Weinstein expelled by Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences

Harvey Weinstein, who, given the weight and number of accusations against him, is certainly a serial sexual predator, was just ousted by the group that gives the Oscars—the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. This is a rare and stinging rebuke. As CNN reports:

In a statement, the academy said the action, which is effective immediately, was intended “not simply to separate ourselves from someone who does not merit the respect of his colleagues but also to send a message that the era of willful ignorance and shameful complicity in sexually predatory behavior and workplace harassment in our industry is over.”

Weinstein has already had his membership suspended in BAFTA, the British version of the Oscars, and faces separate action from the Producers Guild of America. That vote has been delayed until Monday, according to Variety.

The academy’s decision — voted on by its 54 board members in a special meeting — continues what amounts to an industry-wide attempt to purge Weinstein from the place he has occupied in the film business.

Given that the Academy didn’t oust either Roman Polanski, who fled the US to escape rape charges, or Bill Cosby, whose behavior appears worse than Weinstein’s, as he drugged women, this is clearly meant to send a signal to actors, and to the public, that Hollywood is serious about sexual harassment. If you say Cosby deserves to stay in the Academy because he’s still not convicted, well, neither is Weinstein. In truth, I don’t know if either of these guys will face jail time given the difficulty of proving “he said/she said” issues in court, but if Weinstein was expelled from the Academy, so should Cosby. And both have lost their reputations, which was the source of their power.

What a shame for Weinstein that such a talent couldn’t keep his hands to himself. And of course he couldn’t do other than what he did (if you’re a determinist). But what he did do was still odious and harmful, and there is justifiable punishment for deterrence, for protecting others, and even for reformation. For Weinstein that punishment has begun. One thing is for sure: the man will never have a place in Hollywood again. We’ll see if he (or Cosby) spends time in jail.

The women who accused him are rightfully furious, as nobody should be forced to engage in unwanted sex to fulfill their dreams. Or to get help: estimates of male psychiatrists who have sex with their patients during therapy range between 4% and 12%. 

139 Comments

  1. Frank Bath
    Posted October 14, 2017 at 4:27 pm | Permalink

    Somehow it’s Weinstein that has gone into counselling.

  2. Randall Schenck
    Posted October 14, 2017 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

    Some of the women had their lives ruined by this guy. And some of these women’s stories are of more than sexual harassment, rape as well. This stuff has gone on in Hollywood forever and will likely continue. They have no system in place to properly report and investigate sexual harassment and without this, there is nothing to stop the Weinstein’s of the present or future.

    • GM
      Posted October 14, 2017 at 4:54 pm | Permalink

      The women who got their lives ruined by such practices are only one part of the story though

      There are also the ones who ruthlessly used sex as a tool for advancing their careers.

      BTW, that is by no means limited just to that industry, it happens everywhere in society.

      Yet the story is always about only one side of the coin.

      Also, it sucks that life is that way, but retaliating against someone for not sleeping with you by preventing their career advancement is not a crime. Just as it is not a crime to do it for other reasons. Which brings the question of why should sex be viewed as something so special?

      • Rita
        Posted October 14, 2017 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

        “There are also the ones who ruthlessly used sex as a tool for advancing their careers.” So, the poor men in charge who were their bosses were being ruthlessly exploited? HAHAHAHAHA!

        • GM
          Posted October 14, 2017 at 5:33 pm | Permalink

          No, it was the poor men who were not promoted as a result.

          If you had not seen it happen in real life, you must have lived a very blinkered/sheltered existence.

      • yazikus
        Posted October 14, 2017 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

        There are also the ones who ruthlessly used sex as a tool for advancing their careers.

        BTW, that is by no means limited just to that industry, it happens everywhere in society.

        Yet the story is always about only one side of the coin.

        Coin, you say? Are you seriously suggesting that if a woman did ‘ruthlessly’ use sex as a tool for advancement, the person accepting the advance is equivalent to a victim of assault?

        Ah, I think not. I see below you feel that some men somewhere were not given the opportunities for advancement because they didn’t ‘get’ to use their sexuality for advancement. Or something. Am I getting you right?

        • Craw
          Posted October 14, 2017 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

          What about the actress who did not submit? A lot of the charges are about assaults of some sort, but some are just about the casting couch, right? And in a sex for career trade, isn’t the actress who didn’t get the part a victim?

          • yazikus
            Posted October 14, 2017 at 7:49 pm | Permalink

            Both are victims of an unprofessional producer/whoever is hiring based on the solicitation of sexual favors.

          • Diane G.
            Posted October 15, 2017 at 4:41 am | Permalink

            “… just about the casting couch…”

            Oh, yeah, something as insignificant as that.

            • Blue
              Posted October 15, 2017 at 9:55 am | Permalink

              heh heh heh

              O yeah, Ms Diane G,
              “as insignificant as that.”

              I have a huge blindness in, right off,
              recognizing .sarcasm and oppositeness. cuz, ya’ know Ms Diane G, We P***ie* lead such “blinkered” and such “sheltered existences,” ahem … …, don’t we ?

              But even “blinkered and sheltered” – I can, right off, recognize .that. within the above
              – referenced phrasing of yours: its oppositeness.

              Thank YOU, eric, Dr Ferguson, Ms Diana, Ms Diane G and .Most. Others Here.

              Blue

              • Diane G.
                Posted October 17, 2017 at 1:39 am | Permalink

                And thanks to you as well, Blue!

                (PS: I’m glad the sarcasm was obvious. 😉 )

          • GM
            Posted October 15, 2017 at 11:22 pm | Permalink

            You remind of an overlooked aspect of this, overlooked because logic and sound reasoning is not the strong part of the perpetually offended.

            I see the accusation flying now that such sexism and mistreatment of women is rampant in the movie industry. Which is probably true, but let’s set that aside for a moment.

            What does that imply?

            It implies that an aspiring actress faces the following choice:

            A. Provide sexual services to powerful producers so that she can advance her career

            B. Refuse to do it and not have a career.

            That the choice is binary like that is implicit in the accusation that everyone does it.

            But what does that mean? It means that all the actresses that were successful became successful not necessarily through their talent as actresses but through their talents in other areas.

            Which basically makes them what is usually referred to using 5-letter words starting with “b” and “w”.

            This is what the “all men are scumbags” brigade is basically saying.

            • darrelle
              Posted October 16, 2017 at 8:17 am | Permalink

              I’m not seeing the logic or the sound reasoning in your argument here. I know you like to think that you are rational, logical and well reasoned and that nearly everyone who argues against you is illogical, irrational and simply arguing from emotion. I assure you that it does not look like that at all from the outside. I’m sure you will discount this because that’s just who you seem to be.

