Who is being harassed sexually?

Conservatives are taking great delight in attacking liberals for turning a blind eye to decades long sexual harassment by producer Harvey Weinstein. They say it is because he is liberal, because he gave so much to Democratic causes and because he inserted liberal messages into so effectively into entertainment. This all may be true. But it misses a big reason so many are quiet. They were complicit. Many “victims” were at the same time perpetrators.

Harvey Weinstein's escapades were evidently consensual and transnational. That does not mean they were not nasty business, but they were two-way streets.

How many actresses got a jump on the competition by jumping into bed with Harvey? To put it crudely but truly, they got ahead by giving a head. Given his prolific creativity, he probably pushed along many careers.

So the victims are not the women he slept with and then favored. They are accomplices or maybe even instigators. The victims are the women who were passed over and maybe men who never had the options of moving ahead.

Some men are pigs and the entertainment seems particularly porcine. Perhaps this is the paradox of talent. Talent is more common than we like to think. When lots of people are talented, what determines who gets ahead is like and maybe nudges from powerful outsiders.

I have lived long enough to see how it is niches, not actors or actresses are the structure. Each generation has its beautiful blond, its haunted outsider, its dapper but shallow young man, its earnest outsider ... Who fills these roles is mostly a matter of luck and circumstances. Talent rises, but if you replayed the game the winners would be different. There are thousands of women with the looks and talent to play the beautiful blond. The one who gets the role maybe lucky, or she may have been lucky enough to work under Harvey.

Posted by Christine & John at October 9, 2017 4:24 PM
Comments
Comment #420546

I don’t really understand what this article is doing in a political forum. Is this something the flying devil monkeys are hawking this week to distract from the mess in DC?

The author doesn’t seem to understand the way harassment actually happens in the workplace, and chooses to blame the victim along with the perpetrator. Your repeated use of the word liberal indicates your sources of information. You might actually have a better argument using different sources, but right wingers just won’t do that.

The last thing I watched that Weinstein produced was last year’s Doctor Thorne, a 3 part adaptation of a Trollope novel. I have the six episode War and Peace from last year, but haven’t watched it yet. What “liberal messages” were inserted? Statements like this make your argument sound crazy.

Entertainment is “porcine”? I agree that The Apprentice and The Celebrity Apprentice, and almost every other show produced by Mark Burnett is revolting, illiterate programing, and I would like to see him deported for degrading the nation by helping to perpetrate a fraud.

This subject brought to memory the murder of another Harvey Weinstein many years ago. His wife Irwinna was convicted of the murder with an accomplice, but the court later overturned the verdict and ordered a new trial. I can’t remember what happened after that. I worked with Irwinna’s sister when I was in college. AFAIK, this Harvey is unrelated to that Harvey.

Posted by: ohrealy at October 9, 2017 8:02 PM
Comment #420549

I am not sure how this one even made the cut, what with so many other entries vying for position.

Re the subject - If a woman sleeps with a man and then garners advantage - and takes it - the victim/perp distinction blurs.

Posted by: Christine & John at October 9, 2017 10:28 PM
Comment #420570

The Tea Consent video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8

TRMS tonight was about the Weinstein issue.

Posted by: ohrealy at October 10, 2017 11:33 PM
Comment #420571

The tea analogy is imperfect. People are fairly open and clear about whether or not they want tea. They are less honest about sex. Beyond that, if you got drunk and drank a cup of tea, it is unlikely you would blame the host of giving you one.


And if you drank a cup of tea that you did not like, but claimed to like it so that you could ingratiate yourself and gain benefits, you could not complain in general.

I do not doubt that Weinstein is a shit and it is shameful that liberal entertainers who must have known kept quiet for decades, but his behavior was often part of a transaction.

Recall the unPC joke. This guy asks a woman if she would sleep with him for a million dollars. She thinks about it and says, “Yes.” He says, “How about $10?” She responds, “What do you think I am?” He answers, “We have established what you are and now we are negotiating price.”

