[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Going on from your last paragraph....

That would work in the offices around the world and should be applauded.

But the more money involved and the more power that person has....how do we get round that?

Protest...together. male and female.

I don't disagree with the sentiment. But I don't see how protesting would actally work on issues such as these...this is such a widespread problem ...a problem with society in general.

I guess a shift in attitude away from the current 'lets blame the vicitm in some way' narrative when people report sexual assaults may help in some way. I mean, even friends (both male and female) who would be described as feminists in so many areas of life have come out with rubbish such as 'when women dress like that, what do they expect'...shifting the blame from the men who assaulted, onto the woman in some way. Stuff like this, widesspread as it is, prevents people coming forward. As along as the fear of not being believed, there is fear of being blamed.

But in a total across the board way to improve things, I think the author of the article in the OP has the right idea. Male voices are more heard. So whilst females will obvously do the same, males need to stand up and be counted on this issue, and not let mysoginy go unchallenged any more. (obviously speaking in a wider sense, not on an individual level as some men clearly DO currently stand up to this ****)

[Tom4784]

That article hit the nail on the head, All the actresses in the world could reveal stories about Weinstein and nothing will ever really change in the Hollywood machine until the men in power say enough is enough otherwise things like this will just happen again with someone else abusing their position.

Everyone's (rightfully) damning Weinstein but the industry that enabled him also needs to be put in the firing line because Studios and production companies releasing statements condemning Weinstein is just lip service. It's easy for them and largely inconsequential and no actions to prevent another Weinstein from abusing their positions will take place, after all Weinstein was pretty much protected by the industry due to his clout with the Academy. As long as people like Weinstein don't get caught out, the people running the show don't give a ****.

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I don't disagree with the sentiment. But I don't see how protesting would actally work on issues such as these...this is such a widespread problem ...a problem with society in general.

I guess a shift in attitude away from the current 'lets blame the vicitm in some way' narrative when people report sexual assaults may help in some way. I mean, even friends (both male and female) who would be described as feminists in so many areas of life have come out with rubbish such as 'when women dress like that, what do they expect'...shifting the blame from the men who assaulted, onto the woman in some way. Stuff like this, widesspread as it is, prevents people coming forward. As along as the fear of not being believed, there is fear of being blamed.

But in a total across the board way to improve things, I think the author of the article in the OP has the right idea. Male voices are more heard. So whilst females will obvously do the same, males need to stand up and be counted on this issue, and not let mysoginy go unchallenged any more. (obviously speaking in a wider sense, not on an individual level as some men clearly DO currently stand up to this ****)

Its went on in hollywood for ages, since it was built even...this wienstien thing may just shake it up and to its core...these music producers next....but the lawmakers..the real issue. The real abusers of power.

You have to cut of the head to feed the chickens..or suumfing.

If we cant stop powerfull people abusing children how can we stop this?.....protest...by the common family in numbers...

[parmnion]

Side note......imagine how good, or bad certain films could have been...

Thanks for the stories vicky...gotta go.

[Oliver_W]

I guess the Bystander Effect was at play to a certain extent; if a single actor (say) knows that he's one of many who knows a certain thing, he may well wonder why no-one else had spoken out, and fears for his career or even life might make him hope someone else comes forward.

Let's not forget how rich Weinstein was - not counting the fingers he had in many pies across Hollywood, he was a major donor to the Democrat party...

But as for "men having to speak out", I'd say it's more of an industry wide thing, where anyone with any power should speak out - not just about Weinstein, but about any industrial abuse they know of. Meryl Streep has said it was a shame that Roman Polanksi was jailed, and he wasn't "just" a guy who used his power to get his way with women, he was a nonce. Plus, she referred to Weinstein as God, so there's that...

Wasn't Elijah Wood blackballed for speaking out against Hollywood paedos?

And then there's the BBC, and their complicity in the Saville stuff. They've at least bucked their ideas up - I can't go into why as it relates to a job I do over the summer from time to time, but their child protection is above and beyond these days, and rightly so!

[parmnion]

Thank you oliver. I applaud you.

