Alec Baldwin has a point

[Ryika]

"Disgusting", evil", unconscionable", "cruel", "grotesque"... damn, you didn't just shame him, you morally crucified him!

 

[Berzerker]

This is a disgusting thing to say. But since you tried to make this personal, let's dredge it up. Pay attention. My wife is a survivor of several attacks in the past, and for various health, well-being and other circumstantial reasons did not and could not pursue things on any of those cases, including the one where she wad hospitalised.

If she had pursued any of the cases, a successful charge or prosecution would have been very unlikely - her cases were mostly the sort that are hard to pursue, the sort that internet misogynists deny are even real due to a sense of prior consent or the involvement of alcohol. And the bureaucratic and public ordeal would have beem extremely damaging to her already fragile well-being at the time, exacerbating her suffering.

For her to even achieve the vindication of a civil settlement would have been a huge victory. For me to think less of her for how she reacted to being attacked would be unconscionable and cruel. To describe her silence as "helping" the men who attacked is to blame her for being a victim.

To describe her silence as "helping" the men who attacked is very much to blame her for being a victim and to compound the suffering of innocent people.

Did these men attack others? Almost certainly. Many or even most rapists do. You reckon survivors feel good and okay about that? But very few rapists ever face justice, and that's a FAR BIGGER issue than a few civil suits with confidentiality clauses. Pinning "rapists continuing to rape" on the silence of victims misses the issue entirely. People who are subsequently attacked after a rapist has paid a civil settlement are a tiny proption of victims. And it ain't the responsibility of rape survivors to clean up the world.

Focusing on victims who took what recompense they could get in a system stacked against them, when our entire culture, legal system and numerous social norms and mores work to protect rapists with a conspiracy of silence and gaslighting, is either extremely stupid or outright evil.

Focus instead on the friends and acquaintances of raspists all over the world who ignore, excuse or diminish the red flag behaviours of those close to them. Focus on an adversarial legal system that makes victims publicly relive their suffering. Focus on poorly trained or insensitive or outright hostile law enforcement. Focus on a media culture which also often puts victims on trial while framing rape in the passive voice as just a thing that happens. There are plenty of other targets before you go after small numbers of victims who felt compelled to take the only vindication and support they were ever likely to get.

Honestly, how dare you assume to know the lives and circumstances of victims of rape and sexual assault better than they do. Step back, shut up, stop talking crap. Stay. In. Your. Lane. This is grotesque.

Sorry to mods if this is too flamey or whatever. I hope you'll understand.

Did she take hush money?

You reckon survivors feel good and okay about that?

No, I dont... Thats the point I was making. So you reckon her attackers went on to attack others? Yeah, I wouldn't feel good about that either. If she's feeling guilt, I'm not surprised - I sure would... How would you feel if her attackers got away with previous crimes because their victims took hush money and your wife paid the price? How would you feel if she became a victim because everyone else kept quiet? Isn't that the basis of criticism leveled at "Hollywood"?

 

[Arwon]

Yeah, we're done here. You're just going to keep saying "hush money" like it's an argument and you simply don't understand that rape and sexual assault are an everywhere problem, not a "hollywood" problem. You almost certainly know rapists and survivors in your personal life. Start there, not by blaming other victims for surviving how they best can.

And you think survivors do blame, or should blame, other survivors rather than their goddamn predatory attackers. There's nothing further useful to be gained here but I hope you'll eventually reflect successfully on how offensive and wrong this is. Bye.

 

[Berzerker]

Yeah, we're done here. You're just going to keep saying "hush money" like it's an argument and you simply don't understand that rape and sexual assault are an everywhere problem, not a "hollywood" problem. You almost certainly know rapists and survivors in your personal life. Start there, not by blaming other victims for surviving how they best can.

And you think survivors do blame, or should blame, other survivors rather than their goddamn predatory attackers. There's nothing further useful to be gained here but I hope you'll eventually reflect successfully on how offensive and wrong this is. Bye.

Hush money is at the heart of this scandal, a serial rapist was able to buy off his victims and continue raping women. Is that offensive and wrong? If my loved one was raped or murdered by a criminal who kept avoiding justice because the victims took his money instead of reporting the crimes, how should I feel? If your wife was the 20th victim of a serial rapist, wouldn't you want to know how he kept getting away with it? If you found out the other victims took his money to keep quiet, would you endorse their self interest? Reflect on that...

