So are you asking, is there sometimes a fine line between a victim, and a sexual transaction gone awry? Probably yes. Like the Argento woman...she was a victim, but she also let him pay her childcare expenses in exchange for sex, at a further point in their relationship.

(btw I find it quaint that she earmarks the money as being for childcare ... legitimizing it in someway? Money is fungible. If she spent less on her housing or attire, perhaps she could have paid for her own nanny. But if she said he bought her clothes for her, that would sound worse. She admits the tangled nature of their relationship undermines her story, and it does. She went back and forth on whether she would be transactional.)

How about this? One time years ago I had a guy I knew, but not in any kind of relationship with, helping me cut some limbs off shrubs. Suddenly he put his hands on my breasts and said, "Now what are we going to do about these?" No smile, he wasn't joking. Here I was wearing a blouse that I'd forgotten was notorious for a worn button hole, making the top button come undone sometimes! I was shocked, didn't know what to say, but drew back quickly. I'm sure he thought I was tempting him!

We never spoke of it the rest of time he was there, nor ever in the future. Afterwards, I realized I should have spoke up right then and explained about the button, but I was just too flabbergasted. In fact when we'd see each other in a store, etc., we ignored each other. Plus he's a neighbor but down below across the field and it's still awkward after all these years. Who knows what he told other people?

ETA: finally after awhile I told my older brother about it and how nervous it made me, he said, "Oh, he was probably a little drunk". (!) So there you go.

Our tolerance as a society for this type of thing has gone way down over the years. Anybody else recall that old chestnut: "If rape is inevitable, you might as well relax & enjoy it."?

& forgive me, but using this as a springboard to rant about present day morals & fashion is really off base. That seems to presume every woman who has been subject to this abuse was dressed &/or acting provocatively. Really? For some guys, just being attractive seems to be 'acting provocatively', IMPE.

Oh & now Lindsay Lohan is reportedly defending him - perfect!

Oh, gosh I always hesitate to post on these things. Lots of people have good points. I agree most with carolb, but I will say this. Fashion changes over time and in different cultures. Are exposed ankles provocative and "asking for it"? Well, in some places, it is. This isn't a question of fashion or dressing provocatively (imho). Dressing like that is the norm for that industry and in that town. I know because I grew up near there. It is their culture, ok? Just like your culture influences how you dress in your town and in your group of friends, and in your workplace. I wouldn't dress like those starlets, but I'm not in that business. So judging how women dress isn't an argument that gets anywhere. But the law is the law, in small towns and in Hollywood, and that man broke the law, and furthermore, transgressed the boundaries of what is considered acceptable behavior in every part of this country and in every industry.

It is more telling about the sheer number of people protecting that guy! It is almost funny to see these celebrities and well-to-do seemingly successful people trip over themselves trying to defend having looked the other way. There is only one solution to this type of situation, and the solution is to Do The Right Thing. Every person who heard about it should have encouraged the reporting of the offenses. Every victim should've come forward, if AT ALL possible, in order to prevent worse things happening to future victims. No job is too important, no person is too important, no amount of money is too important. Some people are stronger than others morally, or their convictions are deeper, or they have had better foundations. But for that sheer number of people to hush this up for this long, means that a lot of people chased money rather than morals. I can't stand to read the tweets of those actors trying to insert themselves into the dialog. "I didn't ever know about that!" waah, waah, waah. Then why say anything at all?

Well for some men, being "attractive" isn't even part of the equation, being relatively powerless in the interaction is quite enough.

In sexual abuse, there is never consent. If it's childhood abuse and the child goes with the abuser repeatedly without resisting, it's still not consent, they are too young to consent. With adult coercive relationships, its the same: there is no consent. There is no complicity. It doesn't matter that Vili Fualaau married Mary Kay LeTourneau: she was still his abuser.

But here the women and men who knew about this were complicit in a sense, against the women who were victimized and there are still women who are supporting him.

This is a little different than a woman in middle class America who submits to harassment or sex with her boss because she fears losing her job and has little prospect of getting another. It's clear what that is.

But where is the line in this situation? First, some individuals are willing to use sex as a transaction. I get that. I don't even necessarily disapprove of it if there is mutual consent. And I think in certain instances the consent is mutual, males are not the automatic oppressor just by being male.

