To hav3 had enough of Harvey Weinstein on the radio

Oh well said SueDonim

So many men and indeed boys do not understand what consensual means Iam, so I am really not surprised that he believes that having made people say yes this is consensual.

Listening to the radio in the car this afternoon Women's Hour was talking about the need to instruct boy's and young men rather than the automatic need to blame girls. There was one boy in some classes that were held who's girlfriend would not perform the sex act he asked her to - she said no. He then threatened to send naked photos of her that she had shared with him to all their friends and he believed that her then performing the act was consensual. He did not understand that the absence of the word "no" does not constitute sexual consent.

I can see that, if he is that sort of man, HW could well have persuaded himself that this was consensual sex when legally it was not. However, we will not know unless and until he is brought to trial.

Maybe Monica Lewinsky is part of the reason why women haven't spoken out before now. She was vilified and shamed from here to Christmas and back and is still subject to cyber bullying 20+ years on.

In fact, I'm not sure ML did speak out anyway. Wasn't she 'outed' by another person, Linda Tripp?

None of what you are saying makes sense trisher. Of course, if someone can speak out they should be supported in doing so but you have no idea of how distressed they may have been or how violated they felt.

You do not know if they more frightened of people like you and fear that most rape victims who try to report their assaults are called liars or even worse are treated to the sort of comments you make. Who are you to tell them they have to be able to cope with that? What is important that the receive the right advice and support - and no rape support group would say what you are saying.

I have actually never heard such thoughtlessness and lack of understanding on this subject. Your thinking lacks any reflection. You are attacking those who couldn't speak out but are the very reason why people don't with your nasty innuendo about those who did. Is there any one in this position who you are not prepared to disparage, belittle and diminish.

I doubt the polarised views here will be resolved.

Firstly, the woman who claimed to have been raped but 'went on to have an affair with her alleged rapist' wasn't the first and won't be the last, unfortunately. Stockholm syndrome anyone>

The feminists who campaigned for funding and set up women's refugees and support services for women who were sexually abused as children or in adult life would never have taken a judgemental view of women who didn't feel empowered enough to speak out. I'm shocked that any one could take such a judgemental, critical approach to the large number of complainants. Yes, they're allegations, the only ones he seems to dispute are the allegations of rape. He says the sexual encounters were consensual - absolutely not what any of his accusers say.
To suggest we should wait for a trial because some posters "doubt" that all the women are telling the truth is to take the side of a man who acknowledges he needs treatment, who talks about 'sex addiction' - what price the sisterhood now.

I fully agree Trisha and I doubt they are all speaking the truth, some are but not all . I have said in an earlier post, one woman has claimed raped but went on to have an affair with her alleged rapist

In 1995 over 20 years ago and around about the time the Weinsteins were becoming powerful a woman called Monica Lewinsky spoke out against the most powerful man in the USA. These women could have done the same. In the 1980s when some of this is alleged to have taken place the Weinsteins were only just making films- no strength, no reputation, no big business.
If they were so traumatised does the $100,000 make them less so?
It astonishes me that this trial by media on the basis of testimony that hasn't been questioned, that is historic and that arguably has been given by women who seek financial gain is regarded as a basis for condemning me because I said women should be empowered and speak out. If women do not learn to speak out, if we accept that women who are treated badly by men must just accept it and not speak out then abuse will continue. And if these women were so traumatised isn't astonishing that they choose to speak to the press.

What nasty, judgemental remarks you come out with trisher. There is no way that someone dealing with people who they believe may have been subjected to sexual coercion or rape would put the sort of pressure on that you suggest "the sisterhood" would; it would be totally counterproductive. The fact that you even think anyone who has any knowledge or insight into these cases would agree to put pressure on people in this situation shows just how little you understand or can empathise.

Of course speaking out as early as possible helps not only other possible victims but also the case the current victim has but I imagine there are people watching the unfolding of this who have kept quiet for decades - because comment like yours and the way they know they will be seen make it impossible to do otherwise.

Survivors who speak out about their assault are often punished for doing so when they are subjected to negative reactions such as yours. These negative comments serve only to silence the women involved so all you are doing is continuing the probability that the next person will not speak out.

Negative reaction by professionals stops people after the first disclosure - probably why some of the women took the money as that was the only justice they could see themselves getting. Negative reaction from people who comment reinforces the often already present self-blame. Negative comments such as yours will only add to the burden of people (not just the ones currently in the news) who have been abused or raped.