              For example, your argument here looks like an overly simplistic assertion that purposely only considers the few elements that will allow you to make your point and ignores all other elements. And that your point is simply to score an insult against women which you clearly despise. You making this overly simplistic assertion while claiming that it is a completely logical and well reasoned model of reality, that your conclusion is obviously a necessary result of your premises when it is so obvious that the model you constructed is uselessly simplistic and that your conclusions do not follow necessarily from your premises as you claim they do, does not meet the standards of logic and reasoning you claim to adhere to.

              What it looks like from the outside is that you have a grudge against women and that your arguments are driven more by emotion than by rational assessment. I know you are going to think I’m just trying to insult you, and I admit I’ve got no qualms about doing so, but right now I am trying to avoid doing so and give you some straight up input about how your arguments about these issues look to other people.

              • Blue
                Posted October 16, 2017 at 8:59 am | Permalink

                W h o o o o a ! What elegance, Mr Darrelle !

                I do not believe that: I have ever been able
                to come across as well as you just now have.

                My thanks.
                Blue

              • darrelle
                Posted October 16, 2017 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

                Me? Elegant? It’s kind of you to say Blue, but I know it ain’t so!

              • Merilee
                Posted October 16, 2017 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

                😻

              • Merilee
                Posted October 16, 2017 at 9:20 am | Permalink

                Thank you, Darrelle.

              • GM
                Posted October 16, 2017 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

                The corollary of “you can’t make it in this industry without performing sexual favors” is that everyone who has made it has performed sexual favors.

                Please enlighten me on how that does not follow directly.

                And please, actually do it, do not post a wall of text talking about what sort of grudges I hold and how I am wrong without actually addressing the point.

              • darrelle
                Posted October 16, 2017 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

                Please feel free to continue to demonstrate your logic and reasoning abilities, and your character. Consider it a weakness on my part if you like but at the moment I’ve got no interest in talking to you.

              • Diane G.
                Posted October 16, 2017 at 11:59 pm | Permalink

                Thank you, Darrelle!!

      • eric
        Posted October 14, 2017 at 7:51 pm | Permalink

        The women who got their lives ruined by such practices are only one part of the story though

        Yeah…the illegal part of the story. I don’t care if someone sleeps their way to the top. I do care if they are forced to sleep with someone against their will. Because the two things are in no way morally, ethically, or legally equal. It’s kind of like saying “sure I stole a car, but that’s only one side of the story…check out all the price gouging those auto dealers did!”

        retaliating against someone for not sleeping with you by preventing their career advancement is not a crime

        Yes it is. If you demand sex for some sort of concrete payment (a paying job in a movie would almost certainly count), it’s solicitation of prostitution.

        Criminal convictions have a higher standard of evidence. Also, they are brought by the state and not the victims. I doubt the state wants to take this on given there’s probably no concrete evidence. That’s why it will most likely be civil cases – the victims will want to pursue justice even if the state thinks it’s to unlikely to get a conviction to pursue.

        • Diane G.
          Posted October 15, 2017 at 4:42 am | Permalink

          Thank you, Eric.

        • Gayle Ferguson
          Posted October 15, 2017 at 7:07 am | Permalink

          Yeah, thanks Eric. Attitudes like the one expressed by GM (yet again) are such a big part of the problem.

        • Diana MacPherson
          Posted October 15, 2017 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

          👏🏻

  3. BobTerrace
    Posted October 14, 2017 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

    But Trump gets away with the same disgusting behavior as Weinstein’s.

    • Randy schenck
      Posted October 14, 2017 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

      Yes Trump is a sexual predator, as is Weinstein but I think not as dangerous as Weinstein. Trump is more cowardly so if the women rejects him and gives him a hard time he would back off. Weinstein does not back off and continues after them. He also pays them off if they attempt taking him to court and according to some of the women, he rapped them. He now tries to claim he is a sex addict but that is wrong. He claims this so he can check in and get treatment and cured.

      • Posted October 14, 2017 at 4:59 pm | Permalink

        Well, I don’t know the formal definition of a “sex addict,” but there was clearly something about his heredity and environment and turned him into someone who was addicted to using his power to get sex. (I emphasize again that this doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be punished.)

        • yazikus
          Posted October 14, 2017 at 5:48 pm | Permalink

          From the deluge of reports, he didn’t ‘get sex’ all of the time. I’m more inclined to think he got off on humiliating women, lording his power over them, and that if he got to assault them as well it was just a bonus.

          • Diane G.
            Posted October 15, 2017 at 4:43 am | Permalink

            + 1

        • Randy schenck
          Posted October 14, 2017 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

          I am not going to get into all the details of this, I am not an expert. But I am pretty educated on sexual harassment simply from living with it in a company for 27 years. I will let the psychologist and psychiatrist explain those details of sexual addiction and the differences. But already I have seen some from simply googling that believe Weinstein is not necessarily a sex addict. He went after women from a position of power and influence. He is the perfect example of a sexual harasser using power and the sex is secondary.

          • Diana MacPherson
            Posted October 14, 2017 at 6:10 pm | Permalink

            Yes, from the description of the encounters and manipulations, he was a predator.

            • Craw
              Posted October 14, 2017 at 7:38 pm | Permalink

              And not just sex either. That was just part of his repertoire for intimidating and belittling.

  4. Posted October 14, 2017 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

    Brilliant look at the issue, Jerry. Thank-you. Shared.

  5. GM
    Posted October 14, 2017 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

    Hypocritical PR-focused BS as usual.

    Would they have expelled him if he was under investigation for, for example, massive financial fraud? BTW, that happens to be something that pretty much everybody in this business if guilt of on a large scale.

    Extremely unlikely.

    Probably wouldn’t have expelled him if he was facing murder charges either.

    So what is it that makes one type of crime worthy of complete excommunication from polite society without even a formal conviction while other type of crime are not?

    And stripping naked and propositioning someone is not actually a crime — the other person is always free to reject the advance. Rape is a crime, but that has to proven in court.

    • Randy schenck
      Posted October 14, 2017 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

      Frankly I don’t think you know what you are talking about. Sexual harassment is a crime and is at least punishable by getting fired from whatever job you have and this is done outside of the courts. To say the other person can always reject the advance is evidence you do not know what sexual harassment is.

      • GM
        Posted October 14, 2017 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

        Hmm, so how exactly is one supposed to proposition someone without it being sexual harassment?

        Also, “sexual harassment” is not a crime, it is forbidden in the workplace, but that is a different thing from it being a crime in general.

        Were those women “harassed at the workplace”? Some might have been but being a young actress without a contract looking for one and gaining by delivering sexual favors to the producers does not seem like “at the workplace” to me.

        • yazikus
          Posted October 14, 2017 at 5:54 pm | Permalink

          Hmm, so how exactly is one supposed to proposition someone without it being sexual harassment?