 

[Ryika]

Hush money is at the heart of this scandal, a serial rapist was able to buy off his victims and continue raping women. Is that offensive and wrong? If my loved one was raped or murdered by a criminal who kept avoiding justice because the victims took his money instead of reporting the crimes, how should I feel? If your wife was the 20th victim of a serial rapist, wouldn't you want to know how he kept getting away with it? If you found out the other victims took his money to keep quiet, would you endorse their self interest? Reflect on that...

I think the way you look at this is very far off reality. You're phrasing this as if the women had taken the money and then were like "Nice, that went pretty well for me. Being sexually assaulted really paid out." or something, but in reality... even if they had refused the money, they would probably not have been in a situation where they would have felt "safe" to speak out against their attacker. Because while it is true that them staying silent enabled the perpetrator to continue doing what he did, the money they took is not the important factor, it's the danger involved with speaking out. Because if it's not something that is publicly know, how do you speak out against the person? How do you know that other victims, if they even exist, will come forward instead of the attacker just shutting you down from the position of power, ruining your life and your reputation? That may not be a realistic turn of events, but when your future depends on how the thing turns out, then you put a lot of emphasis on the worst-case scenario that could potentially happen.

In the end, there are so many factors involved. The people Arwon mentioned, but also false accusers for example. Overall, while we should acknowledge that victims who do not come forward are part of the problem, I don't see how focusing on them is going to change anything. They are after all at the very end of the causality chain, there are tons of other factors that prevent them from coming forward, it's generally not the money they get for staying silent.

 

[Berzerker]

Because while it is true that them staying silent enabled the perpetrator to continue doing what he did, the money they took is not the important factor, it's the danger involved with speaking out.

Thats a painful truth... How about the danger to others? Would you take a murderer's bribe to keep quiet? Rape victims (or any other victim of a crime) who pursue justice deserve our gratitude, the ones who take money to remain silent dont.

Because if it's not something that is publicly know, how do you speak out against the person?

Rape victims do that every day

while we should acknowledge that victims who do not come forward are part of the problem

Shhh... You're victim blaming

I don't see how focusing on them is going to change anything. They are after all at the very end of the causality chain, there are tons of other factors that prevent them from coming forward, it's generally not the money they get for staying silent.

Nothing will change if every victim of a crime puts self interest above justice... Actually it'll get far worse.

you simply don't understand that rape and sexual assault are an everywhere problem, not a "hollywood" problem.

And there I was thinking rape only happens in Hollywood

You almost certainly know rapists and survivors in your personal life. Start there, not by blaming other victims for surviving how they best can.

If I knew a rapist I wouldn't take their money to keep quiet, would you?

And you think survivors do blame, or should blame, other survivors rather than their goddamn predatory attackers.

I want these rapists in jail and you think I'm arguing they're blameless? Your self righteous indignation is based on one straw man after the next. If you took a criminal's bribe to keep quiet, would you be so full of yourself when his victims asked you to explain why? You'd do well to stay out of their face with your self interest.

 

[Ryika]

Thats a painful truth... How about the danger to others? Would you take a murderer's bribe to keep quiet? Rape victims (or any other victim of a crime) who pursue justice deserve our gratitude, the ones who take money to remain silent dont.

And nobody asked you to be grateful. It's your continuous generalization of those who chose to remain silent as people who "took bribe money" that is just completely out of place. Implying that the money is the reason they chose to remain silent when in reality there is a multitude of reasons, many on the societal level, that heavily discourages them from coming forward, as the risks involved are very high.

I mean, that's not hard to understand, right? If you witness a murder and then the murderer contacts you, gives you some money and a list of the addresses of all your friends and family members, notifies you that he has contacts with the police and friends who will make sure that your friends and family members are killed off should you not remain silent, then surely, you understand that the reason people would take the money is the intimidation, yes? In the case of Weinstein, the threats are only implied, but surely you must understand that the intimidation still works because of the inherent power imbalance, mighty Hollywood guy vs. more often than not Hollywood newcomer.

