Who is Harvey Weinstein and Why Should I Care?

[Sportster]

There is so much floating around out there about him that you'd think he violated The Queen and was somebody that could affect the phases of the moon.

 

[Ambi]

Not being cheeky, but I found out who he was by simply reading an article. I googled his name, and the latest news articles came up. The breaking story came from the NY Times:Harvey Weinstein Paid Off Sexual Harassment Accusers for Decades

The title and first paragraph give you the idea:

Harvey Weinstein Paid Off Sexual Harassment Accusers for Decades

Two decades ago, the Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein invited Ashley Judd to the Peninsula Beverly Hills hotel for what the young actress expected to be a business breakfast meeting. Instead, he had her sent up to his room, where he appeared in a bathrobe and asked if he could give her a massage or she could watch him shower, she recalled in an interview....

 

[onlything]

No idea.

 

[onlything]

Not being cheeky, but I found out who he was by simply reading an article. I googled his name, and the latest news articles came up. The breaking story came from the NY Times:Harvey Weinstein Paid Off Sexual Harassment Accusers for Decades

The title and first paragraph give you the idea:

Harvey Weinstein Paid Off Sexual Harassment Accusers for Decades

Two decades ago, the Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein invited Ashley Judd to the Peninsula Beverly Hills hotel for what the young actress expected to be a business breakfast meeting. Instead, he had her sent up to his room, where he appeared in a bathrobe and asked if he could give her a massage or she could watch him shower, she recalled in an interview....

Like any before and even more after.

 

[Ambi]

Ah, that's one I haven't seen yet. There is so much floating around out there about him that you'd think he violated The Queen and was somebody that could affect the phases of the moon.

Oh, that makes sense. Yeah, I think after the initial breaking article the internet blew up with stories. I really don't care about him. I feel bad for the actresses, but I also wouldn't hang around some guy's bedroom expecting breakfast. I'm glad this news story will expose these kinds of guys in Hollywood, though.

 

[dragoncat16]

I had never heard of him before. It's really sad that the first we hear about someone is a scandal like this. If people were paid off by him to keep quiet, then shame on them as well, as they could have saved the victims that came after themselves by coming forward sooner rather than waiting for others to come forward first. Yes, I feel for all of the victims, but to have accepted money instead of reporting what happened is also not right.

 

[Katleya]

Well, these are the type of industries where meetings in hotel rooms is fairly common, so you can actually go in good faith. While I'm not sure why the Internet blew up like this, the fact that Weinstein was a major figure in Hollywood (I mean, he was with Miramax for years, that's a huge studio even I know of, and I hardly ever watch movies), with an insane amount of power, and that he mostly targeted younger females who were the easiest to take advantage of, that seems to be what causes all of the agitation --along with the fact that his teams knew about it, but never reported it or tried to intervene. Because he is a producer, in charge of the funding, he does have the power to make or break someone.

To put Weinstein into perspective, it's a bit like if it was found that one of the biggest CEOs (say, Steve Jobs when he was alive) had been assaulting and harassing employees who came to his office. That would have made noise.

 

[Judge]

The media seems to be obsessed and inundated with articles about this guy. Just who is he exactly, and why should I even care?

He's presently at the apex of the question regarding a distinction between someone who is allegedly a victim of sex addiction and a predator committing sexual harassment as an entertainment industry executive. Although IMO there's no question and never was. That this is criminal behavior, and not something he can hide behind claiming sexual addiction.

The distinction being drawn over the reality that this corporate executive had immense power over virtually everyone crossing his path on a daily basis. Where much of anyone seeking to advance their career could become his next victim.

Or as Hollywood has euphemistically referred to it forever, the "casting couch". And that for such an alleged staunchly socially liberal institution, has allowed this sort of thing to continue ever since the invention of motion pictures.

Though as far as the media is concerned, it's just another salacious story to market their product to pacify shareholders and increase their corporate bottom line. Their intent has nothing to do with social justice. Something just about anyone can determine having advanced to the front of any grocery store checkout line.

 

[Katleya]

In addition to that, I wonder if, on the part of the media, there isn't some kind of conscience clearing at play, too: "Oh, we're condemning this now, so we're good people". No way they are just finding out about it now, but the louder the media scream, the less they think they will be suspected of having facilitated it. And if it can bump sales along the way, even better.
Back when the president of the International Monetary Fund was caught in a sexual assault scandal, most of the press went "Everybody knew about it". Well, why did everybody shut up, then? And then they just proceeded to tearing the guy apart, but the court of public opinion never once examined their part in what had been taking place. They're just joining the ranks of righteousness at the last minute, before sh*t REALLY hits the fan.

Now, that Weinstein could do what he did is horrible. I just wish the media wasn't being so sensationalist about it, it shouldn't be a form of entertainment, or the latest drama to follow.

 

[Judge]

In addition to that, I wonder if, on the part of the media, there isn't some kind of conscience clearing at play, too: "Oh, we're condemning this now, so we're good people".

Ironically one might ponder the same for all those big name stars who recently came out to claim they had no idea this was happening. Especially those on previously good terms with Weinstein himself who probably always have known what was going on along with everyone else who never dared to utter a word about it.

Damage control probably recommended by their agents and attorneys.

 

[Judge]

I just wish the media wasn't being so sensationalist about it, it shouldn't be a form of entertainment, or the latest drama to follow.

Broadcast journalism became an oxymoron with the advent of cable news networks.

It wasn't always like this. I know, I grew up in a time when the news really was news and not merely another form of entertainment or a means of retaining a target audience by telling viewers only what they wanted to hear.