So...if the woman in Weinstein's office is desperate for a part, any part, because she is struggling at a job that doesn't pay a living wage and she takes the shower or whatever, has she been victimized? Surely. No question if it's a matter of survival. I suppose she has the option to leave acting, but what are her other options? Who knows?

Now, what about the woman who has been coasting along and makes a modest but livable living and the part in question is her first role that will pay over $1M. She takes the shower and she gets the part, she takes the money.

Leave the part out. She gets a million dollars for submitting to Weinstein's harrasment. She chooses to take the money. Is she a victim? To me that's not so clear. I think she had more choices.

And while this may be overwhelmingly a male on female problem, I think it's simplistic to think that there is not male on male and female on male harassment, particularly in this milieu. I'm not condoning his behavior, but part of the problem is that he as been allowed to behave this way. Of course some of this is fear of repercussion on the victim's part, but the other part of it is complicity in the behavior by others in that setting.

All this reminds me of the old economist joke. An economist is at a cocktail party and asks a woman if she would sleep with him for $1 mil. She thinks for a bit and then says, "Yes, I would." Then he asks, "Would you sleep with me for $1?" She says, "Of course, not. Do you think I'm some kind of hooker?!?" He replies, "We've already determined what you are. Now we're just negotiating price."

"don't get the Paltrow comment...what does her family background have to do with anything?"

*********************************************

Mom is esteemed actress Blythe Danner, dad was , produce, director Bruce Paltrow He was the producer of the television series The White Shadow and St. Elsewhere.

As for Georgina Chapman, Harvey's wife, I read he left first wife for her-- and it didn't sound like they were separated at the time--it was from an affair, so my sympathy for her is pretty low

Wow, I didn't think Anthony Bourdain could get sexier. Then he tweeted Donna Karan....

chijim, I still don't know what her family background has to do with whether or not a sexual predator comes on to her or not.

Pal, I respect you a lot, but why do you keep speaking of people having transactional sex. Do you mean the way that guy promised to greenlight jobs, or give them parts? And are you trying to draw a distinction between whether the victim is rich or poor? Because the law doesn't recognize a difference. An employer or someone interviewing someone has things they can't ask, and things they cannot do, period. What that Hollywood guy is accused of, is illegal. It is illegal for the person interviewing someone, or promising someone something, in exchange for sex. What I'm talking about is a crime. What are you talking about? Are you talking about whether in some situations sexual harassment shouldn't be a crime? Are you saying it's a crime only when a tycoon beds an unknown actress, whereas if she's known and getting jobs, it's not a crime?

My point is that there are laws on the books already, and both situations are illegal and dispicable.

Annie Deighnaugh

chijim, I still don't know what her family background has to do with whether or not a sexual predator comes on to her or not.

****************************************************

Gwyneth's dad was a power in himself in Hollywood, Blythe Danner was big in the day too, meaning it takes a lot of balls to come after their daughter.

Just heard Harvey told actresses they had to wear his wife's brand Marchesa on the red carpet.

No, I am saying that I think there are times when agreements are mutually reached, realistically. I don't think every single solitary women who had some sort of sexual interaction with him and benefited from it somehow is the victim of a crime. Some of them are victims and some of them are not. And unfortunately I do think that there is a socioeconomic influence. Many people would do something under coercion to put food in their mouths. Not everyone would do something under coercion for expensive jewelry.

I don’t agree with you because in every case there was a significant power differential. It’s both illegal and morally wrong to exploit that differential. Weinstein not only had the carrot (a part) but a huge stick in the implied threat that making him unhappy could ruin your career. That is extremely scary. And of course it is alleged that he preyed on his own employees. In every case so far it seems that the attention was unwanted, not asked for.

It’s Always Sunny (one of the smartest sitcoms around)... Because of the implication

https://youtu.be/MZ1lc6KASWg

Annie,

chijim, I still don't know what her family background has to do with whether or not a sexual predator comes on to her or not.

Sexual predators prefer to prey on those without power. Again it is primarily about power rather than sex "qua" sex, which is why harassment and rape does not just happen to beautiful women. Gwyneth Paltrow was far from powerless, because of who her parents were. So she is a less likely choice for a predator, that's all I was saying.

