To hav3 had enough of Harvey Weinstein on the radio

It isn't "sneering" to say it suited their career aspirations, it is facing facts. One of the reasons this culture thrives is because women are vying with other women to be the star of the moment and men have used this to their advantage.

I have to agree trisher.

We have all heard of the 'casting couch'. It's horrible to imagine a woman has to be willing to cosy up to film makers/directors in order to get a break but it's been the way in Hollywood for years. It doesn't make it right but in the past women have undoubtedly used their feminine wiles to progress with rich and powerful men. It happens in many scenarios. I scorn those men and I scorn those women but it has been commonplace and one imagines consensual. Sad but true.

As for speaking out after abuse, (sexual or other forms of abuse) I think that is often easier aid than done. As a strong woman I found it incredibly hard to admit to others the abuses that happened to me. I had to protect my career, my reputation, my family and my name. Mud sticks, people remember and yes, I am from a generation brought up not to 'air my dirty laundry in public'.

The other side of the coin is that with the advent of social media some people welcome publicity. It's easy to make false allegations, seek revenge and ruin someone's life. Haven't most of us thought as yet more and more people come forward with allegations against HW that there might be a bit of band-wagon jumping going on, for all sorts of reasons?

Every single claim might be a genuine one. Who knows? But there has to remain some doubt and every case has to be investigated because that is only right and fair.

The water is extremely murky.

Correct trisher these women should have felt able to speak out. There were obviously reasons why they didn’t at the time and now reasons why they now feel differently and possibly empowered to take that step.

you seem to be saying that they couldn't and that they must be understood because they couldn't and that they shouldn't be questioned.

So where is the truth in your reflection of what I have said trisher?

I have said that some people can, some people can't but may be able to with support and some people will never be in a position to speak out. I haven't even mentioned being questioned nor have I said that "these women" couldn't speak out. It will be personal to each woman.

I am certainly not "painting a picture of women as perpetual and inevitable victims". If they feel they were victims that belongs to them and they need help to overcome it - some may never be able to do so and I am certainly not going to blame them for that.

I cannot re-abuse them. What you suggest, which seems to be taking away their choice about how they deal with their own trauma, would indeed be infantilising them. I favour support to allow them to do what they can and what they choose to do. You seem to be putting forward a parental role of telling them what they MUST do.

I think what we can all agree on trisher and Im64 is that it is now much more likely that women (and others) will be encouraged to speak out now and feel empowered to do so.

Not all Anya; you are not speaking for me. Your comment is too superficial for that.

Some will feel more empowered but the comments AGAINST the women who have spoken out that have been made on here, and the way they have been painted, is a drop in the ocean. The press and other social media has gone much further and some who are abused from here on in will now feel they cannot speak out because of the comments that have been made which deliberately paint the abused as at least partly in the wrong.

You would have thought, when we realised that very young women could not consent to prostitution in the recent cases over here, that we would also realise that women are not to blame for their own abuse generally - not continue finding ways in which we could transfer some of the blame to them.

But I am saying these women should have been able to speak out GGMK2 you seem to be saying that they couldn't and that they must be understood because they couldn't and that they shouldn't be questioned. In other words you are painting a picture of women as perpetual and inevitable victims. It isn't re-abusing them to question their motives. It is looking at a whole culture and asking what can be done. We begin by empowering women not by infantilising them.

So if we accept that women are not going to speak out for whatever reason what is the future to hold?

I would have thought the best thing to do to deal with this would be to make it more possible for them to speak out. I cannot believe this is done by throwing some of the comments you (and others) have made at those who do manage to speak out placing the blame on the shoulders of exploited and sexually harassed as you appear to be doing Trisher.

We can educate young men and boys but it will take a long time and in the meantime the whole culture of abuse will continue.

There is a Chinese proverb that says "The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now" In other words, just because you did not do something when you should have done it that should not stop you doing it now. I think this also has to be a two pronged attack on the current culture which explains that the idea of transactional sex does not make it legal nor does the idea of coercive sex.

Man, and the vast majority of people who are breaking the law are men, must be shown that this is what they are doing and women need it reinforcing that this is not acceptable to the wider society. It is certainly not helpful to re-abuse women because they cannot stand up in the full glare of the media and the wicked things that said to them.

There is no quick fix but making that an excuse for not beginning is not going to get us anywhere.

It isn't "sneering" to say it suited their career aspirations, it is facing facts. One of the reasons this culture thrives is because women are vying with other women to be the star of the moment and men have used this to their advantage.

I think what we can all agree on trisher and Im64 is that it is now much more likely that women (and others) will be encouraged to speak out now and feel empowered to do so.

I suspect between the differences here, we all agree that the behaviour alleged by the now over 30 women is totally unacceptable.
The issue for me is a culture in which many men behaved like HW and when women complained, they were told "oh it's just Harvey". That culture dominated La La Land, I don't feel I can sneer at those women on the basis as some say, that it suited their career aspirations to keep quiet. It's not so simple is it - these women wanted to work in the film industry. The message they learned very early was that sexual harassment and even assault was widespread.