          You might attend one of those workplace trainings available do to address just this. It is not rocket science. Don’t proposition people subordinate to you in the workplace. Don’t threaten people to coerce them into sex. Pay attention- if someone isn’t keen on your advances, there will be clear signs.

          • GM
            Posted October 14, 2017 at 6:18 pm | Permalink

            Don’t proposition people subordinate to you in the workplace.

            Again, is an aspiring actress/singer not under contract having sex with a producer in order to get signed doing it “in the workplace”?

            If she isn’t, then by your definition this is not harassment in any way

            But if you insists it is, then any propositioning in any context is harassment, whether in the “workplace” or not.

            In which cases we may as well just send the nukes flying and get it over with quickly because the species is going extinct anyway.

            P.S. How exactly are people working the kinds of jobs that require their full dedication to what they’re doing supposed to ever find a mate if they are forbidden from looking for one in the workplace?

            • yazikus
              Posted October 14, 2017 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

              Again, as I said below, the producer hiring based on the solicitation of sexual favors is the one in the wrong.

              P.S. How exactly are people working the kinds of jobs that require their full dedication to what they’re doing supposed to ever find a mate if they are forbidden from looking for one in the workplace?

              Perhaps if one spent less time trying to find a mate in the workplace, they might have more time to finish their work in a timely manner allowing them to pursue other hobbies/dating outside of work.

            • ploubere
              Posted October 14, 2017 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

              If you think that sexually coercing someone over whom you have power is how you get dates, then you’re no better than Harvey. I hope you don’t behave that way in your workplace.

              It’s okay to socialize with equals if they’re so inclined. But if they say they’re not interested, then don’t ask again.

              Every place I’ve ever worked, it’s not okay for bosses to be in relationships with any of their subordinates.

              When I was in grad school, I was disgusted by professors who dated their students. That was clearly an abuse of power. I would never do that.

              • Craw
                Posted October 14, 2017 at 7:06 pm | Permalink

                As for grad students, yes, but the abuse goes both ways. One woman in my program was living with the graduate chairman. She got 100% in his course.

        • Diana MacPherson
          Posted October 14, 2017 at 6:14 pm | Permalink

          A good teaching from the Harvey Weinstein School of How Not to Proposition

          1) Don’t corner someone in a public hall and ejaculate into a potted plant.

          2) Don’t grab your potential paramour by the neck, force her to look into a mirror and proceed to masturbate while looking into her eyes. Maybe not on the first date anyway.

          3) When your potential paramour politely tells you she is not interested in your sexual advances, that she has a boyfriend & that she would like to get back to work, listen to her. Don’t keep groping at her asking her for a massage.

          • BobTerrace
            Posted October 14, 2017 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

            Enquiring minds want to know. Did the potted plant survive? Or was it even a plastic plant?

            • Diana MacPherson
              Posted October 14, 2017 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

              I do recall saying out loud, upon hearing hat story, “the poor plant”.

          • Diane G.
            Posted October 15, 2017 at 4:47 am | Permalink

            Applause! 😀

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted October 14, 2017 at 9:09 pm | Permalink

          “… so how exactly is one supposed to proposition someone without it being sexual harassment?”

          If you don’t know seduction from harassment, I pity any poor woman who’s been the object of your amorous attention.

          And when a potential employer insists that a meeting to discuss one’s career opportunities take place in his hotel room (as Weinstein frequently did), that hotel room constitutes a de facto “workplace.”

          • Ken Kukec
            Posted October 14, 2017 at 9:21 pm | Permalink

            And for your edification, if you ask a woman once if she’d care to sleep with you when she’s shown no interest in you in that regard, she’ll likely say no and think you a cad — that’s a proposition. But if you keep asking, or try to bargain, or threaten, or otherwise won’t take no for an answer — that’s harassment.

            • yazikus
              Posted October 14, 2017 at 10:09 pm | Permalink

              +2
              (One for each comment.)

              • Diane G.
                Posted October 15, 2017 at 4:59 am | Permalink

                Thank you to everyone who’s rebutted GM in this thread. It is telling that even multiple, genuine stories of coercion and rape do not dissuade him from disparaging women or claiming that things are just as bad for men.

              • Diana MacPherson
                Posted October 15, 2017 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

                👏🏻

              • Merilee
                Posted October 16, 2017 at 9:18 am | Permalink

                ✔️‼️

              • GM
                Posted October 16, 2017 at 12:11 am | Permalink

                @ Diange G.

                As I have had the opportunity to point out on numerous occasions, not everyone has lived the same sheltered existence in the clueless coastal liberal elite bubble and/or is so blinkered to the reality of the world out there as you appear to be.

                I don’t share the dominant narrative of women always being the victim because I happen to have quite a few observations on how women behave in the real world. Just as, for the record, I have quite a few observations of abuse of women by men.

                The narrative that all men are pigs is just as justified/unjustified as the one about all women being female dogs.

                Everybody uses whatever tools they have at their disposal to maximize their access to resources and ensure optimal reproductive success.

                Painting one-sided pictures and then believing them leads to a disconnect from objective reality, which is never a good thing.

              • Diane G.
                Posted October 16, 2017 at 12:15 am | Permalink

                (@ GM)

                Q.E.D.

              • Diana MacPherson
                Posted October 16, 2017 at 8:45 am | Permalink

                I’m sorry you feel that we, here at WEIT, see all men as pigs and all women as victims because we certainly don’t. I too live in the real world and so do the others on WEIT. Do you not think it is the height of arrogance to suggest that only you have this unique vantage point?

  6. Diana MacPherson
    Posted October 14, 2017 at 4:51 pm | Permalink

    I’m not sure why Weinstein is punished more than Cosby but perhaps people react more strongly when it’s a position of power in a work situation that is being abused. Or perhaps people just listened more once very famous actresses told their story, perhaps making it more real to those listening.

    • Randy schenck
      Posted October 14, 2017 at 5:10 pm | Permalink

      Please let me correct one thing you are saying here. A position of power is very much what sexual harassment is all about. As an example in the workplace. If your boss or supervisor started harassing you at work (coming on to you) even after you said no. That is the classical sexual harassment because he has power over you. If you on the other hand were doing the same thing to your boss, it would more difficult to call this sexual harassment. Therefore Weinstein is the classic sexual harassment unless it turns into worse, rape. Cosby is more of sexual assault unless the woman is anticipating employment from him and then, of course rape.

      • BobTerrace
        Posted October 14, 2017 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

        In most modern legal contexts, sexual harassment is illegal. As defined by the United States’ Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), “It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person’s sex.”

        • GM
          Posted October 14, 2017 at 5:20 pm | Permalink

          Yes, but this is entertainment industry we’re talking about, and many of the aspiring actresses/singers/etc. are not actually employees.

