The Weinstein news came as no surprise last year. I remember reading many posts on IMDb about him years ago.
sharethe surprise was how he was ripped off everything, but everyone knew, and furthermore the people he benefited are still working and in good graces, I don't think that's ok.
shareHere's 13 years of IMDb archived: https://filmboards.com/board/20005544/
shareThanks! Some of the posts may have been on Film General which is where I mostly posted.
shareIt's funny. It was always a public secret, and now all his close friends and associates pretend to be shocked and outraged.
shareDid people such as Matt Damon and Ben Affleck know that he was a serial rapist or did they (as far as anyone can tell) believe he "simply" was someone the society of a few decades ago would call a womanizer? (I strongly feel 'womanizer' is an outdated term, but you still see it on Wikipedia.)
shareI remember hearing nasty casting-couch rumors about him back in the nineties, same for Kevin Spacey. And later, Matt Lauer.
When these guys get chucked out with "no due process", it's because everyone already knew they were guilty, especially their bosses.
Some people are saying the victims are guilty for not speaking out sooner and reminding silent for so long, well the reason no one spoke out was due to intimidation, feelings of humiliation and shame, people wanting to keep their careers, it's not like you should've gone to the press with what evidence.
shareAnd the sure and certain knowledge that if they ever tried to sue for sexual harrassmet or wrongful termination, or were sued by the likes of Weinstein or Lauer for defamation because they spoke out in public... the likes of Weinstein or Lauer would destroy them simply because they can pay for more legal and court fees. That's a standard tactic for rich bastards, demand do many delays and appeals and extensions or extra hearings, that their poorer opponent runs out of money and has to give up.
This is only one of the ways in which the legal system is rigged against the victims of bad behavior, but it's one that's impossible to fight.
And to those who "Oh the victims have the power to destroy the accused" they were young up & coming when it happened and Weinstein is one step richer than them. Now the tide has turned people who have been put in such a situation have to speak out to stop the rich from buying themselves out of trouble.
shareHe was more than one step richer than most of his victims; he was an established rich, powerful producer while many (probably most) of his victims were budding A-listers at best. The thing about being a budding A-lister though is the thin line and enormous amount of luck between becoming Ashley Judd and being somebody who teaches acting in LA and earns $60,000/year. And there are many victims who weren't budding A-listers, but who are simply that cousin who moved to LA a few years ago.
shareMy issue with this is that undoubtedly many of these women knew that they were exchanging sex for career advancement,and were completely fine with it at the time. Some of these women, particularly the one who recorded him, we're genuinely victims of unwanted advances or worse, and they should sue the shit out of him and should follow through with criminal charges. The others (Rose McGowan for example) were totally fine with it until their careers fizzled out or never developed. They took an opportunity to jump on the bandwagon, but regret is a very different thing than assault.
shareWell MY theory is that although these women knew they were exchanging sex for career advancement, they resented the hell out of being forced to choose between sex with someone repulsive or unemployment. And they've been looking for a chance to get back at the person who put them into that no-win position ever since.
That's something that a lot of Weinstein's quasi-defenders* have failed to grasp, that a person can agree to quid pro quo sexual harassment and gain from it, and still resent that they had to do it and hate the person who made the sexual demands. They seem to think that anyone who agrees to that should be fine with it afterwards.
* Nobody defends Weinstein directly except Weinstein.
Weinstein doesn't look like somebody who many women want to have sex with, he does look creepy especially around the eyes, if somebody is not into you, you become a creep.
shareI'm sure plenty of actresses achieve success without banging a producer, but it's probably a lot less certain and a lot slower to put in your dues. If you choose to sleep your way up, don't complain later.
share"If you choose to sleep your way up, don't complain later. "
You're far from the first to say that.
All I can say to you guys is: Never try to exchange jobs or other important favors for sex in real life! If the person you want to screw resents your demands, you won't have any clue that if the person you've propositioned resents your demands, and that by proposing the exchange you've made a lifetime enemy. If they're ever in a position to get revenge you won't see it coming.
And just so you know, this will hold true whether you get laid or not. Don't even take the chance.
It's from an extremely privileged and presumptuous point of view that you assume some of his victims were "into it" and only now want to make a little money. Do you have proof that Rose McGowan enjoyed sex with Harvey Weinstein? If not, why do you assume that she liked it and only now wants to cash in?
shareYou put "into it" in quotes, yet I didn't say that. Did you need something to be angry about, and just make it up to suit your needs?
share