Weinstein

[tantalizingfemme]

Originally Posted by Kobi

I appreciate everyone's input thus far.

The topic of sexual assault, sexual harassment, inappropriate behavior can take us in many different and valid directions.

With Weinstein, the thing that I am trying to get a grip on is the ways in which his situation unfolded differently from the norm and what might that difference might mean.

What's the norm? Compare Cosby to Weinstein.

For Cosby, his livelihood was threatened. Some venues cancelled his shows, some let the show go on, some straddled the fence.

Weinstein was fired in less than 24 hours. He resigned from the board in a little over 24 hours. The professional organizations ousted him within days.

Camille Cosby has steadfastly stood by her man. Weinsteins wife announced she was divorcing him within 72 hours.

Cosby's colleagues, if they chose to comment, avoided commenting on the accusations, choosing to focus on stories of the person they knew.

Weinstein's colleagues threw him under the bus, drove over him, backed up and did it again.

The media reports on Cosby focus on the time delay in making the accusations and the settlements in such a way as to question the motives of his accusers.

The media reports on Weinstein seemed to be done in such a way as to establish a time line of a pattern of behavior.

The Cosby saga unfolded in very typical ways and has varied little. Weinstein was condemned immediately. That started changing after a week and it is continuing to change back to the norm.

There are distinct differences here. But why? What, if anything, does it mean or potentially mean?

I believe the difference in treatment has to do with the current political climate. Trump being in office who denigrates most women at every turn and sees no accountibity has frustrated everyone who at a loss that his actions are deemed ok. It’s almost feels like since Trump can’t be accountable, Weinstein is the next big thing. I hope that it continues for all abusers. Regardless of position in the world. It should never happen.

[homoe]

I think this is the perfect time for women to confront AND call out any sexual harasser in their work place! ! I believe something has changed, not sure just why, but after hearing the interview with Diane Sawyer and Ashley Judd on ABC the other day I really think this is something that won't be so easily swept under the carpet any longer!

Between the Weinstein, Fox, & Halperin fiasco, plus countless others, Big Corporations are finally 'getting it' I think! The last thing any company wants now is the taint of some sexual harasser/predator in their employ at this place in time! Look how fast NBC fired Mark Halperin!

I think these sexual harassing men are FINALLY running scared, and I also pray I'm not being to much of an optimist!

[Kätzchen]

I'm an survivor of sexual assault and rape.

I know what it's like to be blamed for something I never asked for or deserved or however anyone wants to stack up that pile of shitty horrible behavior.

I view sexual assault and rape as an deviant, subversive, horrifying combination of abuse of power, but also as an blatant example of abuse of power.

This subject triggers me greatly because holding perpetrators of such sick behavior accountable has not been an easy thing to do...... the sad irony, to me, is that by and large, sexual predator behaviors suffer some sort of fucked up double standard in terms of accountability.

The prime example that comes to mind is the neo-right wing of America somehow got what they wanted for an President, yet the current president is the biggest example we have in recent times where sexual predators can flaunt their crime and not be held accountable or punished.

That to me, that sexual predators or people who commit sexual crimes against women, is the saddest indictment on American society ..... that these types of things are never really dealt with in vigorous terms so that society says in an united way, in straight up unvarnished ways, that sexual crimes are not tolerated. And that how women are treated, truly does matter.

[homoe]

Originally Posted by homoe

I think this is the perfect time for women to confront AND call out any sexual harasser in their work place! ! I believe something has changed, not sure just why, but after hearing the interview with Diane Sawyer and Ashley Judd on ABC the other day I really think this is something that won't be so easily swept under the carpet any longer!

Between the Weinstein, Fox, & Halperin fiasco, plus countless others, Big Corporations are finally 'getting it' I think! The last thing any company wants now is the taint of some sexual harasser/predator in their employ at this place in time! Look how fast NBC fired Mark Halperin!

I think these sexual harassing men are FINALLY running scared, and I also pray I'm not being to much of an optimist!

Since posting this, the fact that NBC fired Matt Lauer without batting an eyelash only reinforces what I believe.

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by homoe

Since posting this, the fact that NBC fired Matt Lauer without batting an eyelash only reinforces what I believe.

I would like to think you are correct. However, Lauer was not fired for sexual harassment. He was fired for violating the "morals" clause in his contract. Not sure what the morals clause said but they usually refer to anything that leaves the company open to law suits.

I'm not sure he was fired without batting an eye either. Predatory behavior is always known on some level. When it finds its way to the light of day, companies are now vulnerable to civil suits for a hostile work environment.

Part of me wants to believe companies would act for the benefit of their employees. Part of me knows companies act to protect themselves - especially when they are publicly traded and the powers that be need to be accountable to shareholders.

