Forum posts made by principessa

Topic The Slimeball-in-Chief Strikes Again
Posted 20 Oct 2017 16:29



Perhaps. I think it would be hard to find someone not familiar with that particular story but not impossible.

Hmmm.... reading something into a comment that wasn't there. There seems to be quite a lot of that going around.

Some benefit of the doubt may be in order. It's a shame there isn't more of that going around as well.





I don't know who you are or if you grew up in another culture. It is very possible that a story I heard as a child was not one you heard in your past. I truly meant no offence and regret you took it that way.

Topic #MeToo on Lush
Posted 20 Oct 2017 16:11

#MeToo

I can't share details but can join the list.

I found out something quite distressing when I discussed it with my GP. He told me that he was shocked and heartbroken by the number of his patients who have told him that they had been abused. We have been living in a world where this has been and is going on all the time. It takes a lot of courage to share this with anyone else. It leaves scars that last a lifetime.

Topic The Slimeball-in-Chief Strikes Again
Posted 20 Oct 2017 15:00



I thought we agreed not to be condescending.

Sprite is right. I really thought you might not be familiar with the story.

Topic Why I voted for Donald Trump
Posted 20 Oct 2017 14:39


I am just answering him back.What is he your lover or something?

NO, neither lover nor something.

That wasn't answering him regarding the opinion he expressed. It was just invective.

Topic Why I voted for Donald Trump
Posted 20 Oct 2017 14:35


Listen cave-man, why don't you go sit in the corner like a good fucked up excuse for a human would. Go on sit dumbass sit.
https://upload.lushstories.com/1834817536-so-you-like-bernie-sanders-tell-me-again-why-you-live-in-your-mothers-basement.jpg

You seem to be really good at lashing out with insults. I guess it is what you have to do because you are incapable of a rational or relevant argument.

Topic The Slimeball-in-Chief Strikes Again
Posted 20 Oct 2017 14:25



IMHO it wouldn't make a whole lot of difference if he did his job naked. It's hard to imagine how that could possibly make his press coverage any more negative.

Many if not most of his supporters, not voters, supporters, sent him to Washington to grab the smug, elitist, establishment by the scruff and slap some reality into them. So far he's been doing that.

That was a reference to "The Emperor's New Clothes", a children's story. Not sure that you understood.

Topic The Slimeball-in-Chief Strikes Again
Posted 20 Oct 2017 14:17



I figured one example per POTUS would establish my point. I wasn't trying to establish an encyclopedia of presidential lies.

The New York Times has catalogued all of his lies with dates and there are dozens of them. The list only goes to July 19, so there have been more since then.

His supporters nonetheless remain in his thrall. When they realize that there will be no southern wall, the coal mines will not reopen, and that more of his promises have not been achieved, perhaps they will wake up. I fear it will be a long time before they see that the Emperor is naked.

Here is the link: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html

Here is a list of people he has insulted on twitter: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html

Topic Harvey Weinstein
Posted 20 Oct 2017 10:34


You seem determined to explain my words in the most negative way possible. If you had realy read all I've written you also would have seen this: "If that was true for any of the eleven she mentioned, I don't know, none of us probably do, but if it was, they are who I am talking about."

You did not couch it that way when you brought up the same idea several times in other posts.

It is not that we all misunderstood what you wrote, we understood it perfectly. You did not understand the implications of what you wrote. The same applies to Trinket. Now you both deny the clear meaning of your words.

I don't see any point in going back and forth with you on this any longer. We each know our own positions. I will let the marketplace of ideas decide who is right.

Topic Quoting two different posts in your response
Posted 20 Oct 2017 10:16

Thank you, B.

Now I want to know how to do the one you asked about.

Topic Harvey Weinstein
Posted 20 Oct 2017 09:55

Then read the words I wrote. I did not suggest that labeling them as predators and rapist was victim shaming. What I did write was "Are we victim shaming there?", and that was a rhetorical question, to which the obvious answer was "no". My initial post about this was generalising too much, I'm not afraid to admit that, but in my later posts I repeatedly clarified than I wasn't talking about the victims in general but about people for whom money was the main and possibly only motivation to remain silent about Weinstein.

So now you assert again that some of the victims are greed driven blackmailers. You have said this several times. I feel certain that I can assure you that there may be one women in several million who might see this as a money-making opportunity, but the rest would not. You need to find some more empathy and compassion in thinking about it. Rape and sexual assault are not transactions in the marketplace, priced accordingly.

Topic Quoting two different posts in your response
Posted 20 Oct 2017 08:51

I know how to quote someone's post and respond to it. Could someone please explain to me how to quote two different posts in that one response. Thanks in advance.

Topic Harvey Weinstein
Posted 20 Oct 2017 08:09

I'm not suggesting that any victim is complicit in their own abuse. Like I said before (on another thread): becoming a victim if sexual abuse or assault is NEVER your fault. It should not happen, whatever the circumstances and whatever you did.

But that should not stop us from acknowledging that victims can do wrongful things too. Again, I'm not talking about those victims who cannot or dare not open up about their abuse. I'm talking about those who can, but choose instead to use that ability to gain financially rather than stop the predator. That was the premise of Trinket's post, wasn't it; she spoke of victims who went to their lawyers with the intention to make a financial deal with their abuser. If that was true for any of the eleven she mentioned, I don't know, none of us probably do, but if it was, they are who I am talking about.

Over the past two weeks more than forty women have come forward who claim to be Weinstein's victims. It probably is just the tip of the iceberg but consider this, assuming the number eleven is correct:
If it was Weinstein's MO to pay off women for their silence one would expect many more financial deals than just the eleven mentioned. It is not unlikely that the initiative for at least some of those deals came from the victims rather than from Weinstein.

Weinstein probably wasn't one of them, but many sex offenders started out as victims of abuse themselves, and their behaviour is often the result of their traumas. In spite of that we do not hesitate to condemn them and to call them rapists, predators or abusers. Are we victim shaming there? If not. then why is it victim shaming to call out someone who made a conscious choice to hide someone's criminal behaviour in exchange for money. How doesn't that choice make them accomplice to the crimes it allows the offender to commit in the future?

Those are your words. I did not twist them. You said that many sex offenders are abuse victims and their behaviour is the result of their traumas. You suggested labelling them rapists and predators is victim shaming. You said that victims of rape and sexual assault made a conscious choice to hide their behaviour in exchange for money and thereby made themselves complicit in the predators future crimes. Trinket made this suggestion as well: that victims make a decision based on greed rather than stop the predator.

I tried to explain to you how the legal system works and what the money represents. I tried to explain that going through a criminal or civil trial could be another trauma for the victim. I tried once again to talk about the power imbalance that is evident in most of these situations, certain the ones in Hollywood, the workplace, universities, and many other workplaces where men have power over women and their careers. No woman would view being sexually assaulted as the equivalent of winning a lottery if she took a settlement rather than going through a criminal or civil trial for the reasons I outlined more fully in my response to you.

You and Trinket need to own your words. You wrote them in black and white. I am not the only person who understood them as I did. You have been shown at best to be not just misinformed and wrong in your views, but at worst blaming the victims rather than the perpetrators and attaching venal motivations to them. You should read your comments carefully and edit them before you post them because they will be read and taken at their face value. No one has misunderstood you or twisted your words. You wrote them. We read them. You have no basis for complaining.

Topic Harvey Weinstein
Posted 19 Oct 2017 19:42

I'm not suggesting that any victim is complicit in their own abuse. Like I said before (on another thread): becoming a victim if sexual abuse or assault is NEVER your fault. It should not happen, whatever the circumstances and whatever you did.

But that should not stop us from acknowledging that victims can do wrongful things too. Again, I'm not talking about those victims who cannot or dare not open up about their abuse. I'm talking about those who can, but choose instead to use that ability to gain financially rather than stop the predator. That was the premise of Trinket's post, wasn't it; she spoke of victims who went to their lawyers with the intention to make a financial deal with their abuser. If that was true for any of the eleven she mentioned, I don't know, none of us probably do, but if it was, they are who I am talking about.

Over the past two weeks more than forty women have come forward who claim to be Weinstein's victims. It probably is just the tip of the iceberg but consider this, assuming the number eleven is correct:
If it was Weinstein's MO to pay off women for their silence one would expect many more financial deals than just the eleven mentioned. It is not unlikely that the initiative for at least some of those deals came from the victims rather than from Weinstein.

Weinstein probably wasn't one of them, but many sex offenders started out as victims of abuse themselves, and their behaviour is often the result of their traumas. In spite of that we do not hesitate to condemn them and to call them rapists, predators or abusers. Are we victim shaming there? If not. then why is it victim shaming to call out someone who made a conscious choice to hide someone's criminal behaviour in exchange for money. How doesn't that choice make them accomplice to the crimes it allows the offender to commit in the future?

I cannot believe what I have just read. Are we are now to feel compassion for the perpetrators of rape and sexual assault because they might have been abused in their past? There are far more people who have been abused in their lives than there are sexual predators. This is not only a weak argument but also a distasteful excuse for atrocious and criminal behaviour. It slanders many people who have been abused by saying that committing rape would be an expected reaction to their experience. So, calling out a perpetrator is not victim shaming, it is the appropriate response to what they have done.

As to those who settled their cases, they were being paid for damages they would have been awarded by a court had they pursued a civil suit for the harm done to them. This kind of litigation is not unusual along with criminal charges being pursued. Many lawsuits are resolved this way as proceeding to trial is a very expensive proposition even if you are in the right. Even if the court awards you costs along with damages they rarely cover the entire amount of litigation. So, the victim accepts a settlement to avoid not only the expense of going forward but also to spare themselves the ordeal of testifying at a trial where they likely would face a character assassination. They would be going up against men who often are well connected and have financial resources to mount a defense with hired experts and top level legal representation. Victims seldom have matching resources. Yes, there is often a confidentiality clause but they have not sold themselves and their integrity for silence as you imply and trinket did.

With respect, you have often posted thoughtful comments. This was not one of them.

Topic Harvey Weinstein
Posted 19 Oct 2017 09:15



This is victim shaming in its purest form. How can an assault victim ever be considered an accomplice? The guilt belongs solely on the rapist, not on any of his victims because we never know what they had to overcome.

Bare in mind that these women have every right to handle their trauma as they see fit. Any form of suggesting a victim is complicit is disgusting to the extreme.

Thank you. What seems to be forgotten sometimes (and I know I have said this elsewhere) is that there is more often than not a power imbalance between the perpetrator and the victim. Whether it is someone who is directly the boss is not necessary for that to be present. If the perpetrator has money and status and power in society, he would be a formidible opponent in court whether criminal or civil because of all the resources and connections he has. That can be very daunting for a victim to confront and fight, especially in a society where there is still shaming and blaming of victims: What was she wearing? Did she drink or take drugs? What is her sexual history? Why did she allow herself to be alone with him? Those questions are still asked, unfortunately.

So, empathy and compassion are the correct response. Not any of the above.

Topic Harvey Weinstein
Posted 18 Oct 2017 05:49



Thank you for this. It is so easy to get mad at all men when something like this comes to light. It is never helpful. Thankfully I have had wonderful support from the men in my life as an adult. I can't say the same thing for when I was younger. I can't double quote your other post above but I appreciate it too. Being dismissive of "trivial" acts of sexual harassment or any kind of unwanted sexual attention is most definitely part of the problem.

As a child starting around age 8 or 9 at every family holiday function, there was the "dirty old man uncle" everyone tolerated and would even joke about. Being the only young girl I got most of his attention. My brother and boy cousins would actually push me into him so he could feel me up and comment on how nice my boobs were coming along or squeeze my crotch and give me five bucks. One Thanksgiving I "earned" $50.00. My brother and cousins would then take the money. I never mentioned it then. Eventually, I would get sick at every holiday gathering and hide upstairs at my grandmother's house No one ever figured out what was so upsetting to me. Bringing it up recently I got the whole "well that was just the way it was then". Everyone knew he was doing stuff like that but ignored it. This is the least graphic story I am willing to relate here but I am so glad that more and more people are finally talking about things. Not an end or a solution but a start is discussion and bringing things out in the open and not dismissing ANYTHING that women feel is unwanted sexual attention or makes them uncomfortable or more is a start. Just a start, but for that I am grateful.

Thank you Sprite! Big Hugs

I am so sorry that this happened to you. The victimization is worse because your brother and cousins were complicit. Perhaps you can talk to him about that now and how much it hurt you. He should know.

Family members may have some sense that something is going on but be reluctant to have an uncomfortable conversation with a relative. If your brother and cousins were old enough they should have protected you. I realize that it is only in recent years that children are taught about speaking up regarding sexual abuse. Years ago victims thought they were the only person who was enduring this. So, it is important to tell children not only that they can and should object to someone touching them inappropriately and to report it to parents, but also to tell someone if it is happening to another child. Adults should be more aware that something is amiss if their child is behaving differently around a particular person and do something about it.

Topic Harvey Weinstein
Posted 17 Oct 2017 14:42

What is the time length on the legal statute of limitations on bringing charges? Some of Weinstein's assaults may no longer be prosecutable. But I'm sure plenty are.

It would vary state by state and I am not familiar with American law. There may also be an opening to lay federal charges, perhaps with the abuse as a civil rights violation, which would have yet another limitation date. There are jurisdictions which have no time limitation for rape, but I don't know which US states that would include. As well, if Weinstein is charged in the UK there would be another different system to understand.

Edit: I was curious so I found some information on this. Here are a couple of links:

https://victimsofcrime.org/docs/DNA%20Resource%20Center/sol-for-sexual-assault-check-chart---final---copy.pdf?sfvrsn=2


http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/time-limits-for-charges-state-criminal-statutes-of-limitations.html

Topic Harvey Weinstein
Posted 17 Oct 2017 14:35

Man, every day there are more and more people talking about what they knew. Story after story of him doing something or propositioning someone or "I was warned about Harvey" or "I warned others about Harvey". Jessica Chastain today said she'd "been warned from the beginning" about HW. Her friend Jess Weixler suffered years of propositions from him. How is it that everyone knew but no one put a stop to it? Harvey is responsible for his own actions but dammit, how many motherfuckers knew. I think it would be harder to find someone in Hollywood that DIDN'T know. He is 100% to blame for any rape or assault he committed. But there are others that could have done SOMEthing instead of nothing.

That whole "It Starts With Us" campaign, what self-serving bullshit. Unless they meant turning a blind eye/ear starts with them. Fucking hell. All these women (and potentially kids and men) have suffered needlessly. Pisses me right the fuck off that so many motherfuckers knew what a monster he is, and did absolutely NOTHING.

It's like the fucking Catholic church and pedophile priests. A shit ton of people know a dude is assaulting people but they don't tell anyone or put a stop to it. It's the same fucking thing. If you know someone is a monster and you do nothing, you're complicit in his actions. Fucking fuck.

Part of what has to happen is that companies should not be able to keep this behind closed doors and deal with it internally. As I said in my previous post there should be transparency in dealing with harassment allegations and if the behaviour meets the legal definition of sexual assault or rape it should be a police matter and criminally investigated. HR departments are not the friends of victims. Perhaps there should be some sort of independent ombudsman who could be hired and whose decision would be binding.

Most important is for all of us to be decent human beings. When we see something untoward, we have to say something. Silence is consent.

Topic Harvey Weinstein
Posted 17 Oct 2017 14:15

Harvey Weinstein has been convicted of the same crime(s) as Bill Clinton. When will Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and Monica Lewinsky get wrapped up in the same protective shroud of victim?


https://upload.lushstories.com/1889571808-Capture1.PNG

No, unless you mean conviction by public opinion. HW has not yet been criminally charged and those charges will have to be proven in court for him to be convicted. As to Clinton and his alleged victims the same applies. Not sure about the law in the various jurisdictions, but the statute of limitations may have passed. As well, if I remember correctly a couple of those women consented to what happened. Adultery is not a crime. So, if and when Clinton is charged criminally relating to any of those women they will have what you call that protection. It may well be that his power and influence is why this did not happen or it may be that there was not enough reliable evidence to charge him, or a combination of both. Trump's actions and behaviour with women should be subject to the same test. Several of them lined up and spoke out during the election campaign and it became a non-issue as it was with Clinton.

Edit: It occurs to me that if we are going to revisit such allegations from the past one that should be high on the list is Anita Hill vs. Clarence Thomas (who now sits on the SCOTUS). It was that story that coined the term sexual harassment in the 1990s. In 1991 lawyer and law school prof Anita Hill testified before an all-male Senate committee hearing regarding Clarence Thomas' nomination to the SCOTUS. She testified that she described had been sexually harassed by Justice Thomas when he was her superior at two different federal agencies, the Dept. of Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The panel included future VP Joe Biden and were aggressively unsympathetic to Hill. Thomas denied all of her allegations and was confirmed. Hill became a symbol of the struggles of women in the workplace nonetheless.

Topic Harvey Weinstein
Posted 17 Oct 2017 13:36



If I were the victim I wouldn't have become the victim!

Or something like that.

Exactly.

@ Hayley

Believe it or not I agree with most of what you have said. At the risk of repeating myself, this behaviour happens in almost every workplace: Hollywood, law firms, Silicon Valley, government, universities, large and small corporations, family owned businesses large and small, the Postal Service and every other endeavour you can think of. It is about men exerting their power over women, not sexual desire although sex is the way it is expressed. Anyone who does this deserves not only punishment but all of the other loses that will come from that: public humiliation, loss of status, loss of their job, loss of respect of peers, friends and family, and more.

It seems to me that Weinstein's company was aware of his behaviour given that they paid off some of his victims. That kind of decision would have been put to the Board by their HR people and lawyers. They are concerned about protecting their brand and business rather than the victims. HW has not been charged and put on trial so we can't say unequivocally that he is guilty, but the evidence is piling up to support that verdict.

I hope that this high profile scandal is a lesson not just for predators to clean up their act, but also for those around them not to enable such behaviour or excuse it as "boys will be boys". It is not just women who should speak up. Men should remember that they have sisters, partners, mothers and daughters who could be subjected to this and speak up as well. Policies against harassment are not worth the paper they are written on if an HR department works to cover up such incidents to protect their employer. There should be a zero tolerance policy in the workplace and a transparent process to deal with it. No gag orders. No closed arbitrations. And, if the behaviour reaches the level of assault or rape, the issue should be dealt with by the police immediately, not internally in the company. As an aside I think the same applies to how universities handle this issue whether the alleged perpetrator is a student or university professor/employee.

@ Buz

I agree with you too.

Topic Harvey Weinstein
Posted 16 Oct 2017 20:01



To the police first, not a lawyer. Perhaps I should have put "first" at the end of that sentence for clarity? Yes that's what I said. I would have gone to the police first. How does that blame the victim?



"His predatory bullshit could have been stopped years ago but did victims go to the police? No. They went to their lawyers first and settled out of court. ELEVEN women, took the money and ran. If I was sexually assaulted, the first place I would be going is the police station not my lawyer.

I'm not saying they deserved it, nobody does but if they had pressed charges he wouldn't have been able to continue that behaviour for so long."


You conveniently left out the previous quote of your earlier post, the one that people reacted to. I have copied and pasted because I did not want to bother to find it again. You clearly blame the victims for how they responded and for his continuing behaviour and say they took the money and ran. I am not alone in having called you out on this.

No more back and forth from me. I am not dancing this dance with you any more.


Topic Harvey Weinstein
Posted 16 Oct 2017 16:48

His predatory bullshit could have been stopped years ago but did victims go to the police? No. They went to their lawyers first and settled out of court. ELEVEN women, took the money and ran. If I was sexually assaulted, the first place I would be going is the police station not my lawyer.

I'm not saying they deserved it, nobody does but if they had pressed charges he wouldn't have been able to continue that behaviour for so long.

I wasn't victim shaming. That's the way you interpreted it. Never said they were stupid or should go to the police instead of a lawyer. Don't twist my words.

trinket wrote-Monday, October 16, 2017 8-14-12 PM:

Am I supposed to laugh at that? please show me where I said that? Do you actually have anything of worth to add to the thread or are you just going to make jokes about sexual assault?



I have quoted and copied your words above without editing. You said you would go to the police first, not a lawyer and by implication that is what you think they should have done.

As to actually having anything to add to this thread we have had to wade through your psychodrama when people disagreed with you and called you out on victim shaming. So, before dismissing HeraTeleia's remarks this way, you should have a look at all of the space taken up by your narcissistic complaining. You haven't exactly added anything to the debate each time you have posted.










Topic Harvey Weinstein
Posted 16 Oct 2017 15:17

Well said, Rachel.

I will add a few things. When things like this happen it is important to some people to politicize them and make it a left-right issue rather than an issue of power exerted (mostly) by men of whatever stripe. Just like six degrees of separation to Kevin Bacon, anything negative done by someone who is a Democrat or supports the party is connected to Hillary Clinton. And, sadly, there are still some men who just don't get it.

Topic Harvey Weinstein
Posted 16 Oct 2017 14:38



As to the section in bold, that's exactly why I posted the picture. Leave it to the harpy swarm to imagine all sorts of other nefarious motives. After all, I'm older than most of you, I'm male, and I'm white. Therefore I must be up to no good. And you folks call me prejudiced. What a hoot!



Since you are so fond of citations here are two definitions of "harpy" from the dictionary:

- a rapacious monster described as having a woman's head and body and a bird's wings and claws or depicted as a bird of prey with a woman's face
- a grasping, unpleasant woman

So those of us who disagree with you are rapacious, unpleasant women. Even the men? As you would say: nice.

Those of us who disagree with you are not prejudiced because you are white, male, and older. We disagree with you because we think you are wrong. That would be the case if you were any other race, gender, or age and expressed the same opinion. Stop playing victim.


Topic Harvey Weinstein
Posted 16 Oct 2017 12:49



To recap:

Here's the picture and here's what I said about it. Look at the picture carefully, then read my caption again.

OK, now check this out.


(joke removed to save space)

Now, if any of you see me or perhaps yourselves in that joke, let me remind you that all I did was post a picture and a simple caption. The picture is available on the web as are the identities of the three people. Information about the three people is also available on the web.
So, any hyperventilating you may have suffered as a result of my post are because I posted a picture and said it I found it interesting? Not due to anything your fevered imagination read into the picture or my motives for posting it?

Really?

You were told once by a moderator that the picture was irrelevant and to stay on topic. You are a stubborn man. Why would you post it and try to make the same irrelevant point again? Quit while you are behind.

BTW, the joke wasn't funny.

Topic Harvey Weinstein
Posted 16 Oct 2017 12:43



Does the gender of who knew really matter? I think anyone that knew, man or woman, and did nothing; are equally complicit. We are learning that for years, women have been warned about Harvey. Often times by other women. It isn't JUST men that protected and shielded him. ANYone that shielded him should receive equal scorn. We'll never know if Hillary knew, but I find it hard to believe she didn't. For an incredibly intelligent woman, there's an awful lot she "doesn't know". My biggest issue with Hillary is how often I'm expected to suspend my disbelief to believe the unbelievable.

As for obsession. From your posts, it seems to me that you are incapable of being objective whenever it comes to a topic of gender. No woman can or will ever be in the wrong or capable of wrong doing. (i'm not talking about any victim of HW's so don't sound the "victim blaming" alarm) I recall your objection to the Harry Potter series because they are sexist. Pfft.

Yes. There were many people who knew what HW was doing. His victims knew and most were too afraid to make public and/or criminal accusations against him. I have no doubt that they were rightly concerned about going up against a man with so much power and money. Perhaps it was made clear that this was the price they had to pay for some success and that they would be blacklisted if they did not comply or if they told anyone about it. The men who worked with and for HW knew. Some may have been afraid to lose their jobs. Others liked the money he made for them. And perhaps some were guilty of the same behaviour. Men around him bear at the very least equal responsibility and guilt for not outing him, if not more so because they were not his victims. His wife's design company, Marchesa, benefited from her connection to HW as he encouraged (not so gently) actors to wear her designs on the red carpet. Perhaps she was complicit to some extent too. Who knows?

What we know is that there is enough shame to go around for everyone, male or female (excluding victims) to go around. This was a not so well kept secret in Hollywood. Weinstein will finally have to answer for what he has done as criminal charges are being investigated in the UK as well as the US as I understand it. Everyone has to learn that success and wealth should not be achieved on the backs of victims of sexual abuse and assault. Everyone has an equal responsibility to call out this behaviour when they see it rather than excusing it, glossing over it, or pretending it is not going on. Silence is consent.

Topic Harvey Weinstein
Posted 16 Oct 2017 09:33



As I stated in my original post, there evil everywhere. I never said there was any virtue in the GOP. Nor do I believe there is virtue in the GOP.

Also, he's not my esteemed President, I didn't vote for the guy. So, that point is null and void. We all know he's a pathological liar and his claims (while still disgusting and vile) make me think of The Sherminator from American Pie.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjkjYXmuvXWAhUIxFQKHQIfA2UQjRwIBw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thesun.co.uk%2Fliving%2F3117429%2Fremember-sherminator-american-pie-chris-owen%2F&psig=AOvVaw11eNteIXCimIfVCXYR0oNM&ust=1508254177108556

For someone like me, who is just a little left of center, I see hypocrisy in both parties. Today's menu of hypocrisy is from the left and them bending over backwards to blame Harvey and Harvey alone. Knowing full well, if this were a football coach or a sheriff or a CEO of some oil company, the left would be out for blood for anyone and everyone associated with him. Now that a bastion of liberalism has been revealed as a monster, no one seems to want to go after all the people that had to have known. Producers and directors that knew and allowed him to assault their leading ladies. Executives at his studios, his assistants, all sorts of other people. Including politicians that lined their pockets with his cash donation.

The politics of it all doesn't change What's different is the reaction from social media and the public at large. With all the talk of rape culture and paternal society and how rich white dudes and the "good ol' boys" protect each other, why is that standard not applied across the landscape. Because you can bet your ass, if some picture from 10 years ago surfaced with Trump and Jerry Sandusky surfaced, he (Trump) would not get the same "it's not partisan politics". Again, he's not "my" guy. I didn't vote for him and see him for the clown he is. I'm not defending him, I'm only pointing out the double standard of the vocal left when the volume of their voice changes dependent on who made the offense.

I too am a little left of center, but politics in Canada is a lot less conservative than the US generally. You're absolutely right. There is hypocrisy on both sides. Sorry if I offended you by calling him "your president". I meant POTUS, not yours personally. My point was that people screaming about Weinstein's connections to the Dems are not screaming about the abuser in chief in the White House. Trump himself confessed to years of assaulting women and that was glossed over in the campaign as locker room talk. The same scrutiny should have been brought to bear on him, but it was not. So it is not just the left that has a double standard. Those who tarred Hillary with her husband's abuse of women were content to give Trump a pass.

These men are all sad specimens of humanity.

Topic Harvey Weinstein
Posted 16 Oct 2017 09:26



This is Amal Clooney:

http://us.hellomagazine.com/imagenes/healthandbeauty/mother-and-baby/2017060639198/george-clooney-wife-amal-welcome-twins/0-207-970/george-clooney-amal-twins-t.jpg

BTW, I was not aware that anyone considered George Clooney as a sexual predator. Did I miss something?

The lady on the left of the photo with Harvey Weinstein is Ms. Clinton's aide, Huma Abedin. Ms. Abedin is/was married to Anthony Weiner, the former New York congressman recently convicted of sexting underage females.

Please don't say that all women of middle eastern descent all look alike.

Not only did I not mention their party affiliations, I did not imply that their actions were in any way politically motivated.

Once again, you're seeing things in my post that simply aren't there. I'll give you a 9.5 in the "jumping to conclusions" event.

Sorry. I guess I have to clean my glasses. I thought it was Amal Clooney. And yes, Weiner was a predator.

Topic Harvey Weinstein
Posted 16 Oct 2017 08:31



Then we should all stop bringing those labels into the discussion.

I didn't mention the political affiliations of the three in the photo. Neither did lafayettemister.

Please! The Democratic candidate and the human rights lawyer who is married to Clooney, both political activists, and the statement that both women were married to predators like Weinstein. The political label was more than implied. It was there. Your being disingenuous does not change that.

Topic Harvey Weinstein
Posted 16 Oct 2017 08:13

The photo of Weinstein with Hillary and Huma is an illustration of the problem. If one believe in the rape culture of the U.S., this is a prime example of it. Now, Harvey's actions are his own. He is the bad guy, he is the predator, he is the serial rapist.

I find it hard to believe that a Presidential candidate & former First Lady & former Senator & former Sec. of State, at a benefit dinner would be allowed to sit next to someone who had not been vetted. It is inconceivable to me that someone on her team or the Secret Service or the CIA/FBU didn't pull Hillary aside and tell her, "look, you might not want to be seen next to Harvey Weinstein. There are numerous reports of him sexually assaulting women and it wouldn't be good for your image and message to be seen hobnobbing with him."

It would take some pretty severe tunnel vision to believe that Hillary didn't know what was in his closet. It looks like most of Hollywood knew what he was capable of and what he was doing. Hillary knew (she had to, how could she NOT have known) and it didn't matter because he had deep pockets. If we want to talk about rich white dudes and privilege, this is a prime example of someone of extreme power and pull giving legitimacy to a predator.

Is Hillary responsible for his actions? No. Did her ties to him give him cover and make it harder for women to come forward..."he's friends with the Clintons, no one will believe me"... entirely possible.

First, I will say again what I said much earlier in this thread. Partisan politics has nothing to do with this. This is about men in a position of power, whether in business, politics, the professions or any other endeavour who exert that power over women. Everything you just said about a woman's possible reaction to Weinstein could be said about those sexually assaulted by your esteemed president. The difference is that even if it has taken years, Weinstein's abuse has been both exposed and is and will be punished. The man who boasted during the election campaign that he habitually sexually assaulted women is sitting in the White House. So, based on you argument I would say that Trump is the one who is getting away with something.

Every time someone brings this up as somehow excused by those in the Democratic party as opposed to those paragons of virtue in the GOP, they should think again. Sexual abuse and assault has no political label.

Topic Harvey Weinstein
Posted 16 Oct 2017 08:02



More bullshit. WTF? I did not blame the victims for their assault. DO NOT tell me I don't know how these women feel. None of you know anything about me so you're not in a position to judge anything about me or my empathy or compassion! I DID NOT call anyone a whore so don't you dare put words in my mouth. I understand the feelings associated with sexual assault. Shame, fright, indecision, humiliation etc. some of them STILL took his money. How does that fix anything? IT DOESNT FIX A FUCKING THING!

Of COURSE they don't want to go to the police, what person in that position does? I know they're scared shitless about their career, that everyone will know what happened, afraid that people would think they encouraged it. They go over and over and over it in their minds trying to figure out if they encouraged it in any way.

It's not only actresses, how many women are sexually assaulted in their workplace and are afraid to lose their jobs but they still report it. You all totally missed the point of my post. Women have to try to be braver and report these assaults or it's just going to keep happening to someone else.

Some of you make me sick with your unreserved judgements. Unless you know me don't assume I have no compassion or empathy. You couldn't be further from the truth.

Don't fucking judge me from one paragraph I might write in a forum. You know nothing. Until or unless you know everything about me, keep your judgemental and pious opinions to your stupid selves.

FUCK YOU.

That is an intelligent and mature way to make a rational argument. In case that is too subtle for you, that was irony. You posited an opinion and several people including me disagreed with you. We can do so without it being a personal attack. We read your words and interpreted them the same way: that you were blaming the victims. That is how civil discourse works. "Bullshit" and "fuck you" are not a part of that. You have taken up a lot of space in this and other threads being personally affronted by anyone who questions or refutes your opinions. This is not a school playground. It is for mature adults. If you cannot respond without narcissism and abuse, you shouldn't post here.