Posted by: Christine & John at October 10, 2017 11:45 PM
Comment #420572

The tea analogy is imperfect. People are fairly open and clear about whether or not they want tea. They are less honest about sex. Beyond that, if you got drunk and drank a cup of tea, it is unlikely you would blame the host of giving you one.


And if you drank a cup of tea that you did not like, but claimed to like it so that you could ingratiate yourself and gain benefits, you could not complain in general.

I do not doubt that Weinstein is a sh*t and it is shameful that liberal entertainers who must have known kept quiet for decades, but his behavior was often part of a transaction.

Recall the unPC joke. This guy asks a woman if she would sleep with him for a million dollars. She thinks about it and says, “Yes.” He says, “How about $10?” She responds, “What do you think I am?” He answers, “We have established what you are and now we are negotiating price.”

Posted by: Christine & John at October 10, 2017 11:46 PM
Comment #420573

The tea analogy is imperfect. People are fairly open and clear about whether or not they want tea. They are less honest about intercourse. Beyond that, if you got drunk and drank a cup of tea, it is unlikely you would blame the host of giving you one.


And if you drank a cup of tea that you did not like, but claimed to like it so that you could ingratiate yourself and gain benefits, you could not complain in general.

I do not doubt that Weinstein is a sh*t and it is shameful that liberal entertainers who must have known kept quiet for decades, but his behavior was often part of a transaction.

Recall the unPC joke. This guy asks a woman if she would sleep with him for a million dollars. She thinks about it and says, “Yes.” He says, “How about $10?” She responds, “What do you think I am?” He answers, “We have established what you are and now we are negotiating price.”

Posted by: Christine & John at October 10, 2017 11:46 PM
Comment #420581

It’s the same old thing that’s been going on between folks with an abundance of power and those having lesser power since the beginning of time.

It’s understood that it goes on but I think it’s right not to always be accepting of it. People have a right to expect some kind of acceptable level or decorum, especially in the business world.

It doesn’t do any good to fine a guy like Harvey $50 bucks or similar. But, taking away his corporation seems a bit tart.

And, the two parties will always try to take advantage of the situation, ‘your party does it more than mine’, and so on.

The big take away is why folks who could buy all the sex they need or want will risk it all by making some unwanted sexual gestures.

It surely doesn’t mean they don’t luv their families. It seems a super arrogant move but to what point? The more tickets I get the more I watch my speed and the cops.

IMO, it’s right up there with the casino shooter as to the ‘why’?

We don’t hear much of powerful women doing these things. Would other females be more willing to rat them out. Or, maybe men who have been hit on just choose to not say anything.

It’s clear Hill, NBC, CNN and so on, waited as long as they felt possible before coming out about Harvey. They needed to make sure there was no chance that he might recover from this latest episode.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at October 11, 2017 4:48 PM
Comment #420582

You say it’s an “unPC joke”. What other kind of jokes are there? I can think of the dirty joke, the callous joke, the sexy joke, the bad joke, the boring joke, the good joke. Which joke most closely represents the unPC joke?

Who decides what joke is which? Who determines the level of jokiness society uses to categorize the joke in question? What criteria is used to classify said joke?

Should any or every person hearing the joke be the final arbiter? Should they be if the teller’s livelihood is threatened for telling the wrong joke? Why isn’t the wrong joke the same as the bad joke or the boring joke?

Shouldn’t all these questions be answered by the first amendment?

Posted by: Weary Willie at October 11, 2017 5:43 PM
Comment #420583

It’s the same old thing that’s been going on between folks with an abundance of power and those having lesser power since the beginning of time.

It’s understood that it goes on but I think it’s right not to always be accepting of it. People have a right to expect some kind of acceptable level or decorum, especially in the business world.

It doesn’t do any good to fine a guy like Harvey $50 bucks or similar. But, taking away his corporation seems a bit tart.

And, the two parties will always try to take advantage of the situation, ‘your party does it all the time and mine doesn’t, and so on.

The big take away is why folks who could buy all the sex they need or want will risk it all by making some sexual gestures while fully clothed in a hallway.

