MovieChat Forums > Barbra Streisand Discussion > I think she just killed her career and h...

I think she just killed her career and her legacy....

posted 6 years ago by Destinata (3321)
21 replies | jump to latest

“His sexual needs were his sexual needs, coming from whatever childhood he has or whatever DNA he has," Streisand told The Times. “You can say ‘molested,' but those children, as you heard say [grown-up Robson and Safechuck], they were thrilled to be there. They both married and they both have children, so it didn’t kill them.”

https://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/ny-barbra-streisand-michael-jackson-accusers-thrilled-sexual-needs-20190323-7z3b2dqgbzh7jfs4yyhqhdfjyi-story.html

So I guess for Babs, child molestation is okay if "it didn't kill them." What the actual....?

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

If her publicist has any brains, he'd have slammed her into Cedars Sinai as soon as the news broke, saying she'd had more than one mini-stroke (TIA or transient ischemic attack), that her husband was worried by her bouts of personality changes and irrational behavior, and she was having an emergency neurological workup.

Of course she'd never cooperate, she doesn't want to admit she's old enough for issues like that.

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 6 years ago

No, Streisand has been misinterpreted, as usual these days so we can have another outrage! I do not believe she was trivializing pedophilia; she used the wrong-wording and over-estimated her audience, since she would not purposely say something so controversial. And, no, she is not old enough for those issues.

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

Babs is 76 years old, she's absolutely old enough to have a stroke or TIA.

That said, I sincerely hope the reporter misquoted her and she'll say so forcefully, because her only other option is a few days at one of Cedar Sinai's VIP suites. It really was a dunderheaded thing to say, if she actually said it.

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 6 years ago

Talk of having a stroke means squat. Luke Perry had one at 52; a 10 yr old can have one. That is not the point here.

If anything, knowing today's sensibilities, her publicist should had prepared her comments, or she should had elaborated on exactly what she meant and anticipated a backlash. She was likely attempting to convey that the victims are not debilitated and are functioning adults, and the question of how traumatized they are is questionable since every victim of underage-sex reacts differently.

And I agree what she said about the parents being partially to blame

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

I sincerely hope that's what she was trying to say, or what she actually said and which the reporter got wrong, because that's not what the actual quote says.

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 6 years ago

I dont' know about the reporter. She either made those comments in the interview or she didn't.

I remember the OP from IMDb (same username). She's being absurd saying Streisand thinks child molestation is "OK".

[–] Destinata (3321) 6 years ago

Don't you think by now her PR agent would have said that wasn't what she'd said if it wasn't? Instead, as they do when someone really HAS said what was reported, they're hunkering down and waiting for the storm to pass, lest they say anything that makes it worse.

[–] Destinata (3321) 6 years ago

"I do not believe she was trivializing pedophilia; she used the wrong-wording"

If she doesn't know the weight of those words, then she most definitely IS losing it.

[–] Prelude (1443) 6 years ago

Um...you do realize anyone of any age can have a stroke or a TIA, especially a TIA?

I had a TIA at 37, lol.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

I don't think she's saying that.

I think she's simply saying that it's a bit more complex and ambiguous than some of the pedo-hunting lynch mob seem to be saying.

Streisand, whatever one thinks of her, is a smart, sophisticated, nuanced politically progressive woman. She's no dunderhead, at least as far as most celebs go. She knows that real life is more complicated than simple good v bad.

[–] [email protected] (1732) 6 years ago

The PC crowd have nothing better to do than jump on everyone's uttered word. It's insane.

Just last winter, a meteorologist in D.C. was FIRED - no ifs, ands, or buts - because in quickly discussing rainy
weather near Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Park, he ran his sentences together and ACCIDENTALLY said, "...near
Dr. Martin Luther Kun- King Jr. Park." Thousands were outraged that he didn't immediately apologize, but he said
he really didn't realize at that moment that people would get "COON" (a horrible word, to be sure) out of his
trip of the tongue. So he finished his broadcast, went home for the evening, and was fired Monday morning by
the COWARDS who manage the station. He held a press conference and tried to explain, but to no avail.

Now, does anyone think that a meteorologist with TWENTY years experience, and no previous racism in his
personal or professional past would deliberately slip in that horrible word so he could ruin his career???

The PC crowd, and all the morons who shouted "Fire him!" should be ashamed of themselves and apologize to this
man. Then help him land a BETTER gig just to show up that station.

As for Streisand, I'm a longtime fan, and she has always been articulate in her comments. I wouldn't be surprised
if her statements were twisted around. I'm sure she'll defend herself on her own website. In any case, Streisand
is a LEGEND who will see past this. She doesn't NEED to work like that meteorologist, who is supporting a wife
and two grade school children.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

About the meteorologist, is it possible that he was believed to be about to say 'Dr Martin Luther Kong' as in 'King Kong'? I don't know the full context of the situation. I'm not saying that it was right that he was fired. But might the controversy have arisen over that particular word, and the negative and offensive connotations with respect to black people and primates? Once again, I'm not making a judgement here. I'm just wondering what the real nature of the outrage was (i.e. whether it was 'c**n' or 'Kong').

