Quote Originally Posted by sonatine View Post
1) harvey weinstein is no rapist. hes a serial abuser of power and position for sex, and thats revolting, and he deserves some time on the cross, but as far as i can tell, he's no rapist, but hysteria mode is enabled so forget any sort of reasonable discussion of his culpability.
You're downplaying his culpability here, actually. "Abuse of power and position for sex" would mean he was simply offering women roles (or better roles) in exchange for sexual favors, but it goes much deeper than that. He was actually taking women who had already made it to some degree, inviting them to his hotel room, and then heavily pressuring them for sexual favors, with lines such as "you'll never see me again" if they say no. He also aggressively groped women without their permission, as we heard on that tape.

You say he's "no rapist", but I don't believe that, either. I believe he probably didn't rape in the way most people think of rape, where he forcibly grabs the woman, holds her down, commits acts of violence, or threatens acts of violence if they attempt to stop him. However, women have differing levels of forcefulness in how they attempt to stop a man like him. I fully believe that Harvey would grope, and in some cases, put his hands up these women's skirts, and the reaction probably ranged from a loud "WTF are you doing?? Get off of me!!!" to a scared, "No, no, please stop". With the former, Weinstein probably backed off immediately at that point. With the latter, he probably kept touching, saying things like we heard on the tape ("just relax", "it's fine", it's no big deal", etc). Does that count as rape? If he keeps doing it after the first "no", then yes, it does, both legally and morally. He doesn't have to be the bogeyman rapist you see on TV in order to be a rapist.


2) the sub-narrative that women are these fragile buttercups that cannot take responsibility for positions they find themselves in is exactly the opposite of feminism. how many of these victims of harvey's indecent overtures would have ever gotten a feature role if not for that devils bargain? im guessing not many of them.

4) everyone gets bent over, all the fucking time. but because these victims have big doe eyes and a ton of twitter followers, society wants them canonized? id let harvey weinstein pound my shitter silly in front of my senior high school class for half of the bankroll these 'actors' sleep on every night.
For some of them, yes, they were likely knowingly trading sexual favors in exchange for what would otherwise be an unlikely successful career in acting. I don't consider these women to be victims.

However, as I mentioned above, those actresses already semi-established, who were then pressured by him to do sexual favors to avoid getting their careers derailed, that goes beyond the casting couch bargain.


5) a lot of the uproar about this is being fueled by our political climate. harvey was a high profile liberal donor, and the right wing desperately needed a chance to demonstrate that they arent the only people shackled with subnormal degenerates. harvey is exactly the lamb they needed to slaughter to prove that point.
Yes and no.

Is the right taking pleasure in going after him for this? You bet.

Is the right taking further pleasure in going after high-profile figures such as the Clintons and Obamas, for feeling afraid to condemn a man who had been so generous with them? Again, definitely.

But this political zeal is no different than what we saw from the left, involving Roger Ailes and Sean Hannity.

The truth is that both the left and right look hypocritical when these type of stories come out, for different reasons.

The right speaks from a position of morality, decency, and family values, and they frequently rail against the freaks, degenerates, and criminals coddled by the left. When a high-profile conservative figure is shown to be a serial crude sexual harasser of women, this position can look hypocritical, especially if the guy in question is married.

The left speaks from a position of sensitivity and empathy, and they frequently rail against the old-school sexist and misogynistic attitudes sometimes held by the right. When a high profile liberal figure is shown to be a serial crude sexual harasser of women, this position can look hypocritical, as it directly contradicts the message of feminism and female empowerment that the left frequently pushes.

No doubt the political enemies take joy when the other side has an embarrassing scandal like this, but such joy is inevitable when you have political parties which increasingly put themselves on a pedestal while making the other side look amoral.