[Oliver_W]

There just seems to be a thing among showbiz types to cover each other's backs. In 2004 an investigative journalist called Sharon Waxman had been investigating claims against Weinstein, and the piece she wanted to publish was allegedly "spiked" by Matt Damon and Russell Crowe, and the article she worked so hard on (it involved traveling to two different countries) had to be essentially binned.

When this came to light, Jimmy Kimmel involved Matt Damon in a stunt on his show, so the news of his appearance and the viral video would bury those of Damon's alleged involvement in spiking the article.

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

There just seems to be a thing among showbiz types to cover each other's backs. In 2004 an investigative journalist called Sharon Waxman had been investigating claims against Weinstein, and the piece she wanted to publish was allegedly "spiked" by Matt Damon and Russell Crowe, and the article she worked so hard on (it involved traveling to two different countries) had to be essentially binned.

When this came to light, Jimmy Kimmel involved Matt Damon in a stunt on his show, so the news of his appearance and the viral video would bury those of Damon's alleged involvement in spiking the article.

And that is how simple it is.

Tibb needs to unite and protest.

[Brother Leon]

Problem is that whenever a Man does say anything, so often the comments are over analysed or **** from their past will just be dragged up again to make them Look Hypocritical. .

Gosling called him out and this is the response he gets from one of the victims. He probably felt he should have just stayed shut.

[Oliver_W]

Rose McGowan is a mess, let's not use her responses as a barometer.

[Toy Soldier]

It's a complicated issue and I'm going to have a proper run at a reply later but the foreword I'm afraid Vicky... Is that I sort of find this is easier more than a little sexist.

Have to get the kids off to school now but like I said, I'll go into it later.

[Toy Soldier]

OK

The Hollywood / business in general issues are entirely different to the everyday issues. The former are about power, and while it's true that it is still more often men who are in power, that's a separate issue. The fact is that all these people at or near the top, male or female, see is money - if it will affect their pockets to tackle these issues, they won't do it. If it's bad for business to let it continue, they'll nip it in the bud. That goes for ANY issue.

Regardless, it's a world completely removed from ours and there's nothing that anyone outside of that bubble can do, other than vote with our wallets, and $$$ doesn't care what we have between our legs. As has been said already... the Weinstein issue has far more to do with a toxic industry that needs gutted from the inside out than anything else.

Meanwhile in the real world, everyday casual sexism, the idea that

"men need to sort out men",
"men need to be the ones addressing this"
"men's voices are heard."

... in my opinion ... compounds the problem. It is very similar to the rhetoric of it being "up to the Muslim communities" to tackle terrorism, it's misguided, and it causes more division. If people as a group see anyone being harassed in any way in public, we should be more willing to do something about it. On an individual level - why is it assumed that a 6' tall guy is all that much more equipped to take on a physically aggressive stranger than anyone else? That thinking is, in itself, problematic. The idea that a man is not only needed to, but EXPECTED to, sort out an issue like that more than anyone else. Fact is, a lone male who is NOT an aggressive person himself taking on an aggressor, is quite likely to get himself (and probably other bystanders) hurt. If the aggressor happens to be carrying a knife, mr white knight is probably going to get seriously injured or killed even if he's twice the size. Whereas if 5 people - regardless of sex - take on an aggressor, they will probably slink off with their tail between their legs.

So this is where it becomes a paradox. You're trying to tackle the problem of "macho male culture" and "hypermasculinity" by ... promoting "macho male culture" and suggesting that every male should consider himself a "tough guy" and chivalrous protector of poor scared females. You're promoting the idea of male = more powerful, male = better heard, male = protector, male = dominant when all that does is feed right back around to the "bad end" of the spectrum, where men who are already predisposed to disrespecting or lacking empathy for people in general are being culturally drip-fed the idea that women are inferior and need men's help in "scary situations". Men can be gentle, men experience anxiety, men can be scared by scary strangers on trains.

Again, it's not that I'm saying people should be left to fend for themselves, I'm saying that if there's a perv on a train carriage then every single person there should have a major problem with it. People should not be eyeballing "the big guy in the corner" and wondering why he isn't stepping in to sort it out.