[–] [email protected] (1732) 6 years ago

No, I watched the segment in question, and he barely says "Kun" before quickly correcting himself. You can
barely notice.

As for Streisand, she has since apologized and offered a very weak explanation on her own website. The mere
fact that she's admitted to saying those things throws her loopy apology right out the window.

[–] strntz (12231) 6 years ago

Just last winter, a meteorologist in D.C. was FIRED - no ifs, ands, or buts - because in quickly discussing rainy weather near Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Park, he ran his sentences together and ACCIDENTALLY said, "...near
Dr. Martin Luther Kun- King Jr. Park."

Well, I'm sure he "accidentally" said that as he wouldn't intentionally say Martin Luther Coon Jr. Park on the air...

I've heard a lot of white folks use that very expression when talking about Dr. King and it could not be more derogatory if they planned it. Now if he was running two news stories back to back and one of them was about baseball commissioner Bowie Kuhn, at least he would have a plausible out.

Should he be fired? Not if it was my call. I'd suspend him for a full month and put him on lifelong probation. Another racial slur and out he goes forever.

If you really want to talk about PC gone amuck, ESPN actually took a broadcaster off the air because his name is Robert Lee. That he's Asian apparently holds no weight, but his name is the same as the Confederate General of the same name, so Mr. Lee the broadcaster is now offensive.

How about Doug Adler, who was fired from ESPN for saying Venus Williams used "guerrilla tactics" when charging the net? The racists at ESPN could only assume that because Venus is black, Adler could NOT have meant anything other than gorilla (shows ESPN's racist thought process).

Those are ridiculous actions, and Adler is suing ESPN. Hope he cleans them out.

Did that meteorologist offer an explanation as to why he said "Martin Luther Coon-King?

[–] [email protected] (1732) 6 years ago

You are an idiot. He did NOT deserve any disciplinary action whatsoever. You can barely get that he makes this
error. Nothing short of ridiculous.

His explanation? A SLIP OF THE TONGUE!!

At the very most, he should've went on the air and gave this same explanation, then gotten on with the WEATHER.
And sane ADULTS should've let it go. As for myself, I would've contacted that TV station's manager after his firing and told him
he lost a viewer. Permanently.

You sound like someone I'm GLAD I don't know. Kindly get lost!

[–] strntz (12231) 6 years ago

You sound like someone I'm GLAD I don't know. Kindly get lost!

And you clearly are someone who has no problem with someone saying Martin Luther Coon as a "slip of the tongue".

Thanks for exposing your racist bent.

[–] marktayloruk (2502) 3 years ago

That is no reason for depriving someone of their job as long as they're doing it properly.

[–] prometheus1816 (1060) 6 years ago

I think the part that I really want to take her by the hand with is the "so it didn't kill them" part. The point here is it's not the issue of them having married and had kids, it's the part that what Jackson did was full stop wrong. She makes it like their devotion should have been part of that molestation. Like it was part of the "job" so to speak. They may have been thrilled to be there but what Jackson did to them is inexcusable, and it doesn't matter about what childhood Jackson had. Robson and Safechuck grew up and didn't molest kids so whatever was done to them by Jackson didn't make them the monsters Jackson was. Babs doesn't get it clearly.

[–] Destinata (3321) 6 years ago

This. 👆🏻

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 6 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ProductionNow (1072) 6 years ago

Streisand may get it just fine

Yes, the issue is, indirectly, them being married and having kids (and the ability to work), since that would somewhat indicate the subsequent quality of their life

She was not commenting on all pedophilia victims, but those of Michael Jackson's. Not every victim suffers to the same extent, or for the same amount of time. That does not mean Jackson was not in contempt and wrong to commit the crime he did. Streisand's mistake, if any, was not elaborating or only using 20 words to describe something that needed 200 words.

You were not a witness to how they were molested and the effects it had on them after they were molested. You, like many, like to hear the word "molested" and you spring into action.

Ask the next Vietnam POW (or pedophilia victim) you happen to meet and ask how it possibly feels to suffer a life of panic attacks, institutionalization and PTS. Did the boys who sued and/or accuse Jackson suffer that? I did not watch the docudrama.. Also, the excessive 20Million settlement does matter and comes in handy in case a victim is, indeed, debilitated (since most victims receive zero)

Some of us are intolerant of the new-age single-minded snowflake-brigade, and their everything is "horrible, outrageous, "I'm so offended"! backlashes.