Well the fact that you don't understand what the sisterhood has to do with it says a lot about you and your knowledge of the women's movement. They have always advocated speaking out immediately about any abuse or coercion because failing to do so means that other women may be subjected to the same treatment. Obviously the women involved put their own careers above the protection of other women. So not supportive.
Taking money to keep quiet is another thing. If it. happened if you care about other women you speak out you don't settle for a cash pay out.
As for women not being honest, there are no posts on here questioning what might have happened, the assumption seems to be that they have said he did it so he must have done it..
It's fine to be sympathetic and understanding Iam64 but a little balance and a belief that someone is innocent until proved guilty might be good as well.
I don't know what happened. I don't know what negotiations went on and what was given or taken for any contact, unwelcome or not. Neither does anyone else.
There is undoubtedly a sexist element in the industry
As for Emma Thompson- her last remark says it all - "Does it count if you do it to one woman once - I think it does." If women had reported these instances immediately then it might have stopped. This isn't victim blaming simply asking women to use the system which is there now. It wasn't in the past.
How can we ask children to speak out if adult women don't or won't?

few - should have read "few of these"

Hello GracesGran, we seem to be supporting each others point of view on this thread - which isn't always the case is it.
I'm bewildered by the notion that those of us who express understanding, empathy as well as recognising the clear pattern described by so many women as that of a serial abuser, are somehow letting down the sisterhood, or suggesting no women ever lie, or are suggesting that all men are predators.
I hope most of us have seen the interview with Emma Thompson- go Emma.

I also hate this assumption that women always tell the truth and men must be predators.

Please give me a link to the post or posts that have said this. I do not remember reading any. I do remember reading fanciful attacks on women's behaviour but few actually pointing out the law breaking that may have gone on in this case - possibly for 30 years. It will take an in depth investigation and, if it is seen to be appropriate a trial - we know that - but the very act of justifying this man's possible behaviour by demeaning women will just encourage the culture that allows it to continue. Where's the sisterhood in that?

Why if it happened and if it was widely known about would a woman settle for payment Eleothen? Doesn't say much for the sisterhood does it?

I don't understand what the sisterhood has to do with men's sense of entitlement and lack of knowledge of what consensual sex actually means. Or of their lack of understanding that it is they who should not break the law or the rules of the workplace.

I'm saying that a too simplistic approach has been taken to this by many posters, that there may be some truth in some allegations, but not necessarily in all. I also hate this assumption that women always tell the truth and men must be predators. There is undoubtedly some truth, but the fact remains that many women did not report anything at the time and remained quiet until money began to change hands. I don't think anybody comes out of this shiny bright and smelling of roses. And I hate this trial by media. He may be a sexual predator but he shouldn't be condemned without a proper trial.

Quite possible there are several movie makers having panic attacks

trisher, are you suggesting that the allegations against HW have no basis in truth?

Why if it happened and if it was widely known about would a woman settle for payment Eleothen? Doesn't say much for the sisterhood does it ?
Mud sticks of course and paying was a way of stopping the inevitable consequences of publicity and the huge financial losses that might be involved.
Just saying there are always two ways to look at things.

One woman claimed she was raped but did go on to have an affair with him !

Agreed Eleothan - however the media are focussed on him and his fall from grace rather than any of the wider issues. But when Trump is doing his best to fall out with Iran and withdrawing support for birth control for poor women, Iraq is about to start a war with the Kurds and it feels like May et all have us all in the back of a lorry hurtling towards a cliff edge with the accelerator pressed firmly to the floor, while they squabble on the front seat...

There is no proof as to the nature and extent of his allegedly lewd, intimidating and aggressive behaviour but the fact that he has apologised and said "everyone makes mistakes" does suggest that there are grounds for at least some of the complaints. And why settle (several) cases out of Court if you are not responsible for any of the behaviour cited?

He is a rich and powerful man with many powerful contacts. It is necessary to have concrete evidence to make a complaint to the police (tbe burden of proof is far higher in a criminal than a civil case). I would imagine most newspapers would steer well clear of such allegations for fear of a libel case being brought against them. I believe Ashley Judd was the first woman to make these claims, and it was a big risk. If no other women had then come forward to make similar claims, she could also have left herself open to civil proceedings for slander and would probably never have worked in the industry again.

It is not just about women being treated badly. It is about powerful people using that power to exploit and intimidate people who do not have the same resources to defend themselves.

Just heard on the BBC news, Goldman Sachs are going to have to reconsider if they can continue investing in Harvey Weinstein's companies. Obviously such a bastion of the high moral ground cannot tarnish their image by association with any dodgy ventures.

Anya, how were the women who say they were assaulted to know that other women had had the same thing happen to them? It's not the sort of thing you go shouting from the rooftops 'Hey, guess what, my boss assaulted me today!' Some women might feel able to do so, many others would fear being blamed, as shown by this thread.

If you read the BBC article, it shows quite clearly how many people suspected HW of misdeeds but were unable to act on those suspicions.

For me, the whole thing isn't a matter of who is a victim and who isn't, it's that someone has allegedly been able to do evil things with impunity.

Agree with OP. It is NOT the most important thing in the news and should not have top billing. I'd never even heard of him. The media always get swept away with the excitement of a story that is about the media.

OFFS we haven't said anything of the kind and he is the accused not necessarily the perpetrator unless the system of innocent until proved guilty has been replaced with trial by media.
We have said there is more going on than many of you seem to realise or even consider.

Alleged perpetrator