Really the only part I can agree with, is that in groups of male friends the ones who don't think "sexist banter" is acceptable should be more willing to call their friends out on it (or mock them for it - it works better - people hate nothing more than embarrassment) and let them know it's not OK, rather than keeping quiet or even joining in under peer pressure.

Other than that I consider people to be a collective of individuals and no one is more / less responsible for the actions of people who are not them than anyone else is. Again, that's not to say people "should mind their own business" and not step in, it's just to say that expectations should not differ based on physical attributes of any kind.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I felt I could not ask a man for assistance, as there is a large chance they would just laugh, or say the pervert did not mean anything by it and was just genuinely squashed (he was not), or start chatting me up and refuse to give in, or assault me himself, or it may even turn out the perv is this guys friend...and then a combo of the above could happen.

It was never a conscious decision to not ask for help just because I shouldn't HAVE to.

Just like its not really a conscious decision to avoid certain areas. More (and this will likely sound ridiculous to a bloke, or to a woman who has never had reason to be scared yet) its a kind of...constant weighing up inside your head if the risk is worth it. Like, I have a 'danger radar'...and I assume a hell of a lot of females do too. I know many of my female friends do. This came as such a surprise to my husband and I will tell you how it came about too to try explain further

We were out walking the dog, years and years back. Was an absolutely lovely night so we ended up walking further than usual...mainly along well lit areas. When we came to a clearing...kind of a forest arch leading to the woods. Gavin went to march in, not a thought in the world. Going through my head was a risk assessment. It was dark, nighttime, secluded, perfect place for a perv or someone else to just wait for unsuspecting women, it was also quiet, pretty secluded, so noone would likely hear if there were any problems. The risk was not worth it, IMO. I refused to go any further. Gavin was absolutely astounded, as he kept saying that it was a lovely place for a walk but it was so strange, its like a fear you just...don't realize you have until certain situations occur. And this was so strong that I wouldn't even continue with my 6ft 3 brick****house husband!

I asked if he had ever felt this way. He said he hadn't.

Now, it may be his size that has made him this way, but he was pretty sure that men just do not have this constant internal risk assessor (I can't think of any other way to say it)

And THIS was what made him start crossing the street rather than walking behind a lone woman. As he asked me when this happens, and I gave him a few examples, which do include walking alone, especially if you hear footsteps behind you, and even moreso when it turns out its a guy. Except in that situation, you cannot just decide not to go there. You have to deal with it, and the absolute mind numbing fear that it brings with it.

I get that this may sound dramatic and ridiculous, but I assure you its true. And is also the experience of every female friend I have broached this topic with

This is really interesting. They say that women are more tuned into their intuition than men, especially around danger. We are good at picking up clues.

The problem is, we often don't listen to our intuition.
Years ago, when I was seven months pregnant with our second son, I took the dog for a walk down an old disused railway track. I had my eldest son with me and a dog who I believed would protect us. As we stepped off the beaten track I felt uneasy about something but brushed it off as me just being silly. We walked on a bit further and could see smoke in the distance and just about make out a group of people. Instinct told me not to walk too close in their direction but I didn't want to turn around because we were within a hundred yards of the next exit point. The problem was, that extra hundred yards was close enough for them to spot us. They had motorbikes and before I knew it, they were hurtling towards us.

My dog was really pleased to see them. Even when they started to circle my young son and me, he was wagging his tail They didn't touch me or my son but they did taunt me and make a lot of sexual suggestions. I turned around with my now very frightened little boy and walked back the way we came. One of the guys followed us right back to the car.

I obviously went to the police and I did make a statement but I was horrified when the young police officer laughed when I repeated what these guys had said. I gave birth that night to a seven-week prem baby. (The police took that very seriously)

Our gift of fear is there for a reason. If we feel like something's not right, its probably because we have been given a subconscious clue.

[Toy Soldier]

Again DR I'm afraid I just don't think that's true... That women are necessarily more attuned to danger or more likely to feel afraid. Males are socially conditioned to believe that being afraid "isn't masculine", that anxiety is "feminine", that the correct thing to do is to "man up" and never SHOW fear, and certainly never admit it after the fact, because if you're a man fear is weakness.