Is it not possible that there are women/men who would be more than willing to sleep with someone to achieve some end?

Yes, I am sure there are.

But if the transaction sours, and it becomes he says/someone else says, it is generally assumed that whoever is in a position of power is de facto abusing that power. That is why most large, professionally managed companies do not let bosses date subordinates. We would move people out of the chain of command when that occurred.

So the answer here is that, absence evidence to the contrary, and given that, as it related to a Hollywood career, he wielded unusual power and thus could coerce, the fact pattern would support anyone who claims non-consensual sex.

I think his behavior is an illegality that some women voluntarily, and men chose to give a pass. Surely there were women beyond his sphere of influence who could have spoken up.

Well, predators choose their prey well and he is known to be extremely litigious with deep pockets and good lawyers. Possibly not a great match for 20 year old actresses, script reviewers and personal assistants.

He did reach settlements with some of his accusers, One woman actually wore a wire and tried to get him arrested but despite evidence on tape he was not prosecuted.

I think it’s pretty tough to say people should’ve come forward earlier when he obviously chose prey over whom he wielded quite a bit of power. In addition allegations of sexual assault seem to never go well for women unless some critical mass of 20, 30 or more come forward. Even then the justice system is very hesitant to charge/convict.

I pretty much love that Rose McGowan is not only calling out him but all his buddies that knew about it. Hope this takes that slimy smarmball Ben Affleck down although I’m sure it will not.

https://www.google.ca/amp/digg.com/2017/harvey-weinstein-allegations%3Famp=true

Look at how much carp Cosby's accusers have had to go through and for how long, whereas now, whether decided legally or not, most people think it is pretty clear he was a terrible predator.

Good point.

"Surely there were women beyond his sphere of influence who could have spoken up." And men, who knew what he was doing. They should have spoken up and intervened. Just more good ole' boys' club entitlement.

No s--t. I included men in my statements.

A decade ago, who would have thought that Angelina Jolie would become the classiest of them all. “Jolie told the New York Times: "I had a bad experience with Harvey Weinstein in my youth, and as a result, chose never to work with him again and warn others when they did.”

I also love that it’s Ronan Farrow reporting on this. I know he hates that scumbag Woody Allen, as do I, and I would love if he just made it his career from now on to expose Hollywood predators (although he’s had a really rich and interesting career).

Getting back to Donna Karan, who else is tired of all these non-apologies? This is just part of what she said, “You look at everything all over the world today, how women are dressing and what they’re asking by just presenting themselves the way they do. What are they asking for? Trouble.”

So in her apology she said that her statements were taken out of context, which they absolutely were not, and apologized to anyone she offended. Why can’t people just straight up admit they did something wrong and apologize without qualification and maybe promise to do better next time? Without all this I’m sorry if you were offended bullpucky. All this being said btw by a woman who at the time was wearing a dress cut down to her navel, Which is totally her right.

Should we judge Donna Karan's cleavage in the dress she was wearing when she made that disgusting statement? If I owned any of her (in my opinion) poorly designed clothes they'd go straight in the garbage.

Robo, I noticed who the reporter/writer (Ronan Farrow) was right away! I had to explain it to DH as he had no idea who he was. I only knew who he was from reading a piece years ago about the whole Woody Allen sordid affair (and marriage) to Ronan's adopted sister. Woody Allen got away with a lot of this stuff too. I do like the whole karma effect of Woody's own son exposing this (don't remember if he is a bio son or adopted).

"but I can't truly believe there is romantic love that inspires many of these relationships you list. My DH and I were discussing that and I said it is just sort of "extended stay prostitution"."

I coined a phrase for these couples years ago, when Jackie Kennedy married Aristotle Onassis; I call it the bus driver test. As in, would she have married this guy if he drove one instead of having mountains of money?

I find it extremely unlikely that Jackie would have found Ari fascinating without his billions, nor would Georgina have yoked herself to Harvey Weinstein if he were navigating that #10 local around town daily. And let's just imagine ancient pajama clad Hugh as a retired middle manager-kinda dubious that all those blonde silicone-enhanced lovelies would have flocked to spend time with the old goat.

Sort of makes me nauseated to even think about being intimate with any of them, but I suppose for enough cash some women can close their eyes and think of.....shopping?

LOL, running.

I also noticed the byline in the NY'er. Wasn't there a big story a few years ago that he must have been Sinatra's son?

Running, I agree that there calculated trade offs in the relationships that you mentioned. There are some letters that recently came to light where Jacqueline Onassis told a former boyfriend that she was marrying Onassis because he had the money and resources to protect her and her children.

Would I put up with some discomfort or even abuse to protect or support my children? Yes, if I were desperate or if I felt trapped. But IMO, my acceptance would never legitimize the fact that someone took advantage of my situation or position.

IDK, d_gw.

Did Jackie O take advantage of him? Was he truly in love and only too happy to make her feel protected or do whatever she needed, but got short-changed because she never reciprocated his heartfelt love?

lol, I was posting about two different things and didn't explain myself very well. I look at the Jackie/Ari relationship as a transactional (to use Pal's word) one where they both had equal power. I don't feel like one had more advantage over the other.

But, in situations where people engage in transactional relationships and there is an imbalance of power or circumstance or whatever, I don't think acceptance on the part of the person at the disadvantage excuses the exploitation.

I hope that makes sense.

I agree with your second paragraph, yes. As does the law ... as they are essentially saying that people at a disadvantage cannot be assumed to be free to give consent.

I think I understand whst zpal is saying. I completely abhor Weinstein's behavior and in no way excuse it. It's disgusting and he deserves to get fired.

However, even if there is a power imbalance, people still have a choice, e.g. Angelina Jolie' s choice referred to above. Nobody "needs" to get a film role. There are other ways of earning a livelihood. And even if one wants to pursue a film career, it's possible (see Jolie) to be successful without going along with Weinstein's disgusting behavior.

This can be extrapolated to other situations, for example, I've been teaching my kids to stand up for what's right, even against more powerful people. And taught my DD that she's not a helpless creature that needs to be protected.

"However, even if there is a power imbalance, people still have a choice,
e.g. Angelina Jolie' s choice referred to above. Nobody "needs" to get a
film role. There are other ways of earning a livelihood. And even if
one wants to pursue a film career, it's possible (see Jolie) to be
successful without going along with Weinstein's disgusting behavior."

I understand what you are saying, but why should WOMEN, always be the ones who have to make the tough choices...follow my dream and be victimized or give up on my dreams because some di*khead has the power to make or break my dreams?

It's the same to me as women not being able to feel safe on the streets, safe at parties, etc. Why should women have to modify their behavior, lives, freedom because men are allowed to behave badly? We shouldn't and every time we blame women for their lack of power in these situations, we are complicit.

As a rape survivor (it put me in a coma for several weeks) I take major offense to anyone saying the women took too long to speak out or did the wrong thing.I also get angry at wrongful accusations....seems not to be the case here.

I don't like any blame on the women who were afraid to speak out immediately. I was attacked by a stranger and was afraid so I can't imagine someone who is a power in your industry. Easy for people to say there are other jobs....in the industry that I work in I know I could be blackballed in a minute. Thankfully I work with wonderful people.

I don't know Oly, doesn't the leitmotif of the symbolic everyman as oppressor and everywoman as the fearful weak victim at 100% get a little tedious?

Although clearly more men oppress and more women are oppressed you seem to imply that men are never the victims of manipulation, discrimination, harrassment, sexual harrassment, systematic abuse, rape or violence. And that women always are, and that it's always and only at the hands of men.

I have male patients whose lives have been affected by all of those things. I know men whose lives are constructs built upon trying to avoid those things. My adult work life personally has been constructed around avoiding certain types of discrimination and subtle harrassment and I've paid for it financially. But in retrospect I am not sure whether it was completely necessary or whether I could have dealt with it more directly. I don't know, my profession has changed enough that I may now be glossing over things that were more problematic and real at the time.

Anne and Yaya, I understand your feelings about being victimized, but honestly I think what happened to you both is much more traumatic and potentially life-altering than work-place sexual harassment although harassment is insidious and far-reaching.

I completely concur Olychick -we pay taxes, we vote, we support the economy. Why do we have to accept that we live in less safe conditions than men?

I disagree with the idea that workplace sexual harassment, and in this case with Harvey Weinstein at least three occasions of alleged sexual assault, is not very traumatizing. My career is extremely important to me, and the idea that I would have to work with someone who had power over me and was threatening me sexually, The idea that I would have to see and work with that person every day, that like so many survivors I would likely not be believed by many and have my concerns and fears invalidated by higher-ups because my harasser is more valuable to the company than I am, the fact that some jerkoff could ruin my career through no fault of my own ... is both terrifying and infuriating Yet this is something that many many women have to navigate on a daily basis in their workplaces. The world does not treat whistleblowers kindly as a general rule and he who has power tends to win. Not to mention the implied physical threat Of having to work closely with someone who has already shown they will cross boundaries. Feeling physically unsafe in a place you have to spend Most of your waking hours on workdays must be absolutely soul crushing.

As I mentioned in the other thread, I also feel greatly for male survivors because I feel like their concerns and feelings are often even more invalidated. So many people construct assault and abuse as only a difference of physical power, and often as happening between strangers, but we know there are many types of power one person can wield over another and that most assaults occur between people who know each other.

The problem with a power imbalance is that people don't feel that they have a choice and that's why it's called an imbalance. Those who hold the power use it to control another. The insidious thing is that the person knows they have the power and they therefore control the person and the situation.

It's easy to say that they have a choice but extremely difficult to exert that choice.

"Although clearly more men oppress and more women are oppressed you seem to imply that men are never
the victims of manipulation, discrimination, harrassment, sexual
harrassment, systematic abuse, rape or violence. And that women always are, and that it's always and only at the hands of men"

Why is it whenever there is a discussion of the oppression of women, it gets turned into a debate about how bad men have it, too? Reminds me of when people of color are standing up against oppression and the white people lobby starts talking about reverse discrimination and how they are oppressed.

That's what's tiresome, quite frankly.

Because you won't even acknowledge that other forms of oppression besides your favorites exist, essentially. I'm surprised you don't weave female oppression into how it's influenced your fabric choices.

Not every male in this country is a white privileged member of some power elite. And I mentioned specific acts against humans that happen to both genders. I never called it male oppression. Because I agree those specific acts in and of themselves are not male oppression.

In this particular case, Donna Karan/Harvey Weinstein, it is male power vs female oppression in a very big and one-sided way, and a very focused and sexual assault/sexual harassment way as opposed to general workplace bullying/discrimination. So it seems sidetrackey to What About The Men it and What About All These Other Unrelated Things it and Maybe Some Women Do Ask For It it. Sidetrackey and concern troll-y. Which happens a whole lot when discussing women's issues so it's easy to discern a pattern when you're on the receiving end of it (harder when you're perpetuating that pattern because it doesn't feel wrong). It's very hard to de-center the male experience.

I like the way Terry Crews approached it with his personal experience and his final words "Hopefully, me coming forward with my story will deter a predator and encourage someone who feels hopeless. (16/end)"

It doesnt need to be about what happens to men at all. It was a response to Oly's segue from workplace sexual harassment to about women being screwed for life, automatically, because they aren't wealthy white males, which is apparently every male in America unless they are poor and black.

Would you disagree that women’s behaviour is in general policed more than men’s and that women are expected to protect ourselves, justify ourselves and victim blamed when we are attacked (eg asking for it) in ways that men are generally less so? For oppression to exist does not mean that every single member of the oppressed group is worse off than every single member of the group that benefits (in this case from patriarchy). That’s an impossible test to meet, and would result in deciding that oppression just isn’t a thing at all ever. We have to have a more nuanced view - just because some gay men are successful doesn’t mean gay men in general don’t face socioeconomic barriers for example. (E.g. 20 percent of gay men and 25 percent of bisexual men 18-44 years of age are living at or below the federal level of poverty, compared to 15 percent of heterosexual men).

having privilege in one area doesn’t cancel out disadvantage in another, and vice versa - poor men for example still have relative benefits compared to poor women.

I agree with you of course.

Nicely written, Robo, thanks. And I agree with you, too, so I guess Pal and I can agree on something!

Oly and Rob I agree. Decades ago, there were nightly attacks on campus were I worked and the admin advised no women walk unaccompanied by security at night. I suggested no man be allowed to walk unaccompanied.

However, in the meantime, while something has to be done against those who harass, women (or the harassed) have to be supported and empowered to stand up to it. They are not powerless. They can take a stand.

And I'm sorry, but there's a huge difference between being attacked and drugged and raped, and being propositioned.

No means no.

FWIW, yesterday I heard reporting on something I hadn't considered in relation to this & other cases of powerful, famous people/companies & their bad behavior: non-disclosure agreements relating to sexual harassment & discrimination, which are often required in so many settlements.

It is clearly a big problem, since as long as these cases are not made public, the perpetrators & their misdeeds remain unknown to the public & they're presumably free to continue their bad behavior.

So the criticism & speculation about WHY some individuals have not come forward w/ their accounts seems moot.

OTOH, it was stated that if such agreements were no longer allowed, it would force victims to pursue legal recourse against companies/individuals w/ extremely deep pockets - & of course so many victims cannot afford that.

I did not read all the comments, so I hope I am not repeating what someone else has said. Coming from someone in the fashion industry which is notorious for its ads and treatment of young girls, I cannot give Karan a pass on this. I am incensed by her comments.

As far as talking to our daughters to inform them of what some might think their clothing choices are saying, I would be speaking to my son (and I did many times) about the fact that he should never assume or judge someone based on her clothing choices. I would tell him (again, been there, done that) that he is responsible for his choices and he had better darn well make good and respectful ones. He is married to a strong, capable woman and supports her 100%.

We also need to watch how we talk to our little girls. Years and years ago, I noticed how often I would tell a little girl how cute she looked. I never did that with boys, although I did compliment them on haircuts or clothes. I decided to make a concerted effort to compliment both boys and girls on their perseverance ("wow, you really worked hard on that" or "I noticed you ignored the negative behavior and focused on your work"as opposed to "you are so smart") or something similar, kindness, etc. It is really hard to do at first. If you pay attention to the number of times you mention that someone looks so pretty, or so handsome, or here on GW, that someone could use a dose of Botox, or that you only want to be told how you look or if you look young, you will be amazed. We are a culture that cares more about power, money, and how someone looks than we are about the character of that person. Seriously, have you noticed how so many tv or movie stars or socialites (for want of a better term) who look deformed these days after enhancement surgery? Look at your local weather person if female. I was visiting a friend in PA this week and I could not believe what I was seeing. Astounding and sad.

Only if we empower of children to be good people will we change things.

Excellent points, cyn! I do the same.

It really bugs me when I hear someone telling little girls "Omigosh you're so pretty!" Or loudly saying similar things about girls' looks w/in earshot. I work w/ kids & cannot count how many times over the years I've heard other staff doing that & cringed inwardly. Some will even tell the girls - or say it loud enough for everyone to hear - things like "she's going to have lots of boyfriends".

I know people think they're being nice, since it's complimentary, but these are 5, 6, 7 or 8 year olds - ugh!

All it does is make girls think they are to be valued primarily for their appearance, rather than who they are & what they can do. Of course everyone likes it when someone says positive things, but the fact that it gives the object of such compliments pleasure is setting them up for all kinds of anguish & impossible standards as they mature & find they are not "perfect".

IOW, hello anorexia & bulimia?

Donna Karan has issued a second apology for her comments given to DailyMail.com that appeared to defend Harvey Weinstein from allegations of sexual harassment.

'I am sorry for the comments I made last week. Those words do not represent who I am, what I believe or what I have represented throughout my career, the fashion designer said in a statement to the Hollywood Reporter on Sunday night.

'There is no question that women should wear what they want, when they want and without fear of being harassed, molested or abused. I am sorry for saying something I did not mean,' Karan, 69, continued.

'What Harvey Weinstein did is unconscionable and unforgivable. I apologize for my comments that gave the impression that I feel any other way about any man who disrespects, harasses or abuses any woman.'

The comment comes after an initial apology statement given to DailyMail.com on October 10 and widespread calls to boycott her fashion line after she appeared to defend Weinstein during a red carpet interview with DailyMail.com on October 8.

'I think he's being looked at right now as a symbol, not necessarily as him. I know his wife, I think they're wonderful people. Harvey has done some amazing things,' she said on the red carpet for the CineFashion Film Awards in Los Angeles.

Donna Karan Apology