.)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Nicole_Smith


[emoji202]MOO

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Fair debate?!? How radically feminist! ❤️

It’s nice to see a fair debate here with some critical thinking skills in place, as opposed to the oft seen knee jerk feminist reactions.

[emoji202]MOO

 

[otto]

Thank you, Otto.

The US Supreme Court disagrees with your take on the Anna Nicole Smith case, however. SCOTUS determined she had a right to seek part of Marshall’s estate. She died before the case was settled.

(Years later, a lower court denied Anna’s estate lawyer’s request to sanction Marshall’s son’s estate.)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Nicole_Smith


[emoji202]MOO

Does that matter? In the court of public opinion, which we are exclusively relying on in this discussion, she exploited her own sexuality for financial gain. That should be sufficient to conclude that she is guilty. End of discussion - no reason to reference law, the justice system, or the supreme court because they are insignificant when determining guilt today.

 

[otto]

By today's standards of social media justice, Michael Jackson is without doubt a dangerous pedophile and sexual predator who abused his position of power to prey on vulnerable children. He, like Weinstein, paid to silence his victims, and then continued to victimize countless other vulnerable children - destroying their lives before they were old enough to vote.

This case is a counter example to the claim that only women are victims who do not speak up. In the Michael Jackson case, it was the parents of victims who did not speak up [no good explanation for that] and who eagerly accepted buckets of money with total disregard for the wellness of the victims.

 

[bluesneakers]

Abusive power, per definition:

“Abusive power and control (also controlling behaviour and coercive control) is the way that an abusive person gains and maintains power and control over another person, as a victim, in order to subject that person to psychological, physical, sexual, or financial abuse.”

The definition doesn’t change just because “the other wants to gain something.”

If a rape victim attempts to blackmail the rapist, that’s a separate issue. And a separate crime. But we’re not talking about blackmail. None of the alleged perpetrators mentioned so far in this thread say they are being or have been blackmailed. Zero. So blackmail is irrelevant, if that’s the point you’re getting at.

Coming to a financial settlement to avoid trial or to reduce additional trauma or to silence a victim isn’t blackmail. It’s mediating a legal agreement agreed to by both sides. A settlement, BY DEFINITION, is “an official agreement intended to resolve a dispute or conflict.” It’s called civil law.

To extend your supposition, to be opposed to civil agreements (settling lawsuits) means you’d be opposed to suing for restitution in a civil court, too? ... Since a civil case wouldn’t necessarily mean “reporting” to law enforcement authorities for the gamble of possible prosecution through the courts?

I’m trying to understand where you’re coming from, Otto.





[emoji202]MOO

Men blaming women for their actions goes all the way back to Adam and Eve.