I get that in some situations women are perhaps more likely to feel intimidated than some men, but again, that's only in general. A skinny 5'5 guy is no more able to take on an attacker than most women. Are they less likely to be attacked? Sexually, yes. In general? No. There are a lot of muggers out there who fully believe that you "don't hit women" but will happily knock the **** out of a guy half their size.

Even from my own perspective. I'm 6'2 and well built. I honestly do get that I probably feel a lot safer, say, sitting waiting for the bus home at 11pm on a Friday (LOT of weird people about) than a lot of people but even then. One dodgy guy going past and I don't bat an eyelid. Two, I'm relatively comfortable. Three or more? Let's face it, if they decide to go for me I'm just as ****ed as a small woman.

[Kizzy]

I don't think it's much to do with culture anymore, not here anyway we are very attuned to what is and is not socially acceptable behaviour.
The issue is powerful/rich/influential people being allowed to continue once an accusation has been made, money talks and power corrupts.

These are not your ordinary joe public here,he may have been involved with a lodge where they all swear to protect one another? Look at savile and all his parliamentary lodge connections, like attracts like.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Again DR I'm afraid I just don't think that's true... That women are necessarily more attuned to danger or more likely to feel afraid. Males are socially conditioned to believe that being afraid "isn't masculine", that anxiety is "feminine", that the correct thing to do is to "man up" and never SHOW fear, and certainly never admit it after the fact, because if you're a man fear is weakness.

I get that in some situations women are perhaps more likely to feel intimidated than some men, but again, that's only in general. A skinny 5'5 guy is no more able to take on an attacker than most women. Are they less likely to be attacked? Sexually, yes. In general? No. There are a lot of muggers out there who fully believe that you "don't hit women" but will happily knock the **** out of a guy half their size.

Even from my own perspective. I'm 6'2 and well built. I honestly do get that I probably feel a lot safer, say, sitting waiting for the bus home at 11pm on a Friday (LOT of weird people about) than a lot of people but even then. One dodgy guy going past and I don't bat an eyelid. Two, I'm relatively comfortable. Three or more? Let's face it, if they decide to go for me I'm just as ****ed as a small woman.

I think you are wrong here I would say that women are much better at assessing situations even if there is no immediate threat ( like vicky stated) I would go as far as to say that it's the 'atmoshere' they are reading.
Here's an academic article on feminine intuition.

'Research on nonverbal communication skill has clearly shown that women are, as a group, better at reading facial expressions of emotions than are men. As a result, women are more likely to pick up on the subtle emotional messages being sent by others.

There is a much more logical, and research-based answer. Research on nonverbal communication skill has clearly shown that women are, as a group, better at reading facial expressions of emotions than are men. As a result, women are more likely to pick up on the subtle emotional messages being sent by others.

Women are also better at expressing emotions through their facial expressions, tone of voice, and body, particularly positive emotions. Men are better at controlling felt emotions and at hiding emotions behind a "poker face." There is also evidence that women are seen as more empathic than men, and that they are more likely to see themselves as empathic.'

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...yth-or-reality

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

Yes. But many wont due to fear of not fitting in. The men involved in the Weinstein case should have done more. Brad Pitt apparently confronted Weinstein after his girlfriend Gwyneth Paltrow had been harassed and seth macfarlane told jokes clearly aimed at Weinstein while hosting the Oscars but its not enough. Apparently everybody knew. Until other men start to object to the 'Jack the lad' behaviour nothing will change

Also apparently Corey Feldman spoke out about being abused as a kid by higher ups in the movie business too but nobody listened to him either (not sure if he mentioned names though or if Harvey Weinstein was involved)

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I think you are wrong here I would say that women are much better at assessing situations even if there is no immediate threat ( like vicky stated) I would go as far as to say that it's the 'atmoshere' they are reading.
Here's an academic article on feminine intuition.

'Research on nonverbal communication skill has clearly shown that women are, as a group, better at reading facial expressions of emotions than are men. As a result, women are more likely to pick up on the subtle emotional messages being sent by others.

There is a much more logical, and research-based answer. Research on nonverbal communication skill has clearly shown that women are, as a group, better at reading facial expressions of emotions than are men. As a result, women are more likely to pick up on the subtle emotional messages being sent by others.