Nothing will change if every victim of a crime puts self interest above justice... Actually it'll get far worse.

Yeah, but again... the victims are at the end of the chain of problems, and they're the least responsible for the situation they're put into. You're asking those who have already been victimized to now also become martyrs to solve the societal problems that they are not responsible for, and that non-victims have the luxury of turning a blind eye towards. It would be nice if they did of course, but to expect that from them when instead you could be arguing for society as a whole to change their attitudes towards such things, and make it easier for future victims to come forward is pretty weak.

 

[Arwon]

If your wife was the 20th victim of a serial rapist, wouldn't you want to know how he kept getting away with it?

Well no, because it isn't a damn mystery. Do you even understand that nearly all rapists "keep getting away with it"? Do you think Weinstein is a rare exception, enabled only by civil settlements with confidentiality clauses?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Focus on a media culture which also often puts victims on trial while framing rape in the passive voice as just a thing that happens.

Just have to say that this doesn't describe any media coverage of any rape or sexual assault case that I've ever seen in my entire life. I really don't understand where this perception comes from.

 

[Arwon]

Taken entirely from Jane Gilmore who provides the alternative corrections.

This happens with reporting of domestic violence as well as sexual crimes. All of these headlines about assault or rape or domestic violence either do one of two things: 1. They elide the attacker by presenting the attacks in a passive voice, as though they're acts of God or nature or 2. they centre aspects of the victim or their behaviour, which has the effect of suggesting those things as contributing or causative factors.

 

[Ryika]

Hand-picked tabloid headlines aren't exactly a convincing source. You could do that with any topic, hell, you could concentrate on CNN alone and would probably be able to make a convincing-looking case that the general attitude of society is that Islamic Terrorism is something that just happens randomly as a passive force of nature.

 

[timtofly]

Hush money is at the heart of this scandal, a serial rapist was able to buy off his victims and continue raping women. Is that offensive and wrong? If my loved one was raped or murdered by a criminal who kept avoiding justice because the victims took his money instead of reporting the crimes, how should I feel? If your wife was the 20th victim of a serial rapist, wouldn't you want to know how he kept getting away with it? If you found out the other victims took his money to keep quiet, would you endorse their self interest? Reflect on that...

If the settlement as you view it, was just to get any one not to talk, I think your are still wrong on several accounts. The first being making the settlement about "keeping silent" is putting the burden on the victim. Secondly you are blaming the victim for being silent when it counted, and it did not seem to be completely true. Her voice was just not loud enough, until she criticized Baldwin, and he "shot back". The 3rd point which is being ignored is the settlement was not just about the money, but more importantly, for the point of discussion, that no criminal charge would be forthcoming. This is where the tyrant wins, because the victim can be as loud as possible, but has no power to change the ongoing situation. The legal system, has in the short term failed the victim. And many victims to come. And in the long term though, it does set a president of behavior that unfortunately takes time to work out, before the guilty party is eventually held accountable.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Not just career pressures, but a culture, perhaps worse in Hollywood than elsewhere, that actively avoids holding anyone accountable for that type of behavior.

When you look at what happens to people who speak out, and what doesn't happen to people in power when someone speaks out against them, it's logical for one to conclude that there is no point in speaking out. At least taking some money from Weinstein somehow provides a small deterrent, maybe, in the minds of the victims.

The expectation for speaking out falls on people who can reasonably assume that their speaking out will actually help to stop the predatory behavior. Non-victims like the board members of his company, other power players in Hollywood who knew what was happening but didn't do anything. People for whom there isn't a power imbalance working against them. Those are the ones who need to speak out, and need to be held accountable for not doing so.

Yes, specifically, I'm actually mad at Seth McFarlane for not speaking out. He said he didn't because he was asked to by one of the victims. That's fine and dandy but he knew enough to have been able to say something without giving away the identity of a victim. He was clearly able to make cutting jokes about it without fear of consequences and without giving a victim away.

Where my thought process on people reporting crimes break down is that if fifty people get robbed and they speak out, there is no real backlash against them. Clearly sexual assault victims do not have that same luxury. But all of the rich and powerful people who knew it was going on and stayed silent I feel don't get a pass.