          Still wrong, but not a formal crime.

          • BobTerrace
            Posted October 14, 2017 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

            An applicant is not an employee. The actresses are applying for an acting position. By the EEOC definition, it is a crime.

            • GM
              Posted October 14, 2017 at 5:35 pm | Permalink

              Had they already submitted formal applications or did they have sex with the producers before they did that?

              Makes quite a bit of a difference.

              • yazikus
                Posted October 14, 2017 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

                You do realize, that in your scenario, the producer accepting the advance is the bad actor (pun intended), no? They are in charge, and should not be basing hiring decisions on who they can solicit sexual favors from.

      • Posted October 14, 2017 at 5:33 pm | Permalink

        “A position of power is very much what sexual harassment is all about.”

        Nope- it’s explicitly not limited to positions of power:

        “The harasser can be the victim’s supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.”

        https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted October 14, 2017 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

        I’m not really sure how I said it wasn’t sexual harassment and how anything you said is contradictory to what I said above.

        • Randy schenck
          Posted October 14, 2017 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

          You didn’t and I should have been clearer. For some reason we want to compare the two individuals, Weinstein and Cosby. Cosby, for whatever he is was an individual so there was no company coming after him. They actually attempted to get into court with sexual assault and maybe rape on one case that had not passed statute of limitation. Far as I know their was no sexual harassment charges. However with Weinstein the one way the company can go after him and the organization could as well is sexual harassment. They can do all of this without any crimes going to court. Some can say he must be as he himself says a sex addict but I will leave that to the experts. He is classic sexual harassment and those guys do not stop until they are caught and removed from a position of doing what they do. Now if he is done in Hollywood and is no longer in a position of power and influence his harassment days may be over. And he does not need any help from the experts regarding the so-called addiction.

          • Diana MacPherson
            Posted October 14, 2017 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

            Oh I see what you mean. Yes, that makes sense. One was clearly using his corporate position (if you will) to harass these women. The other was using his position outside work to do the same but clearly, the former was a workplace violation and the latter was not so much.

            • Randy schenck
              Posted October 14, 2017 at 7:15 pm | Permalink

              Yes, and I do not mean to get picky with everyone here but, it is apparent that many do not know what they are talking about but continue to make all kinds of statements concerning what they “think”. Normally, I do not see so much of that here but some subjects just seem to cause the natives to run wild.

              Sexual Harassment is something that most people just do not comprehend. It took me a long time in the workplace to get it but I also had a company who finally did get it and learned how to kill it. That is why I said above that it would be unlikely that Hollywood would be able to properly do what is need.

              Let me mention the military as an example. The had extreme problems in this area, both to females and males. As we saw from congressional hearings, the military did not want to change what needed to change to control this and that was get it out of the chain of command. Far as I know they still have not done this. Any company, group or institution that wants to control sexual harassment must first understand it and then take the appropriate steps to fix it. Let us just imagine that Hollywood had a proper system. The first woman/actress that was harassed by Weinstein would report it to proper officials in the company. These would be a special group of EEO trained people to investigate the report. Weinstein would have been discovered and nailed years ago.

              Let me also mention one more thing concerning Weinstein and then I will shut up. There have been many women who have come forward with their stories. I suspect every one of these women are either actresses in the business or young new women who were hoping for parts or a chance. So, how many just regular women from the street or other places. I will be almost none. He was only going after the women he had leverage, power, and influence over. His is a power thing, not a sex thing. I believe if he was a sex addict as he himself claims you would see others from the street or bars he went to.

              • nicky
                Posted October 15, 2017 at 12:00 am | Permalink

                Power is the instrument to obtain sexual access. I think that to say “This is a power thing, not a sex thing.” is confusing the issue. I agree he probably was not a sex-addict (depending on the definition).

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted October 14, 2017 at 9:34 pm | Permalink

      I think having a couple successful, powerful actresses come forward empowered other women who felt helpless on their own to come forward.

      I also think, on the one hand, that it was a shame the successful actresses waited so long. On the other hand, it may have also been empowering for the otherwise powerless women to know that even successful actresses for years felt powerless to come forward themselves, even after obtaining their success.

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted October 14, 2017 at 9:42 pm | Permalink

        Of course.

        I was trying to answer why public opinion seemed to punish him more than Cosby and why he seemed to lose his stature more profoundly than Cosby.

      • Diane G.
        Posted October 15, 2017 at 5:13 am | Permalink

        Even if the “successful, powerful” actresses had reached the stage where they no longer had to submit to get work, Weinstein was still the CEO of one of the most powerful studios in Hollywood, and so they still needed to relate to him in a business context which could be a bit dicey if you’re simultaneously outing him for harassment. Thus the “waiting so long.” Knowing that that was how the business worked and had since god knows when, unilaterally rocking the boat was very unwise. Also, even “successful, powerful” actresses age out of demand and thus any sway in the industry, minus a few exceptions to the rule.

        • Bob Wilson
          Posted October 15, 2017 at 7:31 pm | Permalink

          Cosby’s offenses are hideous, but I think the closer analogy to Weinstein is Bill Clinton. Clinton preyed on state employees as well as using employees to bring women to him. And there is Broderick’s allegation of actual rape.

          • Diane G.
            Posted October 15, 2017 at 7:51 pm | Permalink

            I think we have to be careful about just what we accuse Clinton of, given the strong political motives on the right to demonize him. Obviously he had some extra-marital assignations but it’s very hard to sort out the degree of coercion, if any, involved. This becomes even more obvious now that it’s so blatant how the radical right makes up fake news so frequently. (Why does no one ever mention JFK and his liaisons?)

            • GM
              Posted October 16, 2017 at 12:17 am | Permalink

              That is a very curious statement.

              So you say that because the right had a strong political motivation to demonize Clinton, what he is accused of should be taken with a grain of salt.

              But precisely the same argument applies to the “left” and Trump, doesn’t it?

              Yet I don’t see you defending Trump because the “left” has launched an all out war against him (on a scale that has never been seen before in political history)…

              • Kevin
                Posted October 16, 2017 at 11:29 am | Permalink

                Even the right should have reasons to be suspicious of Trump’s behaviour. He’s hardly the ideal candidate model for the religious right.
                Like Berlusconi who gets a substantial Catholic vote.

                Its becoming disturbing that accusation of sexual harassment is becoming a political tool (no pun intended).

              • Kevin
                Posted October 16, 2017 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

                Journalist: “Mr President, do you actually know where North Korea actually is?”
                President: “Sure do. Just north of South Korea”

    • ploubere
      Posted October 14, 2017 at 10:53 pm | Permalink

      There is a key difference between Weinstein and Cosby in that Cosby wasn’t just harassing, he was drugging and raping women. I would classify that as worse, and it’s a shame that he hasn’t yet been convicted.

