Harvey Weinstein - Page 8

Tinkrbl44 · ‎08-23-2010

@Pearlee wrote:
@Tinkrbl44 wrote:
@ms traditional wrote:
silence is complicity. more on that in Nyt today. media - pols - stars - enabled for one reason or another: greed, access, job security.......allowing this to go on for 20-30 years. ugh.
@ms traditional

And, unfortunately, sometimes silence is a condition of employment.
But there isn't only that one job in the world. So the women should just say no and not prostitute themselves for the employment. Like that woman at Foxnews did - took the money Roger Ailes had Foxnews willing to pay her while all that time performing "favors" for him - then later crying foul. Gretchen Carlson too - she could certainly have found another job and not put up with any harrassment at Foxnews. There isn't just one job in the world. The women have stayed for the money and while I don't blame them whatsoever for the harrassment, I do blame them for putting up with it for the pay.

???

For someone who complains loudly when people don't provide specific facts, you're being a little vague here. I've no idea who "that woman at Fox" is.

Times change. What was acceptable (or expected) in our society twenty years ago isn't anymore.

Same thing happened with the Cosby accusers. Many were originally told nothing could be done and their voices were basically silenced. When his predatory behavior came to light publicly, many felt the need to speak up, even if no payoff was involved. They had suffered, and wanted to be heard. He deserved to be embarrassed, at the very least.

lulu2 · ‎03-09-2010

Calling this man a pig is an insult to pigs.

Has his wife commented?

Pearlee · ‎06-11-2011

@Tinkrbl44 wrote:
@Pearlee wrote:
@Tinkrbl44 wrote:
@ms traditional wrote:
silence is complicity. more on that in Nyt today. media - pols - stars - enabled for one reason or another: greed, access, job security.......allowing this to go on for 20-30 years. ugh.
@ms traditional

And, unfortunately, sometimes silence is a condition of employment.
But there isn't only that one job in the world. So the women should just say no and not prostitute themselves for the employment. Like that woman at Foxnews did - took the money Roger Ailes had Foxnews willing to pay her while all that time performing "favors" for him - then later crying foul. Gretchen Carlson too - she could certainly have found another job and not put up with any harrassment at Foxnews. There isn't just one job in the world. The women have stayed for the money and while I don't blame them whatsoever for the harrassment, I do blame them for putting up with it for the pay.

???

For someone who complains loudly when people don't provide specific facts, you're being a little vague here. I've no idea who "that woman at Fox" is.

Times change. What was acceptable (or expected) in our society twenty years ago isn't anymore.

Same thing happened with the Cosby accusers. Many were originally told nothing could be done and their voices were basically silenced. When his predatory behavior came to light publicly, many felt the need to speak up, even if no payoff was involved. They had suffered, and wanted to be heard. He deserved to be embarrassed, at the very least.

@Tinkrbl44To answer your ??? "That woman at Fox" was Laurie Luhn. I couldn't think of her name above but it was prominently reported at the time of Carlson's law suit. I used to post links but don't any more because of moderation (zapping) here by the mods. Just Google her name and you'll read what I mean. It's "that woman" I referenced and no... I didn't make it up. I do think citing sources is important and wish I could still link to my sources.

"Her account: Luhn, the former director of booking at Fox News, said that Ailes [insert probably auto censored word here] harassed and blackmailed her into performing [insert autocensored word here] acts for more than 20 years. “It was psychological torture,” she told New York Magazine on July 29, 2016. Luhn was among the few women who said she had given in to Ailes’ demands, knowing he could help her career." [emphasis in red added]

Source: Huffpost WOMEN

05/18/2017 02:35 pm ET Updated May 18, 2017

ms traditional · ‎03-09-2010

@deepwaterdotter wrote:
I'm trying to follow the money. If it's being given back, that's a good thing.

@deepwaterdotter what else can they do? and if "everyone knew," "best-known 'secret' in Hollywood," why were they taking money right to the last? it has already tainted the beneficiaries -- and they enabled him to act out longer by playing along.

ms traditional · ‎03-09-2010

i was taught from a young age to get away from anyone who did something "inappropriate." when i was grown up, a little Southern flower up in Yankeeland, working in publishing and on Wall Street where i encountered plenty of aggressive men, i applied the same principle. i found that if you took a stand right off, a man would back off. this was before we even had the term "sexual harassment." of course i recognize there are those who may not take "no" as an answer - but i never ran into one.

Isobel Archer · ‎04-04-2015

@ms traditional wrote:
@Tinkrbl44 wrote:
@ms traditional wrote:
silence is complicity. more on that in Nyt today. media - pols - stars - enabled for one reason or another: greed, access, job security.......allowing this to go on for 20-30 years. ugh.
@ms traditional

And, unfortunately, sometimes silence is a condition of employment.
@Tinkrbl44 wrote:
@ms traditional wrote:
silence is complicity. more on that in Nyt today. media - pols - stars - enabled for one reason or another: greed, access, job security.......allowing this to go on for 20-30 years. ugh.
@ms traditional

And, unfortunately, sometimes silence is a condition of employment.
@TINKERBELL or.....not. Ashley Judd said "no" - and worked for him thereafter. and a lot of people could write their own ticket - e g Nicole Kidman/Meryl Streep. perhaps he did not confront them in this way. they haven't said anything --yet.

Streep is one who had no problem with what Polanski did - and even gave him a standing ovation - so I'm not holding my breath awaiting her outrage on this one.

deepwaterdotter · ‎03-09-2010

@ms traditional wrote:
@deepwaterdotter wrote:
I'm trying to follow the money. If it's being given back, that's a good thing.
@deepwaterdotter what else can they do? and if "everyone knew," "best-known 'secret' in Hollywood," why were they taking money right to the last? it has already tainted the beneficiaries -- and they enabled him to act out longer by playing along.

Will be interesting to see if it is a factor at the ballot box next year?

Isobel Archer · ‎04-04-2015

@deepwaterdotter wrote:
I'm trying to follow the money. If it's being given back, that's a good thing.

Apparently only some of it.

Isobel Archer · ‎04-04-2015

@ms traditional wrote:
@deepwaterdotter wrote:
I'm trying to follow the money. If it's being given back, that's a good thing.
@deepwaterdotter what else can they do? and if "everyone knew," "best-known 'secret' in Hollywood," why were they taking money right to the last? it has already tainted the beneficiaries -- and they enabled him to act out longer by playing along.

Why were a lot of powerful people taking money from him as well? Because he was useful to them - and no matter what they SAY about concern for women - their concern for themselves always comes first.

millieshops · ‎03-09-2010

@VivianAs should any person (either gender) who uses his/her position of power to abuse anyone. It's not gone from the entertainment industry and sadly such evil exists far beyond that area into so many areas by so many people. In addition to the Weinstein headlines today, my local paper has a large story regarding similar abuse but nothing to do with him at all.

I am not in any way condoning Werinstein - just venting my own disgust.