In any case I hope that this flood of allegations lead to a sea change in how our society deals with sexual assault so this scenario cannot repeat.

 

[metalhead]

I blame people for taking hush money

Nobody took hush money, this is just a blatant mischaracterization.

The balance of power shifted because victims spoke out...Had they spoken out years ago the balance would have shifted years ago. Listen to yourself, the realistic chance of stopping the behavior accompanied speaking out, but speaking out only worked now? Why wouldn't it have worked before?

Because the women speaking out now are powerful in their own right, owing to their fame and success. Are you really too dense to understand how an actress just starting out is going to have a much different impact from speaking out, than Rose McGowan and Ashley Judd?

You just create your own reality and totally ignore what people say in response to you, and it's really getting old. Instead of acknowledging this point and responding to it, you just quote it and repeat your garbage opinion again.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

The two women you named have hardly just acquired fame and success. Both their peaks were probably 15 or 20 years ago.

 

[metalhead]

The two women you named have hardly just acquired fame and success. Both their peaks were probably 15 or 20 years ago.

Right, which also means they don't have long careers ahead of them that can be threatened by speaking out. Part of Weinstein's power was that he could end careers at will. So if one is asking why they chose to speak out now, and not before, that's certainly a factor.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Hold on. You just said their fame and success gave them power in their own right. Now you're saying they still have no power, they just don't have much to lose anymore. Which is it?

Also you seem to be implying that implicitly protecting a sexual predator in order to safeguard your ability to accrue even more fame and wealth, when you're already famous and wealthy, is somehow not something to be judged negatively over?

 

[Ryika]

Right, which also means they don't have long careers ahead of them that can be threatened by speaking out. Part of Weinstein's power was that he could end careers at will. So if one is asking why they chose to speak out now, and not before, that's certainly a factor.

Such nonsense.

The actual answer is of course that the women didn't just decide to be strong now and come forward to make public statements and hope that others would join in. Instead, the press went to them, did their job and gathered the information, and spoke with the victims to perform an attack in which they offered a dozen-or-so accounts at the same time, and thus completely avoided the risk that a person speaking out on their own might perceive.

Why now? Because sexual assault by people in powerful positions are a current topic, thanks to the controversies surrounding Cosby, O'Reilly and maybe also Trump. That's what started the whole thing, and without the press doing their job, we would probably not have people coming forward at all.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Why now? Because sexual assault by people in powerful positions are a current topic, thanks to the controversies surrounding Cosby, O'Reilly and maybe also Trump. That's what started the whole thing, and without the press doing their job, we would probably not have people coming forward at all.

It was recently suggested to me that the Trump election, particularly the outrage over the perception that he got away with the Billy Bush tape and all the allegations that followed, by getting elected anyway, is what is the largest driving factor behind the "Why now?" that you raised.

I think I buy that narrative.

 

[metalhead]

Hold on. You just said their fame and success gave them power in their own right. Now you're saying they still have no power, they just don't have much to lose anymore. Which is it?

Also you seem to be implying that implicitly protecting a sexual predator in order to safeguard your ability to accrue even more fame and wealth, when you're already famous and wealthy, is somehow not something to be judged negatively over?

One can have fame and power and still have a power imbalance with regards to other people.

I don't know why it is so hard for people to understand this. Speaking out even at the height of their careers would not have stopped this. Therefore there is no implying anything. They had no duty to speak out because it would have done nothing other than make their own lives much, much worse.

When you are powerless to stop something, it is not your fault for not stopping it, and you should not be judged negatively for not stopping it.

The actual answer is of course that the women didn't just decide to be strong now and come forward to make public statements and hope that others would join in. Instead, the press went to them, did their job and gathered the information, and spoke with the victims to perform an attack in which they offered a dozen-or-so accounts at the same time, and thus completely avoided the risk that a person speaking out on their own might perceive.

What a weird response, I never said they just up and decided to come out on their own and hoped others would join in.

Do you honestly believe, given the rumors stretching back decades, that this is the first time a reporter ever tried to get women on the record regarding Harvey Weinstein's behavior? There can be more than one reason why they decided to put their names out there now when before they wouldn't say anything. It's not like these women knew what the reaction was going to be when the story broke.