      • Diane G.
        Posted October 15, 2017 at 5:16 am | Permalink

        At least his reputation and no doubt opportunities to continue in show business have been totally destroyed; that may be just as bad to him, personally.

      • Gayle Ferguson
        Posted October 15, 2017 at 7:17 am | Permalink

        Many of the women are saying that Weinstein raped them. So he is both a harassed and a rapist. I do not think one of them is worse than the other. Rape is rape is rape – there is no such thing as a ‘not so bad rape’. For some reason, fewer people (and by ‘people’ I mean ‘men’) believed the women who stood up to Cosby. I don’t know why. Perhaps because the attacks took place longer ago, or the women weren’t as famous, or some sort of racial prejudice thing.

        • Blue
          Posted October 15, 2017 at 9:35 am | Permalink

          +3

          ( +1 for q of
          “because the attacks took place longer ago,
          or the women weren’t as famous, or
          some sort of racial prejudice thing” )

          lue

        • Diane G.
          Posted October 15, 2017 at 9:06 pm | Permalink

          ” Rape is rape is rape – there is no such thing as a ‘not so bad rape’.”

          At the risk of letting down my, um, fellow women–I disagree. I wouldn’t necessarily use the term “not so bad rape;” possibly something more like “sex without consent” all the way up to horrific assault and battery. “Date rape when drunk” seems different to me than “raped to death by a gang of Indian bus riders.”

        • GM
          Posted October 16, 2017 at 12:21 am | Permalink

          As Diane G pointed out, there is a major difference between “date rape” when drunk and having your intestines pulled out of your rectum with a rusty iron rod.

          And then there is a major difference between postcoital regret hours, days or even months after fully consensual sex and “date rape” when drunk.

          • Kevin
            Posted October 16, 2017 at 4:36 pm | Permalink

            The two examples given by Diane G are not ideal: the second one is actually murder, which is a possible result from any violent action or use of physical force.
            It does however illustrate the argument for rape being an act of violence and humiliation.

            In theory after a fully consensual act there should be no regret. Regret is something that might follow any consensual act but that is a question of the responsibility, conscience and judgement of the person doing the consenting.
            In the case of date rape while drunk or drugged, there is the issue of whether there is actual consent or not, whether the ‘rapist’ has administered the drugs covertly, whether the person is in fit state to give or refuse consent. There are issues there that are very difficult to legislate for.

  7. JonLynnHarvey
    Posted October 14, 2017 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

    It is surely true the Cosby’s behavior is much worse than HW’s.

    The list of Weinstein’s victim seems to include lots of major accomplished actresses, which may be why these various organizations have pounced on him more quickly.

    There are 59 victims who have alleged that Cosby has either raped, sexually assaulted, or harassed them. Iy should not really matter that they are minor players in the entertainment/modeling industry. And it should matter that the charge of rape is far more frequent in the list of Cosby accusations.

    But with some cynicism, I suspect the fact that several of HWs victims are major players and HW himself was a far more significant player (someone who could greenlight important projects) may be why the industry has turned on him faster. HW is bad for business.

    Roman Polanski’s decision to flee America was partly motivated by the District Attorney somewhat abruptly raising the bar for what his punishment would be. He was initially fairly co-operative with the police.

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted October 14, 2017 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

      It was also an “open secret” in the industry so maybe they finally have their chance to do something….

  8. FB
    Posted October 14, 2017 at 5:28 pm | Permalink

    Probably the people that will suffer the most are Weinstein’s children, who are completely innocent. There is no justice in the world.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted October 14, 2017 at 9:46 pm | Permalink

      That’s nearly always true for the children of the culpable.

  9. Craw
    Posted October 14, 2017 at 6:47 pm | Permalink

    The reason HW is getting harsher treatment from Hollywood than BC is that more of the movers and shakers were complicit or aware and silent in the case of HW, so there is more urgency to disavow him.

    • Craw
      Posted October 14, 2017 at 6:51 pm | Permalink

      In other words, I do not agree this is a signal that Hollywood is suddenly serious about sexual harassment. They are serious about CYA.

      • yazikus
        Posted October 14, 2017 at 7:59 pm | Permalink

        I would agree. With BC, it seems he kept quite the lid on it, with the exception of his wife, perhaps. HW was brazen and flagrant about it.

    • Diane G.
      Posted October 15, 2017 at 5:19 am | Permalink

      I suspect there are a few other powerful mucky mucks in the business who are quaking in their boots right now.

  10. Filippo
    Posted October 14, 2017 at 7:24 pm | Permalink

    “What a shame for Weinstein that such a talent couldn’t keep his hands to himself.”

    I must familiarize myself more with the honorable Mr. Weinstein to determine just what talent(s) he possesses. He certainly seems to have a talent for sexually harassing women.

  11. Tom Waddell
    Posted October 14, 2017 at 7:26 pm | Permalink

    To be credible the academy would have expelled Weinstein years ago when his predatory sexual behavior became known. To say now that the Academy ousted Weinstein as a means to show that “the era of willful ignorance and shameful complicity in sexually predatory behavior and workplace harassment in our industry is over” is pure BS. The only reason the Academy ousted Weinstein now is because the Academy was pressured by public opinion to take a stand and the Academy can afford to do so. Apparently Weinstein isn’t currently contributing financially to the industry as he had in the past due to lack luster performance, no pun intended, with the movies he has produced lately. As the saying goes; Money talks and BS walks.

    • Blue
      Posted October 14, 2017 at 8:15 pm | Permalink

      Your study, Mr Waddell, is how I as well
      view his and others’ predation.

      Years’ and very many victims’ ago
      Mr Weinstein’s brother, Robert, knew.
      But. Where was his accountability ?
      Of already ages’ ago. Of his calling
      Harvey out, the renunciation,
      the denunciation, his refutation of
      such thuggish violence. He just
      did not care until, forced, … …
      he $ had to $.

      And further: celebrities who are fathers
      of daughters ? One does .not. need
      a daughter to begin to feel shame and guilt
      for working with a person whom you later
      confirm is a predatory savage. One just
      needs a core.