Rape trials are at a much lower level than rape allegations. Guilty findings at rape trials are low as well. I do not believe its because rape is rare and false allegations widespread. Any group of close friends will acknowledge incidents of sexual assault or harassment - male friends who were at boarding schools have horror stories. Do we blame those men for not speaking out now, for wanting to get on with their lives without their abuse experience defining them. Of course we don't. You simply can't put responsibility on the victim/survivor for the fact their abuser may have gone on to abuse others. The damage caused to children or adults who are told they must go to court because otherwise their alleged abuser will go on to abuse can't be measured.

Speaking out about sexual assault or harassment is not easy. False allegations happen but they're much less common than genuine allegations. No one is suggesting trial be media is a good thing. It's staggering to see so much information reported in the press and on tv/radio when police investigations are beginning. However, there seems little doubt that the allegations against HW are the tip of a very large ice berg. Will it lead to culture change in the entertainment industry, if so can we live in hope that will permeate into our ordinary lives and that our boys and girls will be safer from abuse and exploitation. We live in hope

So if we accept that women are not going to speak out for whatever reason what is the future to hold? Men who will continue to abuse and serially assault women until something happens to out them and then huge numbers reveal historic abuse? If so the future is very dark. We can educate young men and boys but it will take a long time and in the meantime the whole culture of abuse will continue. Arguably if ML hadn't spoken/been outed (and she could have denied it) Clinton would have gone on to abuse other interns and might still be doing so.

Emma Thompson talks about her mother asking if men were "pestering" them. There was no legislation then to do anything, the accepted response was to stay away from them. It is sad, and in my opinion unacceptable, that although there is legislation now, and public opinion has changed women are still unwilling to speak out and I don't accept that all were unable to do so because of trauma, many haven't done so because it suited their career aspirations to keep quiet. They may be speaking out now for the same reasons.

I do hate people who cut and paste bits of someone's post and isolate them. Frankly I can't be arsed. But there is a sustained idea in some posts that Weinstein is guilty. He may well be. But trial by media is never a good thing.

Don’t try your bullying tactics with me, it won’t work. And I’ve no intention of justifying my comments, nor do I need to. I’m not answerable to you despite you thinking you are entitled to an answer judging by your hectoring tone.

I won’t be leaving the debate, should it continue, but I will be responding only to those I consider worthy of debating with - and that includes those who disagree with me but are able to put forward their views in a rational and intelligent manner.

I actually agree many of the points points you raised Sue and Iam64, but feel there is also more to this issue than the victimisation of women and how they are allowing themselves to be portrayed.

You actually can't hear the 'tone' of my posts Anya. I have no doubt the 'tone' of anyone who disagrees with those who try to paint as transactional, the abuse and coercion of women, will always be heard differently to what the writer heard when they wrote it.

So which bit of trishers post would you like to discuss because you agree with it?

I think that proves my point

Just listen to the tone of your posts.

"The likes of me" what on earth do you mean by that? The likes of me is just another member of GN!

If you don't believe I have entered the debate I have to question if you have actually read the thread or just come on to 'like' your little friends posts. I believe this is an incredibly point in the position of women and the entitlement of men so I have gone over the points Trisher has made. Interestingly Sue and Iam have both commented positively on my posts.

Have you actually read anything?

I not respond to those who are prepared to enter into debate. There are several on here, such as Sue and Iam64 who are expressing opinion I don’t particularly agree with, but who, at least express their views without resorting to rudeness. I’d be quite happy to enter into debate with them.

No, I just can’t be bothered to discuss with the likes of you.

Or you just can't find anything actually acceptable in what she is saying? Much more likely having read the post.

Why should I try to explain to you GG? To be honest I CBA’d as it would be a waste of time.

What, exactly, that trisher said was 'well said' Anya? I am fascinated.

Well said trisher

To suggest we wait for a trial is being judgemental and taking the side of the man? Really?

If you are going to make such allegations please quote exactly where this has been said. I do not believe it has. Nor has anyone suggested -every- women is telling the truth. Perhaps reading again without the prejudice towards some posters would help.

Glad the Academy has kicked him out. But he is just one and there are bound to be others. Sad and tawdry and this will roll on and on. Sadly it has all the elements that for many make 'good' TV.

To suggest we wait for a trial is being judgemental and taking the side of the man? Really ? And deciding every woman is telling the truth is not being judgemental ? Women never ever falsely accused, the woman who was recently jailed for false allegations which caused one man to be imprisoned was telling the truth and her trial was just defence of the accused men?

I have never defended the man, but I do not believe every woman who is claiming rape is telling the truth.

For those who ask the question 'Why didn't she...?' here are the answers, in a Guardian article. In fact, it's the wrong question anyway; it needs to be 'Why did he...?'

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/14/after-weinstein-stop-asking-women-to-answer-for-sex-predators-crimes?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Thank you, GracesGranMK2. I like your arguments, too!

Here is another example of what happens when a woman speak out. This is from a BBC news report tonight.

"On Wednesday, US prosecutors defended their decision not to take action against Weinstein in 2015 after Italian model Ambra Battilana Gutierrez, then 22, alleged that he had touched her inappropriately.
A subsequent sting operation recorded the producer repeatedly attempting to coerce Battilana Gutierrez, but the Manhattan district attorney's office said the audio was "insufficient to prove a crime"."

So what exactly are women supposed to do? Damned if they do, damned if they don't.