And of course with the Internet now one doesn't even require credentials to spew bile, whether factual or not. I always wonder what author George Orwell would have thought of the public oppressed by the private sector?

Not quite Ingsoc, but definitely in the family of "doublespeak". But I digress bigtime. My bad.

 

[wight]

corporate executive had immense power over virtually everyone crossing his path on a daily basis

This is exactly the answer to "who is Harvey Weinstein" and why it is such a big deal. However diluted and deluded the founding ideals of our country have become, there remains a visceral reaction of abhorrence to this sort of abuse of power.

 

[Katleya]

Broadcast journalism became an oxymoron with the advent of cable news networks.

It wasn't always like this. I know, I grew up in a time when the news really was news and not merely another form of entertainment or a means of retaining a target audience by telling viewers only what they wanted to hear.

And of course with the Internet now one doesn't even require credentials to spew bile, whether factual or not. I always wonder what author George Orwell would have thought of all this?

Not quite Ingsoc, but definitely in the family of doublespeak. But I digress.

Well, although I'm younger than you, I do remember the pre-CNN (and other cable networks) era. I remember when regular shows would be interrupted by a special broadcast when a major event took place. Now, it's just a continuous flow of information... but there aren't more major events now than there were before, so fillers are needed to keep the stream of news flowing. Don't want to lose that revenue!

As for Orwell, I think even in his wildest dreams (nightmares?) he wouldn't have expected so many people to consent to subjecting themselves to that type of exposure and surveillance.
I think a lot about the Scarlet Letter, too, when I think of social media. I feel we're in some kind of Orwell-meets-Hawthorne-Twilight-Zone reality. People are so prompt to judge and cast stones before they even get to know the facts, and then all hell breaks loose. Between that, the culture of entitlement, and basically everyone having a platform, I don't see how things can ever get better. And we'll have social media storm after social media storm; sometimes the outrage is justified, but most times, it's things getting out of hands too fast.

 

[Judge]

Hopefully, the 'casting couch' method of actors and actresses getting jobs through nepotism is on it's way out.

The casting couch itself? That's a mighty tall order. Much like the purpose for laws regarding prostitution. As long as sexual desire can be compounded by power, expect there to be some weak-willed person in powerful positions to give into their darkest desires. And to recognize that while some may give into their sexual desires, that a raw abuse of power for others may also be their most preferred aphrodisiac.

Another irony I see isn't even a crime. The rampant typecasting that occurs in Hollywood on a daily basis. Often keeping many talented actors creatively confined to one small area of entertainment given a whim or prejudice of the hierarchy. Or worse, those who default to a mentality of "It's always been done that way!".

 

[puzzlingbill]

He's a Hollywood sleaze, one of many. The other angle to this is that the right-wing press needs someone on the left to attack so they can pretend that what's going on in Washington is no big deal.

 

[Mia]

As long as sexual desire can be compounded by power, expect there to be some weak-willed person in powerful positions to give into their darkest desires. And to recognize that while some may give into their sexual desires, that a raw abuse of power for others may also be their most preferred aphrodisiac.

I don't understand that mindset, but have been privy to it with bosses. They were never able to 'use' it as a means of subjugation, because I wouldn't permit it, back in the day, fighting back was an option that didn't exist. Quit several jobs, for those kinds of reasons. Perhaps, the times are changing a little.

 

[Judge]

Perhaps, the times are changing a little.

I suppose that may well depend upon the offender in question. Even in the event they are prosecuted, such people are usually only repentant after they are caught.

I just don't believe law itself can necessarily serve as a realistic deterrent regarding various sex crimes when such behavior may be pathological. Those persons who appear to be "prisoners" of their own libido, no matter what laws or legal precedents may exist now- or in the future.

 

[Flinty]

The thing that bothers me is the apparent sexual harassment clause in his contract. Why would you have such a clause put into your contract unless you were planning to need it? Or is this standard boilerplate in executive contracts?

And, as always, the higher-paid lawyer wins. (See: Simpson, Orenthal; Covfefe, Wile E.; probably Turner, Brock, etc. etc.)

 

[Judge]

The thing that bothers me is the apparent sexual harassment clause in his contract. Why would you have such a clause put into your contract unless you were planning to need it? Or is this standard boilerplate in executive contracts?

And, as always, the higher-paid lawyer wins. (See: Simpson, Orenthal; Covfefe, Wile E.; probably Turner, Brock, etc. etc.)

I'd think most any contract at that level of executive power is manuscripted between the attorneys representing the employee and the employer. While it may look ugly, the reality is that it amounts to just another legal manifestation of a "hold harmless agreement". And to accept such a clause amounts to "the cost of doing business" behind closed doors. Quite the opposite of any routine "boilerplate" contract. Ultimately such negotiations are far more about money than propriety.

That if someone's services are considered worth it, that they'll be willing to accept such terms. Especially if it involves a routine atmosphere of frequently publicized accusations and threats of litigation reflecting more often than not nuisance claims to "nickel and dime" insurers who cover their personal liability. Some of such accusations stick, while others are quickly determined to be bogus and dismissed. Though it's also the sort of thing that you never want to keep a secret from shareholders. If they find out only after the fact, there may be other heads to roll down that Hollywood red carpet besides Harvey Weinstein.

However none of these civil law considerations may matter if Weinstein is prosecuted on criminal charges. Good point though, Flinty. Expect a guy like Weinstein to have the best of legal representation in court. Though he may find himself short on character witnesses.

 

[OkRad]

Worthless piece of sht. Probably never even heard of Aristotle, someone who might save his degraded, demented brain from totally blowing up, but he is probably too stupid and arrogant to give him a look. Besides, Aristotle can't watch him shower, so this Sleeze would never even give him a chance.