Women are also better at expressing emotions through their facial expressions, tone of voice, and body, particularly positive emotions. Men are better at controlling felt emotions and at hiding emotions behind a "poker face." There is also evidence that women are seen as more empathic than men, and that they are more likely to see themselves as empathic.'

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...yth-or-reality

But the latter part of that only confirms what I'm saying; men are conditioned to suppress instincts like fear because they are "not manly". They are conditioned to be less expressive, perhaps never even learn to be as expressive, because "men are stoic". It's not a super-power or inherent biological difference between men and women, it is 100% social convention. The study shows what it shows, but it's a study of people who have lived in a world that has shaped them.

But society is changing and people do now expect and encourage the full range of emotion and expression in all people. Which is great, and how it should be. But then men are still expected, alongside feeling the full range of raw human emotion, to "step up" and deal with threatening situations "like a man"? It doesn't make sense, and it is a double standard.

[parmnion]

A woman was today ordered to pay 750 pound costs gor drunkenly licking a mans face, grabbing his buttocks and lunging for his genitals...and a A list actor may be about to be outed.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Also apparently Corey Feldman spoke out about being abused as a kid by higher ups in the movie business too but nobody listened to him either (not sure if he mentioned names though or if Harvey Weinstein was involved)

The Corey Feldman situation is pretty messed up really, he came forward about a lot of horrible stuff and not only were most people not all that interested... But he was basically an outcast because of it.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The Corey Feldman situation is pretty messed up really, he came forward about a lot of horrible stuff and not only were most people not all that interested... But he was basically an outcast because of it.

Yeah they made him out to be a nut job really didn't they? very sad, it's hard to challenge people like that with so much money and power because they're so protected

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

But the latter part of that only confirms what I'm saying; men are conditioned to suppress instincts like fear because they are "not manly". They are conditioned to be less expressive, perhaps never even learn to be as expressive, because "men are stoic". It's not a super-power or inherent biological difference between men and women, it is 100% social convention. The study shows what it shows, but it's a study of people who have lived in a world that has shaped them.

But society is changing and people do now expect and encourage the full range of emotion and expression in all people. Which is great, and how it should be. But then men are still expected, alongside feeling the full range of raw human emotion, to "step up" and deal with threatening situations "like a man"? It doesn't make sense, and it is a double standard.

Who said it was? The fact remains that for now there is this nuance for some, nobody is expecting anything, nobody wants anyone to be a hero and put themselves in danger that's your projection perhaps?

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by parmnion

A woman was today ordered to pay 750 pound costs gor drunkenly licking a mans face, grabbing his buttocks and lunging for his genitals...and a A list actor may be about to be outed.

Does the guy get the money? This and similar happened to me a couple of times a week when I was at University, I could have made a fortune!

Well, the genital lunging less frequent but the arse groping was literally constant. I don't think I ever got licked, to be fair. Though I did once get essentially forced to have a girl stick her tongue in my face as I was being lowkey threatened "not to make her feel bad" by a group of mainly guys she was with.

And have literally just realised that I was therefore technically sexually assaulted ...

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Also apparently Corey Feldman spoke out about being abused as a kid by higher ups in the movie business too but nobody listened to him either (not sure if he mentioned names though or if Harvey Weinstein was involved)

As far as I know Weinstein was offering favours in exchange for sex, rather than abusing little boys. But didnt both Coreys from Lost Boys come forward?

Originally Posted by parmnion

A woman was today ordered to pay 750 pound costs gor drunkenly licking a mans face, grabbing his buttocks and lunging for his genitals...and a A list actor may be about to be outed.

Gosh, it wouldn't occur to me to take things up with the authorities for something as inconsequential as some random groping me in a club, but I'd go all METOO if I could get nearly a grand from it!

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

As far as I know Weinstein was offering favours in exchange for sex, rather than abusing little boys. But didnt both Coreys from Lost Boys come forward?

Gosh, it wouldn't occur to me to take things up with the authorities for something as inconsequential as some random groping me in a club, but I'd go all METOO if I could get nearly a grand from it!

I'm not sure about Corey Haim but it could definitely have been a reason why he ended up a drug addict and dying so young