The NYT is a prime example. They broke the story on Weinstein. Yet, just a few weeks ago their White House reporter Glenn Thrush was being investigated for allegations of inappropriate sexual behavior toward other employees. Their answer was to suspend him, take him off the WH coverage, but retain his services.

Two steps forward and one step backwards.

This is a very complex issue and its complexity becomes evident with each instance and every corporate decision of how to deal with it.

The public has a very short attention span, especially for things that are not black and white, and that cannot be resolved easily.

What I hope is that women have learned a few things about how to protect themselves from the experiences of those who have come forward. Hopefully they have learned to size up a potential problem situation and stay away from it. For example, when a business meeting is charged from an office venue to a hotel venue a red flag should pop up. If you agreed to do it anyway and the hotel door is answered by someone in a bathrobe, turn around and head for the elevators. If a business meeting deteriorates into being asked for a massage, get up and leave. If someone grabs your breast or your junk in public and you find that inappropriate, make your response visible and vocal.

Crisis change is relatively rapid. Real change is painstakingly slow.

[Kätzchen]

An dear butch friend sent me the article from the magazine The New York Magazine , published on February 18th, 2018.

Remember how she testified before an senate committee before Clarence Thomas was appointed to be an Supreme Court Justice? And how back then, we had the first huge public case of sexual harassment and how her life was ruined by politicians making bargains with powerful GOP senators and pundits, to limit the scope of testimony proving the amoral behaviors of Clarence Thomas?

The article is superbly written and it goes deeper into the behind the scenes details of what happened to Anita Hill....I highly recommend reading this article for an inside look at how those in power play GOD for the day and participate in covering up behaviors, such as those of an Supreme Court judge nominee, who went on to be installed in an life long position, with his searing and hardly hidden, conservative right-leaning positions, which has altered the face of law on the books pertaining to women and women's rights.

LINK TO ARTICLE:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ce-thomas.html

[homoe]

I saw that article as well and found this additional info from the NY Times........

In a voice mail message left at 7:31 a.m. on Oct. 9, a Saturday, Virginia Thomas asked her husband’s former aide-turned-adversary to make amends. Ms. Hill played the recording, from her voice mail at Brandeis University, for The New York Times.

“Good morning Anita Hill, it’s Ginni Thomas,” it said. “I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband.”

Ms. Thomas went on: “So give it some thought. And certainly pray about this and hope that one day you will help us understand why you did what you did. O.K., have a good day.”

[homoe]

From NY Times..........
In a statement conveyed through a publicist, Ms. Thomas confirmed leaving the message, which she portrayed as a peacemaking gesture. She did not explain its timing.

“I did place a call to Ms. Hill at her office extending an olive branch to her after all these years, in hopes that we could ultimately get past what happened so long ago,” she said. “That offer still stands. I would be very happy to meet and talk with her if she would be willing to do the same. Certainly no offense was ever intended.”

In response to Ms. Thomas’s statement, Ms. Hill said that she had testified truthfully about her experiences with the future Justice Thomas and that she had nothing to apologize for.

“I appreciate that no offense was intended, but she can’t ask for an apology without suggesting that I did something wrong, and that is offensive,” Ms. Hill said.

[homoe]

(CNN)Former Vice President Joe Biden says he owes Anita Hill an apology for not doing more for her during confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Biden chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee when Hill testified there in 1991. Hill said she was sexually harassed by Thomas while he was her supervisor at the Department of Education. Thomas denied the allegations, calling the questioning during the hearing a "high-tech lynching."

"And my one regret is that I wasn't able to tone down the attacks on her by some of my Republican friends," Biden said. "I mean, they really went after her. As much as I tried to intervene, I did not have the power to gavel them out of order."

Biden added that if he could do it again, he would have gone forward with a subpoena for three women, whom he had sign affidavits saying they wouldn't testify.

Perhaps NOW one of these three could open their mouth and speak their truth?

[CherylNYC]

Originally Posted by homoe

I saw that article as well and found this additional info from the NY Times........

In a voice mail message left at 7:31 a.m. on Oct. 9, a Saturday, Virginia Thomas asked her husband’s former aide-turned-adversary to make amends. Ms. Hill played the recording, from her voice mail at Brandeis University, for The New York Times.

“Good morning Anita Hill, it’s Ginni Thomas,” it said. “I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband.”

Ms. Thomas went on: “So give it some thought. And certainly pray about this and hope that one day you will help us understand why you did what you did. O.K., have a good day.”

I can't tell you how disgusted this makes me feel.

[*Anya*]

I always believed her, from her first word of testimony to the very last.

I listened to both of them. Thomas was never believable.

When is Trump going to be held accountable for his "pussy-grabbing"?

Originally Posted by Kätzchen

An dear butch friend sent me the article from the magazine The New York Magazine , published on February 18th, 2018.