      Blue

  12. Gabrielle
    Posted October 14, 2017 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

    Speaking from my vantage point of having been offered a promotion in return for sexual favors, proffered up by an assistant lab director at my first employer, a man 30 years my senior:

    1. I believe this coercive behavior has little to do with sex, and more to do with exerting power over vulnerable individuals (i.e., young women).
    2. It’s not so much the sex that the man wants, but the ability to show how much he has to bestow on others (money, promotions, etc), things that others don’t have the status or power to provide.
    3. Men such as these also enjoy the chance to retaliate against those who decline their ‘offers’. In fact, from my experience, these individuals enjoy the retaliation more than any sex they would have otherwise had. Retaliation is yet another avenue to prove to others how much power the harasser holds over individual’s careers. The retaliatory behavior is a thrill in and of itself, and it cements the harasser’s status in whatever environment they inhabit (an industrial lab, Hollywood, etc.)
    4. Lastly, habitual harassers aim to impress other men, especially men of high status. I strongly suspect that Weinstein was not keeping his exploits to himself, but using them as bragging rights in his competition with other wealthy men in Hollywood and the film industry.

    The young women are just trophies, and sex is the game, not the desired outcome. The desired outcome is enhanced status vis-a-vis other powerful men.

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted October 14, 2017 at 8:22 pm | Permalink

      +1

    • Blue
      Posted October 14, 2017 at 8:24 pm | Permalink

      I utterly concur, Ms Gabrielle.

      Point #3 ? as of “Retaliation is yet another
      avenue to prove to others how much power
      the harasser holds over individual’s careers.
      The retaliatory behavior is a thrill in and
      of itself, and it cements the harasser’s
      status in whatever environment they inhabit
      (an industrial lab … … ” is not only
      precise, particularly the “in and of itself”
      as “cement” in a “lab,” but is also affecting
      me personally and daily exactly three
      decades’ time later.

      Blue

    • FB
      Posted October 14, 2017 at 8:34 pm | Permalink

      Speaking from my vantage point of being a man, I think this has everything to do with just sex.

      • Kevin
        Posted October 15, 2017 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

        Me man too!
        For you sex exists in a vacuum?

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted October 14, 2017 at 9:58 pm | Permalink

      From what I’ve heard from women who’ve been through the experience, and from what I’ve observed myself in the workplace, I think that’s right. It’s about exploiting a power differential and enhancing the harasser’s puny self-image, not about sex for sex’s sake.

      Pure lustiness tends to have a good-natured brio to it; harassment does not.

      • FB
        Posted October 14, 2017 at 10:15 pm | Permalink

        And what have you heard from men prone to that kind of experience, and observed yourself in the workplace?

        • yazikus
          Posted October 14, 2017 at 10:30 pm | Permalink

          rom men prone to that kind of experience,

          For the sake of clarity, which type of experience do you refer to here?

          • FB
            Posted October 14, 2017 at 11:12 pm | Permalink

            Men like Weinstein. I knew a lot of them. And I’m convinced that it really is about sex. And never heard women been harassed saying “he wants to have power over me”. They knew those guys wanted to have SEX with them. But I could be wrong.

            • Chris Swart
              Posted October 15, 2017 at 12:43 am | Permalink

              I think you are wrong. if it was just sex, Weinstein had many women who would have slept with him willingly. But instead, he tricked women into compromising situations, harassed women who refused his advances for years, and blacklisted women who challenged his power.

              All it would take is a call from one of his aides to an agent, or a director, or a producer or to a casting agent and telling them “don’t hire this one if you want to work with Harvey again.” people get the message.

            • nicky
              Posted October 15, 2017 at 1:57 am | Permalink

              I do not think you are wrong. Ever since Brownmiller feminists have been trying to ‘sanitise’ rape (ic. sexual harassment), taking the sex out, by ignoring the obvious.
              Sex is an obvious Darwinian, say reproductive, motivator, power much less so. And if so, mainly as a means to sex (and only secundarily as a means to protect offspring)

              • Peter
                Posted October 15, 2017 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

                Nick & FB,
                If it was only about sex, why did Weinstein not simply hire sex workers (prostitutes) ? He had the money to hire beautiful sex workers in their twenties (the type of women he preferred). Hiring prostitutes is illegal in some places but even where it is illegal the law is rarely enforced because the sex is consensual. (Despite of what some detractors of prostitution say, sex workers don’t have to work as sex workers. They do it because, all things taken together, they deem it preferable to the other options available to them.)

              • Kevin
                Posted October 15, 2017 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

                Peter
                “Despite of what some detractors of prostitution say, sex workers don’t have to work as sex workers. They do it because, all things taken together, they deem it preferable to the other options available to them.”
                Sounds more like an argument that their clients use to ease their own conscience.
                It might be true in some cases.
                A friend of mine saw a likely prostitute being menaced by a likely pimp. He tried to intervene and the guy drew a knife. Those may include ‘the other options available to them.’
                You can’t be sure of consensus.

              • FB
                Posted October 15, 2017 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

                Not only, mainly. It’s unlikely that he was even more thrilled by humiliating these women than having sex with them. Extraordinary claims… Ockam’s principle…
                What about Cosby that had a completely different method? Two crimes of a completely different nature?
                Why didn’t both hired prostitutes instead?
                The only thing in common all kind of sexual predators have is that they want to have sex.

              • nicky
                Posted October 15, 2017 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

                Peter, that argument works both ways if: power were the motive of rape (and sexual harassment), why sex? Why not just beat your victim into submission?
                Why do rapists rarely use more violence than necessary to carry out the rape?

      • Gabrielle
        Posted October 14, 2017 at 11:25 pm | Permalink

        Perhaps describing the asst. lab director who made me an offer would shed some light on what type of person he was and what he was aiming for:
        1. He would openly say that women came to the company to hunt for husbands. He attributed predatory behavior to women employees, rather than viewing himself as predator.
        2. A male coworker, who’d been at the lab a long time, related to me that the asst. director and the two other directors in the lab has this viewpoint about women such as myself, who declined their ‘offers’: There are women in the lab who have said ‘Yes’ to us, so who do you think you are to say ‘No’?
        3. All three men viewed any woman at this work site as a target for providing sexual favors, including those women who were married.
        4. The three men especially targeted women with professional degrees. Humiliating a chemist or engineer by pressuring them to have sex is more thrilling than humiliating a secretary or a lab technician. It also put those uppity female chemists and engineers in their rightful place as just another set of p*ssies to be exploited.
        And what happened to these three men? All were forced to retire early, not because of their predatory behavior, but because they were taking money from the company, using it to buy golf clubs, Swiss fountain pens, cameras, etc.
        Nobody missed them. They made a mockery of running this industrial lab. Fortunately, several years later we got a director who was all business, who turned the lab around and made it a decent place to work for everyone.

        • FB
          Posted October 15, 2017 at 12:04 am | Permalink

          That’s interesting. Seems to me that it can be interpreted in two different ways. You say “Humiliating a chemist or engineer by pressuring them to have sex is more thrilling than humiliating a secretary or a lab technician.” Replace “humiliating” with “having sex”. Both make sense, but I believe the motivation of a sexual predator is to have sex.

