Forum posts made by principessa

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:

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?

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.


@ 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?


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.

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:

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.


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.

Topic Help in these difficult times
Posted 15 Oct 2017 10:04

In order to have the success you wish for, the Democrats are going to have to rediscover their need for the white working class, at least for the short term. But first, they're going to need to read a whole bunch of "cheating spouses" stories to get a feel for how hard, if not impossible, it is to rebuild a broken formerly trusting relationship.

Mark this moment as it is unlikely to happen again. I agree with you.

Topic Harvey Weinstein
Posted 15 Oct 2017 09:44

It is not only women who have to speak out. Not all men are sexual predators and men have a responsibility to call out and put a stop to such behaviour on the part of their colleagues. There are many more Weinsteins not only in Hollywood but also in Silcon Valley, law firms, and every other workplace. There are Human Resources offices and policies on sexual harrasment, but that is not enough when the power imbalance of predators and their victims is considered and too often the HR and Legal departments of corporations are concerned with damage control and the continuity of their leadership rather than enforcing their stated policies. Women have to be very brave not only to complain, but also to follow through with the bruising process that will follow as they will be the object of doubt and questioning that is sometimes much more severe than the perpetrator of the abuse. If it is a criminal matter like assault or rape the impact on the victim will be even worse as Sprite has already described.

The era, far too long, of boys will be boys should be over, but I fear that it is not since this was the exact reaction of many people, men and women alike, when Donald Trump confessed to sexually assaulting women for years. He laughed about it. Instead of his primary campaign being over, he won the nomination of the GOP, won the election and now sits in the White House. What does that tell us?

It is about power, not sex. It is not a partisan political issue but rather a political issue of the power or lack thereof of women. There have been perpetrators of all stripes. They are all equally disgusting. What is needed is societal change and support for that from men and women alike. Men have to speak out as I said above. After all, they have mothers, sisters, wives and daughters who could be subjected to this.

Topic Help in these difficult times
Posted 15 Oct 2017 09:22

I am not an American but nonetheless I wake up each day and watch the news with foreboding and fear wondering what fresh hell (Dorothy Parker) Trump has wrought. I still cannot process that Trump actually got elected but understand that his narcissism and ignorance could start World War III with his Korean twin child-man Kim Jong-un. I never understood people who could not resist looking at car crashes, but now do as I watch and listen to what is going on in the White House now. Everyone I know was glued to CNN during the election campaign and it is a hard habit to break.

As a Canadian, it makes me remember something our PM, Justin Trudeau's father, Pierre who was also PM of Canada said about our relationship with the US: "Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt." Trump is not exactly an even-tempered beast.

I live in hope that this nightmare will wind down with the results of the Mueller investigation, a change in power in Congress in 2018, and a Democratic president in 2020. I hope that Americans work hard to make that happen. If I were an American, I would work at the grass roots level to get more Democrats in Congress and the Senate and ultimately to take the White House back. That is a good way to redirect the angst that this regime causes.

Topic Employers now will be able to deny contraception coverage for employees
Posted 15 Oct 2017 09:06

Sorry, Dear, but you have absolutely no idea what makes me happy.

Anyway, traditionally, the anti-birth control vote in the USA comes from the "fish on Friday" crowd. The evangelicals are generally just fine with the pill and condoms, just not so much with abortions.

"I am opposed to abortion and to government funding of abortions. We should not spend state funds on abortions because so many people believe abortion is wrong." -- Arkansas Governor William Jefferson Clinton in 1986.

I don't know or care what makes you happy. I do know that "dear" is a patronizing way to address a woman that you don't know. Cut it out.

Topic Employers now will be able to deny contraception coverage for employees
Posted 14 Oct 2017 13:49

There are reasons to believe that if a single payer plan existed in the USA today it would not include funding for abortion and might not cover any other form of birth control either.

I don't see any reason to think that a single payer plan would be any easier to pass than the ACA was, and Obama had to agree to limit coverage for birth control as a way to get pro-life Democrats to vote for the ACA.

SCOTUS has seemed reluctant to force people to pay for things they strongly oppose, as the Hobby Lobby case and the Friedrichs case show. And there are a lot of Americans who still oppose some or all forms of birth control.

America is becoming a Christian right theocracy dominated by a group that is not a majority of the population, but is is significant segment of Trump's base. (Ironic considering that they criticize Iran for being a Muslim theocracy.) This is demonstrated by the fact that he is the first sitting president ever to address the Value Voters Summit, a right wing evangelical group, and he promised a return to Christian values in the country. They want time turned back to the good old days prior to the 1960s where women and minorities knew their place and immigrants were second class citizens - all good so long as white Christian men were dominant in society.

It is interesting that he and these people interpret the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion not as liberty for every person to practice their religion, but rather as a weapon to impose their extreme right values on everyone. I realize that elections have consequences, some short term until the next election, and some long term like the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court. It seems that the aim is to undo the progress of the past fifty or sixty years and to eradicate anything that has Barack Obama's imprint on it.

So, Seax, I understand that this will make you happy. I hope it will mobilize Americans to redress all of this in the next two elections.

Topic Employers now will be able to deny contraception coverage for employees
Posted 14 Oct 2017 08:05

I suggest a single-payer health insurance system. A health insurance tax on businesses and corporations based on number of employees. Take the decision away from the businesses and put it in government's hands. That way a moral objector to birth control can wash their hands of it and blame it on the government or on Buz. I'll take the fucking blame.

The vast majority of mainstream American Protestant churches do NOT have problems with birth control but the Catholic church does and some of the extreme independents and talking-in-tongue snake handlers. The non-birth-controllers are not the majority of American Christians and it is certainly not the majority of American non-Christians so don't let a minority shove their views undemocratically over the majority's healthcare.

For-profit health insurance companies should not be making our medical decisions! And that comes from me, a capitalist. Make that a common-sense capitalist.

Dammit! We should look at Canada and Western Europe and see what they are doing and then do it better than them. Then wave the Stars & Stripes because that would be something for patriots to be proud of, not a nation where one's health care depends upon how fucking rich they are. Until then Old Glory is sagging rather sad.

All people created equal – all people medically treated equal. The richest fucking country on the planet shouldn't have a fucking huge medical disparity.

Thank you, Buz. I have been saying precisely the same things, but having it come from a common sense American capitalist may carry more weight with some people than hearing it from a Canadian. Look at us, look at Europe and amalgamate the best of ideas. You Yanks will say your plan is better whether it is or not, but get one done.

Topic Harvey Weinstein
Posted 13 Oct 2017 09:55

Oh I so wish I could agree with you. You have so muddied the waters and nothing could help Mr Weinstein more. You have expanded the area of blame to the whole universe rather to the man currently under the spotlight. That is exactly what will happen to allow this man to have the best chance of escape.

If you don't work for a political party you should. Have you read Hillary's book?. She lists all the peeps that caused her to lose the election. It covers the universe but not her. None of it was her fault. Spred the balme over as many as possible and you get away with it?.

Of course Mr Weinstein is the same. He was ill. After years of being ill he had an epiphany and turned to rehab to sort his problems out, immediately he knew his trangressions would errupt. Thank God for the British Press and their digging.

So there are other cheaters and God knows what else in politics. Who would know that?. Does Meryl Streep know?. She will be shocked all over again.

You can satisfy yourself with generalisations. I want to focus on this man, and if you want, others. And I want to focus on those that helped him hide his conduct. Sorry they are probably Democrats, but probably not all of them. Friends in high places is always a good place to start. We are at the tip of an iceberg that is far worse than Newt Gingrich cheating on his wife. He will either be a politician or a member of the Hollywood set, probably both. Politician rings a bell. I want to focus on those who used their political influence or their position to influence the judiciary.

Of course it won't happen. So sad. Rehab will 'work' and he'll return a better man and a more careful repeat offender?. Perhaps not.

Could we agree on bringing back lynch mobs?. Peeps tell me Trumpites are good at those.

I have made no excuses for Weinstein and thoroughly condemned him. I do not work for any political party and I have no idea why you said that other than my assertion that this behaviour has nothing to do with politics when you made an issue of Weinstein being a Democratic donor. This has nothing to do with politics or Hillary Clinton or anything else like that. It is a criminal matter. I mentioned Trump's bragging about sexually assaulting women and I have no doubt that he did it. His supporters and the GOP did what you described above in relation to Weinstein: they glossed over his conduct. Whatever standard we apply to Weinstein we should apply to Trump. That is not politics. That is equal protection of the law for women from predators. So why aren't you arguing for charges to be laid against Trump as well. That is not muddying the waters at all.

Topic Harvey Weinstein
Posted 13 Oct 2017 09:36

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.

The men who do this are exerting their power, especially when it happens in a work-related situation. It is that power imbalance that puts the women in a vulnerable position. Actresses might have feared being blacklisted from future work and also had trepidation about going up against a man with connections and lots of money based on their word alone. It is easy to be judgmental when you have not lived it. You should think again about how brave you would be and have a little more compassion for victims of sexual assault.

Topic Harvey Weinstein
Posted 12 Oct 2017 18:04

So was Trump.... But really.... what does that have to do with anything?

The fact that conservatives are jumping all over this like Trinket on a tube of cookie dough ice cream indicates the state of American politics. But by all means...let's round up the scum bags and put them in categories depending on what political party they threw their lot in with....

Because obviously that's the issue..... Lets take a horrible situation and turn it into make it a left vs right thing. the way... I heard Jeffrey Dalmer and John Wayne Gacy were pro gay...

SNL tried out a lot of Weinstein jokes and they didn't work. The general public just doesn't relate to it. SNL is not political propaganda. It simply caters the views that the majority of their viewers have. But since right wingers obviously don't understand comedy, I would never expect any of them to understand how that works. SNL has skewered every president since the 70s regardless of political party. In fact, Bill Clinton was the most lampooned pres until your current orangutan in chief.