It surely doesn’t mean they don’t luv their families. It seems a super arrogant move but to what point? The more tickets I get the more I watch my speed and the cops.

IMO, it’s right up there with the casino shooter as the why?

We don’t hear much of powerful women doing these things.

Hill and the MSM waited until they were drop dead sure that Harvey couldn’t recover from this episode before commenting on the issue.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at October 11, 2017 5:56 PM
Comment #420594
it is shameful that liberal entertainers who must have known kept quiet for decades, but his behavior was often part of a transaction. Posted by: Christine & John at October 10, 2017 11:46 PM

Seriously? You claim to know the political leanings of everyone who kept quiet? Or are you just repeating what you think Newt Gingrich would say? Even in a hypothetical situation, you blame the victim with the perpetrator. I think that is all J and no C involved at all.

Posted by: ohrealy at October 11, 2017 8:49 PM
Comment #420601

Sam Bee’s take on this subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeWpX-ypSls&t=17s

Posted by: ohrealy at October 11, 2017 9:30 PM
Comment #420608

ohrealy

I do not know the politics of everybody who kept quiet, but since the silence involved lots of liberal celebrities and politicians, I think most were on the liberal side.

The man gave piles of money to political causes, always to Democrats. This was a big guy, not just some ordinary guy. Hillary and the Obamas knew him well and praised him wildly. His proclivities were so well known that they were stock stories. All those who kept quiet were complicit, at least that is what progressives tell us about other situations.

Posted by: Christine & John at October 12, 2017 12:49 AM
Comment #420619

What’s the timeline of these accusations? If they’re older than 20 years he should hire B. Cosby’s attourney. There’s actual proof of some alligations, right? Will he get the Clinton treatment? Remember, Clinton lied in front of the nation and wasn’t punished. Why wouldn’t this guy get the same treatment? We’re all equal under the law, yes?

Posted by: Weary Willie at October 12, 2017 11:51 AM
Comment #420621

The left has determined there is no hope for Harvey and have come out hard on him. A big verveee from the last 20 years.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at October 12, 2017 11:55 AM
Comment #420627

The Weinstein story was being held back by NBC, and then The New Yorker decided to run with it, and MSNBC and everyone else jumped on the bandwagon. The question should be what stories are being pushed out of the discussion by the corporate media.

I was surprised to hear Scarborough describe the Rpblcns as disingenuous the other day. I’ve used the term quite often here:

disingenuous adjective lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere.

ingenuous
adjective
free from reserve, restraint, or dissimulation; candid; sincere.


Posted by: ohrealy at October 12, 2017 5:48 PM
Comment #420848

Agen Domino Terbaik
Thank you very much !
I am confident they will be benefited from this site.

Posted by: Info Situs Judi Terpercaya at October 20, 2017 9:23 PM
Comment #420849

Bandar Sakong terbaik
Personally recommend to my friends.

Posted by: Capsa Susun Terbaik at October 20, 2017 9:23 PM
Comment #420850

Agen Poker Terbaik
I merely wanted to provide you with a quick heads up!

Posted by: BandarQ Terbaik at October 20, 2017 9:24 PM
Comment #420851

BandarQ 2018
Aside from that, great blog

Posted by: Bandar Sakong 2018 at October 20, 2017 9:25 PM
Comment #420852

Domino Online 2018
The info is very great, I really like it
Waiting for more important informatian

Posted by: Agen Poker 2018 at October 20, 2017 9:25 PM
Comment #420853

Situs QQ 2018
ALL people need site like this
Keep it up bro !!!

Posted by: HP QQ at October 20, 2017 9:27 PM
Comment #420854

SITUS BANDARQ 2018
I really like this kind of information

Posted by: DominoQQ at October 20, 2017 9:28 PM
Comment #420855

AGEN BOLA 2018
Keep it up bro !!!

Posted by: SITUS JUDI QQ 2018 at October 20, 2017 9:28 PM
Comment #420965

I really like this kind of information

Posted by: gmail.com account login at October 24, 2017 5:43 AM
Post a comment