          • FB
            Posted October 15, 2017 at 12:22 am | Permalink

            Sorry, that replacement makes no sense. What I mean is that sex with more accomplished women is, generally speaking, more thrilling. At least that’s what I’ve heard.

            • Chris Swart
              Posted October 15, 2017 at 12:55 am | Permalink

              The idea that the hormones and neurotransmitters that regulate “just sex” are separate and can be divorced from the hormones and neurotransmitters that regulate status seeking behavior (power) is wrong.

              They are part of one interactive system that you can separate, analyze and divide “on paper,” or in your carefully considered thoughts, but in reality, your body and your behaviors do not make this division.

              I recommend Sapolsky’s book “Behave” to get a feel for the interconnectedness of the systems that drive motivations, behaviors and cognitions.

              It’s not as simple as you think.

              • FB
                Posted October 15, 2017 at 1:03 am | Permalink

                I agree. But that goes for all the interpretions: sex, humiliation, power.

              • Chris Swart
                Posted October 15, 2017 at 1:08 am | Permalink

                No, you are still separating motivations and rewards and conditioned responses in an artificial way. You don’t comprehend.

              • Chris Swart
                Posted October 15, 2017 at 1:09 am | Permalink

                The motivation of a sexual predator is all of the above.

    • nicky
      Posted October 15, 2017 at 12:21 am | Permalink

      I strongly doubt that that is true. There is hardly any evidence that rape (or in case, sexual harassment) is motivated by ‘power’, and not sex (I know it is a cherished feminist trope, but that does not make it true). The same way I do not think the patron of a prostitute is motivated by a desire to get rid of some money.
      Throughout history males have overwhelmingly used their power (and money) to get sexual access (whether consensual or not) to women.

      • Chris Swart
        Posted October 15, 2017 at 1:02 am | Permalink

        See my answer above.

        Plus, we have known for 60 years that primate sexual behavior is inextricably linked to status and physical power.

        If that is true, why would the physical systems that have evolved over millions of years to determine and regulate such complex behaviors be separate? And, if you trust current observations and research, they are interactive.

        • Diane G.
          Posted October 15, 2017 at 5:30 am | Permalink

          Completely agree that both drives are linked and the idea of saying it’s one but not the other is basically contradicted by all the evidence. There are plenty of ways men in positions of power could coerce underlings that don’t involve sex and yet we see such a strong correlation between the two.

      • Chris Swart
        Posted October 15, 2017 at 1:04 am | Permalink

        or, if you don’t believe in science, or that rape is motivated by power, you could read “Soul on Ice” for Eldridge Cleaver’s perspective.

        • FB
          Posted October 15, 2017 at 9:01 am | Permalink

          Nope. Everything s motivated by the laws of physics. Read Sapolsky.

          • Chris Swart
            Posted October 15, 2017 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

            I have. You apparently have not.

      • GM
        Posted October 16, 2017 at 4:30 am | Permalink

        The causal relationship is actually more like the reverse though — males are driven towards obtaining power so that they can increase their sexual access.

        And vice versa — powerful males is what females tend to be attracted to the most.

        All for very good evolutionary reasons.

        • Kevin
          Posted October 16, 2017 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

          Our society is also a structure which has evolved ‘for very good evolutionary reasons’.
          This includes developing structures for regulating behaviour.
          These generally don’t necessarily allow for all types of ‘obtaining power so that they can increase their sexual access.’
          This depends on the consensus of the many overriding the ‘evolutionary’ interests of the individual.
          The individual’s instinct to commit murder, rape, evade paying taxes etc. may suit his ‘evolutionary advantage’ but this is against the ‘evolutionary advantage’ of the species. Hard luck.

  13. Posted October 14, 2017 at 8:50 pm | Permalink

    It’s incredibly sad that Weinstein must have lost his sway enough until the victims would come forward.

    He deserves that the law comes after him with full force. He should face a judge and spend some time behind bars. It’s also good to kick him out of organisations and make clear that such people have no place there.

    Stripping him of credits of his work is however rubbish. What is erasing supposed to achieve? The person is one thing, the films another. Suppose a principled person wants to boycott his work. How would they know where he was involved? I find that objectionable.

    I also find it troublesome that victim(s) apparently settled quietly. That way, he could just pay himself out, and destroy the lives of many more women.

    I am also wondering why there are no prosecutors in the US who get into gear when they are tipped off anonymously. Do they work on the basis of nullo actore nullus iudex (where’s no accuser, there’s no judge)? I read that it was an “open secret”, but why didn’t anyone inform the authorities?

    Simply saying “they don’t take that seriously” strikes me as rationalization, because the same people then also hasten to explain that they have nothing to gain when something like this goes forward. This is true in general: it is always better; everwhere where is intense competition, to not rock the boat. Social media is broken in this regard, too. There is simply no benefit in speaking out.

    If authorities were involved in the settlement — I don’t know how this works — why isn’t there a state attourney, prosecutor etc going after a crime? The legal authorities should always prosecute if it thinks some law was broken, no matter what. It should not be possible to buy yourself out.

    There are a couple of more uneasy questions, like what was the role of the people who heard of it, but apparently didn’t care enough to forward it to authorities. Didn’t they know enough? Did they benefit form the Status Quo and didn’t want to rock the boat?

    The whole thing is appalling, not just Weinstein.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41587585

  14. Chris Swart
    Posted October 15, 2017 at 12:34 am | Permalink

    I don’t think Cosby’s actions were worse than Weinstein’s behavior.

    Think about it: Weinstein consciously set up a system of dozens of people, lawyers, aids, publicists, human relations workers, and more to lure women to him, act as “honeypots,” ruin the reputation of any who complained or pay them off.

    HE DID THIS FOR DECADES.

    Weinstein also paid off reporters and countless other people by giving them contracts for book and TV deals, that they got money for, but never had to produce a product. He bought the silence of dozens of people FOR DECADES.

    When reporters would not back off, Weinstein also reportedly gave them salacious stories about other Hollywood celebrities in exchange for their silence about him.

    But Weinstein used his wealth and power to consciously construct a huge network that allowed him to abuse young women FOR DECADES. And he kept it intact until it blew up in his face–in fact, he is still denying many of the acts confirmed by multiple sources, and rationalizing his crimes as being a product of the 60s he “grew-up in.” Bullshit to that.

    I am a behavioral determinist and believe that free will is an illusion. But I also believe or feel that people can, in varying degrees, compare their actions to commonly held standards, understand if they are violating these standards, and self-correct.

    Weinstein was such a monster for so long that he probably forgot what he was doing was even wrong.

    Cosby’s actions were also vile. He also had lawyers and paid people to protect himself. But I suspect that the scope, planning, number of confederates, and sheer number of people damaged by Weinstein, if only because he had more money and power than Cosby, was much greater for Weinstein.