The guy is a fucking scumbag. But this has nothing to do with politics.

And as for your comments on celebrities.... Congrats on posting the same meme as Dragonfly... It takes a seriously special person to ride those coat tails...

In the meantime, why don't you take a couple minutes out of shopping for shoes and stepping over homeless people to Google "Canadian celebrities." After diddling yourself to either Ryan Gosling or Rachel McAdams (depending on your sexual preference) Come back and see if you can make yourself seem even more ignorant.

Why is it that republicans seem to see "Hollywood" as representative of all people that think the world is older than 6 thousand years?

In case I didn't make it clear... This has nothing to do with fucking politics!

Thank you. Trump is a flim flam man, a con artist, and a master of deception and deflection always giving us a new shiny object to take our attention away from his many failings. This discussion is getting the same treatment with an effort to make it political, but that is counterproductive since Trump is and has been at least as much a predator as Weinstein but the GOP and his voters have allowed him to get away with it as he panders to their worst instincts.

Topic Harvey Weinstein
Posted 12 Oct 2017 17:53

Which one?. Both are under investigation are they not, but for different reasons?.

Precisely. Trump is being investigated for possible obstruction of justice, collusion with the Russians, ethical violations, enriching himself in his position, and God knows what else. He has gotten away with years of sexual predatory behaviour because the GOP and its voters gave him a pass. I would be happy to see him pay a price for his behaviour similar to what Weinstein is going through now - banished from his company, his wife seeking a divorce, and in peril of criminal charges. That would be Trump's just deserts along with whatever the Mueller investigation finds and acts upon. So by your logic Trump should face charges for numerous instances of sexual assault along with whatever he did during his campaign and in the White House. I agree.

Topic Harvey Weinstein
Posted 12 Oct 2017 16:34

Oh my, you've joined the Lush grammar police. But I think you understood me perfectly. I disagree with you. To agree would be to say that SNL have never used the President's audio tape as either a point of reference for a joke or a source of content for an ongoing series of jokes. SNL did prepare a whole set of skits on Mr Weinstein, so well done their writers. Production pulled them. SNL is hardly a religious institution, all innocence and whatever.

Well the NY Atorney General, or whatever his correct title is, did really try and do his best to explain why there were not interested now or in the past. Friends are friends afterall. The big turn around today is really politics at its best. This is a really hot issue for the politicians coming on the heels of the Weiner mess.

As for getting out of this without a scratch, that is not possible. He has already been wounded but whether he bleeds to death or is incarcerated, or both. Will depend very much on the remains of his political influence. If it's as deep as the SNL affair signifies, he'll get away with a suspended sentence based on rehab. Or just rehab, which he has suddenly, after all these years, found he needs. Such an epiphany! As you should expect, he has the best legal scriptwriters in the business.

There is, of course, the distinct possibility that he will not be charged with anything. In that case, perhaps we can expect him to make a run at the Presidency in 2020. Afterall, we like our bad boys here and joining Clinton and JFK is surely ok with the Democrats. I'll leave others to draw my attention to our incumbent POTUS.

As I said above, this is not a partisan political issue. However, everything that you say should apply to your beloved Trump as well as to Weinstein. I am just taking up your suggestion as you left it to others to mention him. To thunder with disapproval about Weinstein who was not an elected official like Clinton and JFK, and be willfully blind and deaf to the dear leader's history with women is the height of hypocrisy. There are many others who could be added to this list. Newt Gingrich was cheating on his wife with his current wife (I think it was this one. She is number three.) while seeking to impeach Clinton for his sexual sins. He even asked her for a divorce while she was in hospital getting chemotherapy. It ill behooved him to wag his finger in disapproval of Clinton. There is a long list of GOP politicians as well as Democrats to add to this list. So, let's be fair in our approbrium. There is plenty to go around. This is about power and influence and exerting that over women who are less powerful regardless of political orientation. It is about predatory behaviour. So stop putting the left/liberal label on it.

Topic Harvey Weinstein
Posted 12 Oct 2017 15:00

Harvey Weinstein is a pig and deserves everything that is happening to him. So does every other man who behaves this way. Those who enable such behaviour and turn a blind eye because they put profit before ethics have also earned a special place in hell.

I can tell you that this happens in every profession and workplace. At the beginning of my professional career there was a client who would always put his arm around me, accidentally on purpose touching my breast. When I complained about it to a partner, he laughed and told me to lighten up.

This is not, repeat not, a partisan political issue. Weinstein's support for Democratic candidates has nothing to do with his behaviour. And it is disingenuous for Republicans and Trumpites to make a meal of this. After all, they elected as president a man who boasted about sexually assaulting women as part of his modus operandi for years. Until they criticize Trump with the same vehemence as they do Weinstein they are hypocrites.

This is however a political issue in the sense of women having to gain power in the workplace to put an end to such despicable behaviour. As well, I would like to hear more men denouncing this.