Remember how she testified before an senate committee before Clarence Thomas was appointed to be an Supreme Court Justice? And how back then, we had the first huge public case of sexual harassment and how her life was ruined by politicians making bargains with powerful GOP senators and pundits, to limit the scope of testimony proving the amoral behaviors of Clarence Thomas?

The article is superbly written and it goes deeper into the behind the scenes details of what happened to Anita Hill....I highly recommend reading this article for an inside look at how those in power play GOD for the day and participate in covering up behaviors, such as those of an Supreme Court judge nominee, who went on to be installed in an life long position, with his searing and hardly hidden, conservative right-leaning positions, which has altered the face of law on the books pertaining to women and women's rights.

LINK TO ARTICLE:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...ce-thomas.html

[Orema]

Anita Hill: How to Get the Kavanaugh Hearings Right

The Senate Judiciary Committee has a chance to do better by the country than it did nearly three decades ago.

By Anita Hill
Ms. Hill is a professor at Brandeis University.


Anita F. Hill, right, is sworn in to testify before the United States Senate Judiciary Committee on the confirmation of Judge Clarence Thomas by Chairman Joseph Biden in October 1991. Credit: Arnie Sachs/picture-alliance -- dpa, via Associated Press

There is no way to redo 1991, but there are ways to do better.

The facts underlying Christine Blasey Ford’s claim of being sexually assaulted by a young Brett Kavanaugh will continue to be revealed as confirmation proceedings unfold. Yet it’s impossible to miss the parallels between the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing of 2018 and the 1991 confirmation hearing for Justice Clarence Thomas. In 1991, the Senate Judiciary Committee had an opportunity to demonstrate its appreciation for both the seriousness of sexual harassment claims and the need for public confidence in the character of a nominee to the Supreme Court. It failed on both counts.


Ms. Hill testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in 1991. Credit: Greg Gibson/Associated Press

As that same committee, on which sit some of the same members as nearly three decades ago, now moves forward with the Kavanaugh confirmation proceedings, the integrity of the court, the country’s commitment to addressing sexual violence as a matter of public interest, and the lives of the two principal witnesses who will be testifying hang in the balance. Today, the public expects better from our government than we got in 1991, when our representatives performed in ways that gave employers permission to mishandle workplace harassment complaints throughout the following decades. That the Senate Judiciary Committee still lacks a protocol for vetting sexual harassment and assault claims that surface during a confirmation hearing suggests that the committee has learned little from the Thomas hearing, much less the more recent #MeToo movement.

With the current heightened awareness of sexual violence comes heightened accountability for our representatives. To do better, the 2018 Senate Judiciary Committee must demonstrate a clear understanding that sexual violence is a social reality to which elected representatives must respond. A fair, neutral and well-thought-out course is the only way to approach Dr. Blasey and Judge Kavanaugh’s upcoming testimony. The details of what that process would look like should be guided by experts who have devoted their careers to understanding sexual violence. The job of the Senate Judiciary Committee is to serve as fact-finders, to better serve the American public, and the weight of the government should not be used to destroy the lives of witnesses who are called to testify.

Here are some basic ground rules the committee should follow:

Refrain from pitting the public interest in confronting sexual harassment against the need for a fair confirmation hearing. Our interest in the integrity of the Supreme Court and in eliminating sexual misconduct, especially in our public institutions, are entirely compatible. Both are aimed at making sure that our judicial system operates with legitimacy.


The Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Capitol Hill last week. Credit: Doug Mills/The New York Times

Select a neutral investigative body with experience in sexual misconduct cases that will investigate the incident in question and present its findings to the committee. Outcomes in such investigations are more reliable and less likely to be perceived as tainted by partisanship. Senators must then rely on the investigators’ conclusions, along with advice from experts, to frame the questions they ask Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Blasey. Again, the senators’ fact-finding roles must guide their behavior. The investigators’ report should frame the hearing, not politics or myths about sexual assault.

Do not rush these hearings. Doing so would not only signal that sexual assault accusations are not important — hastily appraising this situation would very likely lead to facts being overlooked that are necessary for the Senate and the public to evaluate. That the committee plans to hold a hearing this coming Monday is discouraging. Simply put, a week’s preparation is not enough time for meaningful inquiry into very serious charges.

Finally, refer to Christine Blasey Ford by her name. She was once anonymous, but no longer is. Dr. Blasey is not simply “Judge Kavanaugh’s accuser.” Dr. Blasey is a human being with a life of her own. She deserves the respect of being addressed and treated as a whole person.


Brett Kavanaugh appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee's confirmation hearing. Credit: Tasos Katopodis/EPA, via Shutterstock

Process is important, but it cannot erase the difficulty of testifying on national television about the sexual assault that Dr. Blasey says occurred when she was 15 years old. Nor will it negate the fact that as she sits before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Dr. Blasey will be outresourced. Encouraging letters from friends and strangers may help, but she cannot match the organized support that Judge Kavanaugh has. Since Dr. Blasey and Judge Kavanaugh have the same obligation to present the truth, this imbalance may not seem fair.

But, as Judge Kavanaugh stands to gain the lifetime privilege of serving on the country’s highest court, he has the burden of persuasion. And that is only fair.

In 1991, the phrase “they just don’t get it” became a popular way of describing senators’ reaction to sexual violence. With years of hindsight, mounds of evidence of the prevalence and harm that sexual violence causes individuals and our institutions, as well as a Senate with more women than ever, “not getting it” isn’t an option for our elected representatives. In 2018, our senators must get it right.

Anita Hill is university professor of Social Policy, Law, and Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies at Brandeis University in Waltham, Mass.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/18/o...gtype=Homepage

[Orema]

Originally Posted by tantalizingfemme

I believe the difference in treatment has to do with the current political climate. Trump being in office who denigrates most women at every turn and sees no accountibity has frustrated everyone who at a loss that his actions are deemed ok. It’s almost feels like since Trump can’t be accountable, Weinstein is the next big thing. I hope that it continues for all abusers. Regardless of position in the world. It should never happen.

I think this is part of it, but I think the big difference is our perception of the women speaking. I think that’s what’s making the difference.

The general public didn’t know Anita Hill, Monica Lewinsky, Juanita Broaddrick, Janice Dickerson, the 14 or so women accusing Trump, Gretchen Carlson, etc. and many people didn’t believe them.

But the actresses telling us what Weinstein put them through are women known by the general public. We know them, we trust them, these are women who have impacted our decisions through their art. I think that, coupled with Weinstien’s initial plea for mercy, has made a difference.

[tantalizingfemme]

Originally Posted by Orema

I think this is part of it, but I think the big difference is our perception of the women speaking. I think that’s what’s making the difference.

The general public didn’t know Anita Hill, Monica Lewinsky, Juanita Broaddrick, Janice Dickerson, the 14 or so women accusing Trump, Gretchen Carlson, etc. and many people didn’t believe them.

But the actresses telling us what Weinstein put them through are women known by the general public. We know them, we trust them, these are women who have impacted our decisions through their art. I think that, coupled with Weinstien’s initial plea for mercy, has made a difference.

I have been thinking about this and I see another reason too. Men (besides Weinstein) in the entertainment industry coming out to say yes, this is true. I hate it but I do think it's getting more legs because of that. And that sucks.

[Orema]

Originally Posted by tantalizingfemme

I have been thinking about this and I see another reason too. Men (besides Weinstein) in the entertainment industry coming out to say yes, this is true. I hate it but I do think it's getting more legs because of that. And that sucks.

I think this has made a difference, too, but I wonder if the men would have spoken up if Weinstein had vehemently denied the claims like Cosby, Ailes, and O'Reilly did. Maybe they would have spoken against him, but I'm not so sure.

[C0LLETTE]

Hello Kevin Spacey....you dumb horrid fuck

[homoe]

It must be so infuriating when a victim is told by the perpetrator they don't even remember committing the assault! You can damn well bet every victim remembers!

[tantalizingfemme]

Originally Posted by C0LLETTE

Hello Kevin Spacey....you dumb horrid fuck

My personal fave was him making sure to say he was drunk because that makes him less responsible, right? Asshole.

[Kobi]

I see positives in growing numbers of women coming forward with their stories. Efforts have been made to downplay the prevalence of these behaviors. The growing numbers of stories begins to attest to the actual extent of the problem.

I am pleased that women are sharing more details as to what they have experienced. Tho difficult to read, the details have huge potential positive benefits to other women. To know you are not alone with this experience can be a relief. To be able give a name to what you experienced is huge. To be able to give it a name and understand what happened in a different way, may help with all the complex feelings that occur, especially things like guilt, embarrassment, self blame, shame.

As for Kevin Spacey....I can understand why there are so many different and negative reactions to his response. I saw something positive in it. He didnt do the knee jerk, outright denial. He doesnt remember the incident, chalked it up to alcohol but he did accept responsibility albeit in a roundabout way.

I was more concerned about Spacey being 26 and Rapp being 14 at the time.

And, I am still scratching my head as to why Spacey, a well known bisexual, decided this was a good time to announce he was a gay man.

The network cancelled House of Cards in response to the allegations.

Mark Halperin, also kinda sorta admitted to the behavior tho he denied some of the details.

NBC cancelled his contact in response.

Some form of admission of the behavior is a positive step. Quick action by employers is a positive step. I just hope these things are being done for the right reasons.

[JDeere]

Originally Posted by C0LLETTE

Hello Kevin Spacey....you dumb horrid fuck

He even had the balls to come out as gay during this, can we say deflecting.