    He maintained this apparatus FOR DECADES and would never have stopped if he hadn’t been found out.

  15. Kevin
    Posted October 15, 2017 at 5:26 am | Permalink

    I thought that the following might supply some food for thought:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy_in_the_workplace

    I think that sexual harassment is one factor in the above issue.

    I once worked for a pharmaceutical company in which the CEO/owner was at least one out of the Dark Triad (see above article):

    bullying attitude, manipulative and lacking in empathy,
    cultivation of a working environment with an atmosphere of mistrust and paranoia,
    craving of recognition and trappings of social status,
    dolly birds in the HR and as “personal assistants” in the main office,
    incompetent HR,
    surrounded by managers with a similar manipulative profile,
    delusional: attempted to have his twelve year old son depicted in the newspapers as a computer genius when he was only an average child (I suspect there is something in this which may explain how people can become psychotic or whatever)

    I left after I witnessed for a colleague who was victimized for attempting to discuss and deal with safety issues concerning defective medical diagnostic devices with potentially lethal consequences. The CEO’s reaction was to hit him with legal action, in which his senior staff colluded in perjurious statements in court, managing to impose a gagging order (with a view to protecting intellectual property would you believe).
    The company was placing its reputation and profitability before issues of public safety and had Queen’s Councillors for legal representation.

    My point here is that disparity of financial means can buy legal protection and threat of legal process can be intimidatory.

    To be honest, I had always assumed that Hollywood was in part a sleazy Babylon, so the current scandal isn’t really surprising.
    (That notwithstanding, I am a great fan of cinema)

    • Blue
      Posted October 15, 2017 at 6:47 am | Permalink

      +++++ // and
      in re ” that disparity of financial means can
      buy i) legal protection and ii) threat of
      legal process can be intimidatory, “these two
      buys have because of far, far lessened
      “financial means” over the millennia have
      historically operated against girls and women
      the World over.

      Blue, BSN, DVM, PhD
      lab secretary (literally,
      under the “thrill in and of itself of putting
      That Uppity Radical Feminist in her (‘proper’
      and historial place); secretary “for 30 years due to “financial means” and not only “legal
      threats” but actual “legal (24 male judges /
      1 female judge over nine years’ time)
      protection” – decisions wrought.

      Have any idea, do You All, of how much $ it
      takes, even in fly – over states as well as
      USA’s three coasts, to “legally” struggle
      through nine years’ time ?

      • Blue
        Posted October 15, 2017 at 6:49 am | Permalink

        And, Mr Kevin in re
        “a great fan of cinema,”
        O ! Me, too !

        Blue

        • Kevin
          Posted October 15, 2017 at 7:31 am | Permalink

          Blue
          I can imagine what the nine years might have been like. The experience I described was 4 years ago and there are still issues. I am left with a very poor view of the British legal system. We are not equal under the law. Those with money and political influence have a distinct advantage.
          Are you aware of the McLibel case (there is also a Ken Loach film about it)? I think that one got to 20 years!

      • Blue
        Posted October 15, 2017 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

        By the way: it matters NOT how many letters representing any such credentials appear behind her name.

        That. as currency. is SQUAT careers’ – wise or daily life’s routine bills’ paying – wise IF, as I was merely within at the commencement of my “nine years o’legal struggle” the midst of my very first year at the age of 38 years post PhD – hooding … … which graduate degree program had literally been begun with three babes already bulldozes out and all yet under five years of age and completely finished up to march to Pomp and Circumstance for my hood exactly four years’ + one month’s time later, she:

        i) is not tenured.

        ii) cannot leave work / her laboratory or classroom / her delicatessen’s 5:00 am – grill cook position / her junk mail – making factory’s machine / her medical transcription cubicle at literally a telephone call’s moment’s whimsy.

        iii) cannot leave work and proceed at breakneck, illegal speeds scores to literally hunnerts of miles’ distance in order to appear, at his stat – whimsy, afore a judge OR to have some document file – stamped by some literally “suddenly imposed” 4:29pm local time – deadline.

        iv) cannot keep up with her attorney’s fee payments.

        v) cannot keep up with her (thousands of $’s worth of) BSN or her DVM’s a n n u a l C E U credits at workshops or at conference seminars hunnerts to literally thousands of flight – miles’ / hotel’s / childcare arrangements’ and $’s away.

        vi) cannot same as v) keep up, cuz of attorhey’s fee payments instead, with her a n n u a l licensing fees’ payments.

        Et cetera, et cetera and so forth.
        Blue

  16. DiscoveredJoys
    Posted October 15, 2017 at 9:08 am | Permalink

    Harvey Weinstein, who, given the weight and number of accusations against him, is certainly a serial sexual predator, was just ousted by the group that gives the Oscars…

    Let’s just pause a moment and reflect. While the weight of public opinion suggests that Harvey Weinstein has questions to answer, being found ‘certainly a serial offender’ is an assertion, not a finding in law.

    I’d be happy with ‘perhaps’ or ‘probably’ or ‘is likely to be’ – but ‘certainly’? Witches were burned for less.

    • Chris Swart
      Posted October 15, 2017 at 12:55 pm | Permalink

      This forum is not a court of law. Neither is the Motion Picture Academy.

      We can say whatever we like and the MPA can expel him as they please.

  17. Posted October 15, 2017 at 9:37 am | Permalink

    Reblogged this on DRA MARTHA A. CASTRO NORIEGA, MD, FACS "The Exotic Blogger" and commented:
    This news couldn´t have made me happier. I just wonder why Trump cannot be tried for the same crimes.

  18. Chris Swart
    Posted October 15, 2017 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

    This is one of the best pieces I have read on the subject, by someone who knows. Sarah Polley is admirable in every sense, as a human being, a woman, an actress and as a director.

    Worth reading.

  19. Thanny
    Posted October 15, 2017 at 4:59 pm | Permalink

    There’s no evidence that Cosby drugged any women.

    He admitted providing recreational drugs to some women, which the hysterical promptly turned into “Cosby admits drugging women”, but that’s a lie.

  20. Posted October 15, 2017 at 6:45 pm | Permalink

    When I read what this British actress had to say about Harvey Weinstein and how he raped her, then I made up my mind it’s time for some serious, major, jail time.

    https://www.waynedupree.com/british-actress-alleges-harvey-weinstein-rape-kept-eyes-shut-held-breath/

  21. FB
    Posted October 15, 2017 at 11:48 pm | Permalink

    I’m sure they’re already writing a movie about Harvey Weinstein. Coming soon to theaters…

  22. Posted October 17, 2017 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

    Perhaps there is more severity this time to “atone” for letting Cosby off lightly?


%d bloggers like this: