Harvey Weinstein megaproducer and executive ousted over sexual harassment

Tinami Amori

Well-Known Member
Messages
17,172
Given that the left is more progressive than the right, it follows that its members would be concerned with women's rights and human rights. But it would be incorrect to say generally that the right is not at all concerned with women's rights/human rights. The right exists on a continuum, just as the left does.
The "progressive" claim is either a self-deception, or an intentional lie for sake of advertising the cause. There is nothing progressive, nothing!, in Left's constant belittling of and insulting the women who do not vote for Dems or women, and starting destruction campaigns against Blacks/Hispanic/Gays who vote Republican.

https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/how-is-libertarian-feminism-different-other-feminisms
Yes i have. every movement/party has variations within itself.
There is a difference between "feminist" and simply a liberated woman, who feels free to make choices in career, politics, social matters without "fitting into a pattern" of a particular thought or movement or party. A liberated person does not tote a party line, but selects what suites one from ALL that is available.

https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/how-is-libertarian-feminism-different-other-feminisms
:D plenty, here are two famous ones.
M. Obama scolding women who voted for Trump:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTei5Mulp10

H. Clinton: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbBgmfEAEUM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjR1EltHAMk
H. Clinton "almost saying sorry" :D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qO-dKhU3mSE

Hilary put a lot of cracks in the highest and hardest of glass ceilings. Don't you think that matters?
H. Clinton did not DARE to mention sexism or "women being influenced by husbands" when Obama (male) was selected over her... Come to think of it.. :D... some "progressives" called HC's campaign "racist and entitled white woman" who expects to rise to the top above some "black dude".... :lol:

Given that women are slightly more than half the population, shouldn't they be fairly represented in the political institutions that govern their lives?
What's fair and progressive, is to have equal laws for ALL, and judge people on merit, and not "give advantage" or "bully people" into hiring women. If a man can work 10-hr day, and a woman can only work 8-hr day - the JOB GOES TO THE MAN. If a woman has 2 diplomas and 10 years experience and a man has 1 diploma and 5 years experience - the JOB GOES TO THE WOMAN. That's progressive and fair (and not some stupid quotas, and social engineering).
 

berthesghost

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,201
God FSU is like pavlov’ s dog sometimes :lol:
Someone posts that political propaganda should be left out of a thread discussing sexual harassment as it’s a bipartisan issue, so of course many posters respond by making The whole thread into 24/7 partisan politics talk! Smh
 

screech

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,096
The new mental and sexual abuse allegations against Chris Hardwick (though he was never officially named by his accuser) are horrible. This one is kind of a hard one for me, because though I've never met him, some relatives of mine are really good friends with him (they were even at his wedding to Lydia Hearst). I hope that if proven to be him, he owns up to things (so far he's denying) and sincerely tries to make amends.
 

VIETgrlTerifa

Well-Known Member
Messages
29,232
I just read the first person account and I don’t know if Hardwick is guilty or not but I do know that a story like that is totally plausible and I think we all have seen or even experienced relationships like that.
 

Japanfan

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,033
Hardwick :wuzrobbed

'The Walking Dead' producers better replace him as host of 'The Talking Dead' for the fall, as it's become part of The Walking Dead experience.
 

screech

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,096
I just read the first person account and I don’t know if Hardwick is guilty or not but I do know that a story like that is totally plausible and I think we all have seen or even experienced relationships like that.
I agree that some of the things unfortunately sound very common in some ways. I can absolutely see her point of view on things. In his reply, he didn't deny the limitations he put on her personal interactions (only saying that she's accusing him of conduct that did not occur), though he did deny sexual assault. I can see why, through her allegations, he would deny assault - often people will go along with having sex with their partner, even if they don't particularly want to. I've been there (though my situation was nothing like hers).

In my personal situation, I was going through a bout of depression, which seriously affected my sex drive. My boyfriend at the time was not an emotionally supportive person at all. His response to my situation was (to paraphrase) 'guys don't care about the emotions unless they're getting sex.' So basically, he didn't care that I was in a very rough place because he wasn't getting any. So I'd have 'starfish' sex with him - just because I needed some kind of connection from him - even though I had zero desire.

Back to Chris, one big thing in this situation is that according to her statement, he was aware of how he was treating her.
While we were together, he repeatedly shared with me that he was terrified I would talk publicly about how he treated me, but I’m done protecting him at the expense of my own mental health. He talked about me publicly, incorrectly speculating loudly and regularly that I was sleeping around on him, on multiple occasions (once in front of an audience of thousands at a convention). It got so bad I ended up having to ask my lawyer write his a letter.
He claims in his reply to her statement that she cheated on him, something she's saying here isn't true (but earlier in her statement, she confesses to some cross-over between her relationship with Chris and a new relationship)
 

Japanfan

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,033
What's fair and progressive, is to have equal laws for ALL, and judge people on merit, and not "give advantage" or "bully people" into hiring women. If a man can work 10-hr day, and a woman can only work 8-hr day - the JOB GOES TO THE MAN. If a woman has 2 diplomas and 10 years experience and a man has 1 diploma and 5 years experience - the JOB GOES TO THE WOMAN. That's progressive and fair (and not some stupid quotas, and social engineering).
It's not fair if all people do not have equal access to the rewards and opportunities of society.

The reason men with families have been able to work full-time and participate in public life is because they have had wives who are taking care of the home and the children. If a woman can only work 8 hours a day while a man can work ten because the woman needs to get home two hours early to give dinner to her family, it's not exactly fair to be biased in favor of a male candidate.

Rather, workplaces need family-friendly policies to support both men and women with families. Flex-time is a move in this direction. So is paternity leave, although not equal to maternity leave in many countries. For the workplace to punish women because they are the one's who have children is beyond ridiculous because without babies being born, there would be no workers.

The same applies to other opportunities. For example, youth with challenging life circumstances may not finish high school and therefore not have an opportunity to go to university. Scholarships that support such disadvantaged individuals to finish high school or attend university as mature students therefore somehwhat level the playing field.

With regard to women, however, reverse discrimination has largely been unnecessary. Women have fought to participate in public life and succeeded largely on the basis of merit. Many have shown themselves quite capable of working a double shift in the workplace and home (which isn't exactly fair, also).

As the saying goes: "for a woman to be seen as half as good as a man, she must prove herself to be twice as good. Fortunately, that isn't difficult". :scream::scream::slinkaway
 
Last edited:

Yehudi

Has colluded with Russia
Messages
4,182
Chris Hardwick isn't a surprise. Many con goers have stories of unpleasant encounters with him and he seemed to target a lot of the female cosplayers.
 

Buzz

Well-Known Member
Messages
31,792
Asia Argento has now herself been accused of sexual assault by a young actor who once played her son.

But in the months that followed her revelations about Mr. Weinstein last October, Ms. Argento quietly arranged to pay $380,000 to her own accuser: Jimmy Bennett, a young actor and rock musician who said she had sexually assaulted him in a California hotel room years earlier, when he was only two months past his 17th birthday. She was 37. The age of consent in California is 18.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/19/dining/asia-argento-assault-jimmy-bennett.html
 

Japanfan

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,033
The new mental and sexual abuse allegations against Chris Hardwick (though he was never officially named by his accuser) are horrible. This one is kind of a hard one for me, because though I've never met him, some relatives of mine are really good friends with him (they were even at his wedding to Lydia Hearst). I hope that if proven to be him, he owns up to things (so far he's denying) and sincerely tries to make amends.
Harwick, head hanging a bit low, gushed on and on about how grateful he was to have had his after shows on the 'Fear the Walking Dead' after show last night.

Nicole Evette Brown, who is to replace him, and one of the actresses on the show were his guests. They must have had to deal with a whole lot of inner ick ick while remaining composed on the show.
 
Last edited:

screech

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,096
Harwick gushed on and on about how grateful he was to have had his after-shows on the 'Fear the Walking Dead' after show last night.

Nicole Evette Brown, who is to replace him, and one of the actresses on the show were his guests. They must have had to deal with a whole lot of inner ick ick while remaining composed on the show.
Chris was re-instated on everything, it seems. AMC reinstated him as host of Talking Dead, NBC has said he will return as host of The Wall, and he's back on the Nerdist website. This, apparently after AMC completed an investigation with a law firm (that happens to have also represented the Hearst corporation in the past, though...) That's not to say he's innocent or absolved (some people have quit due to his re-hiring, due to the ex not being involved in the investigation, of her own choosing).

He is easily replaceable, as the interim hiring of Yvette Nicole Brown shows. I know he's hugely popular for Talking Dead, but I highly doubt NBC needs him for The Wall (he's not a general household name. I personally always get his name confused with that of the astronaut Chris Hadfield). I feel like they'd easily get rid of him if they thought they had to.
 

Tinami Amori

Well-Known Member
Messages
17,172
Interesting situation .... :eek:
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/asia-argento-allegedly-paid-off-sexual-assault-accuser-following-harvey-weinstein-scandal-713273/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/asia-argento-sexual-assault-complaint-jimmy-bennet-settled-380000-me-too/

Italian actress Asia Argento was one of the first to accuse Harvey Weinstein of sexual assault last fall, setting off a flurry of other allegations against the movie producer, ending his career and sparking the #MeToo movement.

At the same time, according to the New York Times, Argento was allegedly scrambling to quiet her own accuser – former child actor Jimmy Bennett, who claims that Argento assaulted him in 2013, shortly after his 17th birthday when she was 37 years old. The Times have allegedly obtained legal documents sent between Bennett’s and Argento’s attorneys arranging for Bennett to be paid $380,000 in the months after Argento made headlines as a prominent Weinstein accuser.
Then, in May 2013, a few months after Bennett turned 17, he and a family member met up with Argento at her hotel room at the Ritz-Carlton in Marina del Rey, California. According to the Times’ summary of Bennett’s account, Argento asked to be alone with Bennett, and the family member left. According to Bennett, Argento gave him alcohol, then proceeded to kiss him, perform oral sex on him and had sexual intercourse with him. In California, where the age of consent is 18, these acts are considered “unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor” or “statutory rape.”
The documents obtained by the Times include multiple photos of Argento and Bennett in bed, semi-clothed, including one closeup of their faces which she posted to Instagram. They later had lunch – Argento posted another Instagram photo of the two at a restaurant – but on the way home, according to Bennett’s attorney Gordon K. Sattro, the teenager began to feel “extremely confused, mortified, and disgusted.”
 

screech

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,096
Not surprising, but #MeToo is being addressed in so many ways now. I don't know of all of the shows doing storylines, but I just finished watching season 2 of GLOW, which takes place in the 80s, and there was a storyline very similar to what a lot of actresses experienced...

In one episode, the main character Ruth, an actress on a wrestling TV show, is invited to a dinner meeting with one of the studio executives (who she doesn't know). She arrives and is told that the exec always takes dinner in his room, so she heads there. One of the other execs, who she does know is also there, which puts her at ease.
They all chat for a while, but then exec 1 gives a look to exec 2 (the one she knows) who takes the cue and says he has to leave the room for a minute, now that Ruth is relaxed and more comfortable. Exec 1 then propositions Ruth, by asking her to perform moves and put him in a headlock (where he gets very nuzzly). She tries to make excuses to leave (you must be tired, etc), and then says that exec 2 will be back soon. Exec 1 says that exec 2 isn't coming back. He then proceeds to say he's going to get the jacuzzi going, and Ruth takes the opportunity to leave.

Their show is then moved to a shitty time slot. When the producers (including Ruth's former best friend Debbie) don't know what happened, Ruth admits it to Debbie, who is not supportive at all, instead saying Ruth handled things horribly and has screwed over the entire cast.

The storyline was done really well. But the only thing that made it kind of awkward for me is that the Alison Brie, who plays the character involved in the storyline, is related (by marriage) to James Franco, who was accused of abusing his power in the #MeToo movement.
 

PeterG

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,484
This article is interesting in how (arguably) the most powerful man in the entertainment world is not being held accountable (so far) for past accusations. And he has not been mentioned in this thread yet:

Les Moonves, The Most Powerful CEO To Face #MeToo, Is Winning. So Far.

This article mentions that Moonves could walk away with 180 million dollars if fired without cause of good reason.

Also interesting/creepy is the chummy photo of Harvey Weinstein and Moonves together. Wonder what the discussion was like when the cameras were not around. :vomit:
 

overedge

Mayor of Carrot City
Messages
25,766
Not surprising, but #MeToo is being addressed in so many ways now. I don't know of all of the shows doing storylines, but I just finished watching season 2 of GLOW, which takes place in the 80s, and there was a storyline very similar to what a lot of actresses experienced...

[spoiler deleted]

The storyline was done really well. But the only thing that made it kind of awkward for me is that the Alison Brie, who plays the character involved in the storyline, is related (by marriage) to James Franco, who was accused of abusing his power in the #MeToo movement.
If the GLOW writers want to go to #metoo storylines, they don't have to bring in characters that are studio executives. There are about a billion real-life incidents in professional wrestling they could use as source material :(
 

Japanfan

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,033
395?

Three hundred and ninety five!!?? :mad: :angryfire :mad: :angryfire :mad: :angryfire :mad: :angryfire
And just think of all the women (and/or men/boys) who endured sexual abuse.

Just think that not so long ago, the term 'sexual abuse in the workplace' didn't even exist. :EVILLE:
 

Sylvia

Not yet ready for club comp. season to be underway
Messages
56,835
NBC News Says “Malicious Distortion” That Ronan Farrow Was Threatened Over Harvey Weinstein Probe By Lawyer (Aug. 31): https://deadline.com/2018/08/ronan-farrow-nbc-news-responds-lawyer-threats-false-harvey-weinstein-1202455348/

NBC Threatened Ronan Farrow if He Kept Reporting on Harvey Weinstein (Aug. 30): https://www.thedailybeast.com/sources-nbc-threatened-ronan-farrow-if-he-kept-reporting-on-harvey-weinstein

Ronan Farrow’s Ex-Producer [Rich McHugh] Says NBC Impeded Weinstein Reporting (Aug. 30): https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/30/business/media/ronan-farrow-weinstein-producer.html
Excerpts:
Rich McHugh, the producer, who recently left his job in the investigative unit of NBC News, is the first person affiliated with NBC to publicly charge that the network impeded his and Mr. Farrow’s efforts to nail down the story of Mr. Weinstein’s alleged sexual misconduct. He called the network’s handling of the matter “a massive breach of journalistic integrity.”
NBC denied his characterization on Thursday, saying Mr. Farrow’s work was not broadcast-ready when the reporter decided to take his reporting to The New Yorker.
On Oct. 5, The Times published the first of its articles detailing allegations of sexual misconduct against Mr. Weinstein. That evening, CBS and ABC gave airtime to the explosive story on their newscasts. NBC did not. The next morning, “Today” gave it scant attention.
Mr. Farrow published his first New Yorker article on Mr. Weinstein on Oct. 10. Since then, Mr. McHugh has questioned how NBC handled things.
“I don’t believe they’ve told the truth about it,” he said. “That’s my opinion. I’ve asked that question, and to this day I still have not been given a good answer.”
Asked why it had taken him so long to leave the network, Mr. McHugh said he had stayed on so he could continue providing for his family and out of a fear that NBC could retaliate against him.
ETA this tweet in response to the NYT article linked above: https://twitter.com/CDFrancescani/status/1035342010771808262
I worked in the @NBCNews Investigative Unit in the fall of 2016. @RichMcHughNBC and @RonanFarrow are telling the truth. @NBCNews executives are not.
And this tweet chain by Yashar Ali who co-authored an article on this topic (titled "How Top NBC Executives Quashed The Bombshell Harvey Weinstein Story") back in October 2017: https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1035335096260128768
 
Last edited:

screech

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,096
Jian Ghomeshi has written an essay for the New York Times Review of Books. It doesn't seem like 4 years since the allegations against him started (and 2 years since his trial).

The piece is really well written, IMO. He does admit to some behaviours, and some things he says make me cringe a bit, since a friend of mine briefly dated him around 2010 or 2011. This quote from the essay kind of fits with what she'd mentioned about him:
I was demanding on dates and in personal affairs. I would keep lobbying for what I wanted. I was critical and dismissive.
She felt uncomfortable with how sexually flirtatious he was with other people, and he just said he had to act that way as part of his public image. He also refused to acknowledge her at work events (she also worked for the CBC) and dismissed her opinions on really anything. Luckily for her, things never progressed past kissing, but she ended things with him because he made her uncomfortable. At first she wouldn't name him to me - just that she was dating a well known guy with his own CBC show (I don't listen to CBC). She only named him when we were at TIFF one year and she suddenly hid behind me as a guy walked past (I didn't recognize him). Once he was gone, she said that he was the guy she dated, and she mentioned his name.

For a guy to prompt that kind of response in someone, after just a couple of weeks of dating...
 

overedge

Mayor of Carrot City
Messages
25,766
@screech IMO Jian Ghomeshi is still full of sh*t. Most of the article is about how he maybe did some questionable things but he was treated sooooo unfairly because of "allegations" that were not accurate :barrel
 

screech

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,096
@screech IMO Jian Ghomeshi is still full of sh*t. Most of the article is about how he maybe did some questionable things but he was treated sooooo unfairly because of "allegations" that were not accurate :barrel
I didn't say I was on his side or anything, just that it was well written. And he did acknowledge some of his behaviours, but he did make some excuses too.
I still think he's a huge prick. Which kind of sucks because I used to like Moxy Früvous back in the day (though that music video is awful).
 

overedge

Mayor of Carrot City
Messages
25,766
@screech Sorry if it sounded like I was accusing you of supporting him - I didn't mean that at all. I agree that it was well-written to the extent that he can put together a coherent sentence. But he doesn't write well enough to convince me that what he says is really true...
 

Japanfan

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,033
This article does nothing to change my view of Ghomeshi. This part bothered me:

It is bizarre to become an unwitting repository for men who are bewildered about gender relations or sexual behaviors.
The implication is that Ghomeshi too was/is bewildered.

Bewildered
about what, exactly? What harassment and abuse mean? What behaviors they can and can't get away with? Whether they can touch a woman casually (i.e. a pat on the back)?

The concepts of respect and consent are easy to understand. There is nothing bewildering about them.
 

screech

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,096
Never thought we'd hear it, but Soon-Yi Previn (Woody Allen's wife) is telling her side of the story. The article is written by a long-time friend of Allen's (who participates in the article as well), so it is fairly one-sided and kind to the couple...

Basically, her relationship with Mia Farrow, and the start of her relationship with Woody are summarized with this quote.
But Mia was never kind to me, never civil. And here was a chance for someone showing me affection and being nice to me, so of course I was thrilled and ran for it. I’d be a moron and an idiot, retarded” — she pauses here, mindful that this is one of her mother’s words for her — “if I’d stayed with Mia.” She adds, as if to set the record straight, “I wasn’t the one who went after Woody — where would I get the nerve? He pursued me. That’s why the relationship has worked: I felt valued. It’s quite flattering for me. He’s usually a meek person, and he took a big leap.”
She says there was a clear hierarchy to how Mia favoured her children, and that she was slapped, insulted, lacked guidance, and was basically responsible for taking care of her younger siblings.

And the allegations from Dylan Farrow (which Woody has always maintained were planted by Mia, but is denied by the Farrows) is summarized with this quote.
Allen’s sister, Letty Aronson, tells me, Farrow called and announced, “ ‘He took my daughter, I’m going to take his.’ I said, ‘Don’t be ridiculous. [Dylan] loves Woody. A child should have a father.’ She said, ‘I don’t care.’ ”
Also, for some reason I'd had no idea that Soon-Yi and Woody had adopted 2 children of their own (judges investigated each adoption and okayed them). Both daughters are in college, and apparently Woody is the lenient one who wants to spoil them, and Soon-Yi is the disciplinarian, who learned through Mia what kind of mother she did not want to be.
 

VIETgrlTerifa

Well-Known Member
Messages
29,232
Never thought we'd hear it, but Soon-Yi Previn (Woody Allen's wife) is telling her side of the story. The article is written by a long-time friend of Allen's (who participates in the article as well), so it is fairly one-sided and kind to the couple...

Basically, her relationship with Mia Farrow, and the start of her relationship with Woody are summarized with this quote.

She says there was a clear hierarchy to how Mia favoured her children, and that she was slapped, insulted, lacked guidance, and was basically responsible for taking care of her younger siblings.

And the allegations from Dylan Farrow (which Woody has always maintained were planted by Mia, but is denied by the Farrows) is summarized with this quote.


Also, for some reason I'd had no idea that Soon-Yi and Woody had adopted 2 children of their own (judges investigated each adoption and okayed them). Both daughters are in college, and apparently Woody is the lenient one who wants to spoil them, and Soon-Yi is the disciplinarian, who learned through Mia what kind of mother she did not want to be.
Moses Farrow has also been open about supporting his sister Soon-Yi and saying his mother Mia Farrow planted the story of sexual abuse in Dylan's head to the point where Dylan, innocent in all of this, believes it now:

http://mosesfarrow.blogspot.com/2018/05/a-son-speaks-out-by-moses-farrow.html

In this post, he chronicles life under Mia Farrow speaking about the two suicides by two of his siblings who were brought up by Mia Farrow, another death of another sibling, the abuse he faced under her, and why he doesn't believe Dylan's story (but he believes Dylan believes it) because many of the details don't match reality. He details the whole custody battle and ordeal and the many therapists and experts who Mia hired and fired when they didn't report what she wanted them to report.

I'm not saying I believe one side or the other just because how am I supposed to make that judgment? I wasn't there. It's also easy to excuse if Dylan didn't get some of the details as she was young AND it's also easy to picture a sexual predator treating the victim much differently than other children to where they have totally different memories and accounts of the same person as we know it does happen. I also have a hard time disbelieving someone who comes out as a victim due to my studies of sexual assault and the scrutiny victims go through (not the same as saying I only believe a person who comes out as a victim). I just thought I'd share Moses Farrow's account since you shared Soon-Yi's.
 
Last edited:

Japanfan

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,033
I don't need to be reminded that Woody Allen pursued the 16-year old Soon-yi (at least IIRC she was 16?).

I know that these two have been together for some time and appear to have a workable relationship. But it still gives me the creeps.

Woody Allen has given me the creeps for a long time, however. Sure he's a genius, but he is also extremely narcissistic. At some point I grew weary of films about rich artists and writers sitting around in their million dollar summer homes and lamenting the angst of life. As a result of that and the Soon-yi relationship I decided not to watch any more of Allen's films.

Can't say I feel I've been missing anything.
 
Last edited:

VIETgrlTerifa

Well-Known Member
Messages
29,232
According to Soon-Yi and Moses, she was not underaged when they got together romantically but who knows? Movies like Manhattan make it seem like he’d be ok with that. Even in Husbands and Wives where the Juliette Lewis character skewers middle aged men who go after young undergrad women, it’s still passed off as a joke rather than creepy behavior
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top