Harvey Weinstein, Fired Amongst Sexual Harassment Allegations

[Destino]

16 minutes ago, MondayNightCowboyKilla89 said:

Oh, so now I'm barred from responding to some condescending person.

You are not barred from responding.  What I was warning you about was responding "in kind" meaning in a similar fashion.  Basically, don't insult him right back. 

 

We're adults, we should all be able to discuss difficult subjects without descending into name calling.  I'm sure we will manage to do so, either voluntarily or I'll just have to start banning people.  I'd prefer the former, but we'll get there either way. 

 

Edit:  Also, just to be clear "he started it" will not save anyone.  No one has said it yet, but I just want to get that out of the way early.   

Edited December 8, 2017 by Destino

[Jumbo]

 

On 12/6/2017 at 5:39 PM, MondayNightCowboyKilla89 said:

 

LOL fool.

 

 

 

 

I was going to address this earlier today, and it relates to what Des posted-- you should know that any mod could tag that a rule 5 violation.

Don't do that.

[grego]

10 hours ago, Destino said:

2010-2012 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey put out by the CDC.  I used the wrong number.  In their findings 32.4% of women experience intimate partner physical violence in their lifetimes.  The number I had in my head was from the severe physical violence which was reported by 23.2%.  So my one in four characterization was low. 

 

Page 118 on this:  https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS-StateReportBook.pdf

 

 

No more of that.  Thanks. 

 

@MondayNightCowboyKilla89 do not make the mistake of replying in kind. 

Having trouble posting from my phone but I think those numbers may be problematic. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/cdc-study-on-sexual-violence-in-the-us-overstates-the-problem/2012/01/25/gIQAHRKPWQ_story.html?utm_term=.c35b6cc8cdc

 

CDC study on sexual violence in the U.S. overstates the problem

 

 

 

By Christina Hoff SommersJanuary 27, 2012Loaded in 0.89 seconds 

Christina Hoff Sommers is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Her books include “Who Stole Feminism?” and “The War Against Boys.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently released a study suggesting that rates of sexual violence in the United States are comparable to those in the war-stricken Congo. How is that possible?

The CDC’s National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey found that, in the United States in 2010, approximately 1.3 million women were raped and an additional 12.6 million women and men were victims of sexual violence. It reported, “More than 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men have experienced rape, physical violence and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime.”

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebeliushailed the report for giving “a clear picture of the devastating impact these violent acts have on the lives of millions of Americans.”In fact, what the study reveals is the devastating impact that careless advocacy research can have on truth. The report proposes an array of ambitious government-sponsored “prevention strategies” and recommends “multi-disciplinary service centers” offering survivors psychological and legal counseling as well as housing and economic assistance. But survivors of sexual violence would be better served by good research and sober estimates — not inflated statistics and sensationalism.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers

 

The CDC study—the second in two years—seems to support a radical feminist narrative that has been gaining mainstream attention recently: that modern America is a “rape culture” saturated with misogynistic violence. But a closer look at the data, obtained from telephone surveys done in 2011, yields a far more complex picture and raises some surprising question about gender, victimization, and bias.

 

 

Edited December 8, 2017 by grego

[Springfield]

I don’t think that this type of thing is going to change, not with the current male-female dynamic that has existed in western culture since forever.

[Destino]

3 hours ago, grego said:

Having trouble posting from my phone but I think those numbers may be problematic.

 

I'm aware of the recent debate on sexual violence statistics, some methodology is very obviously and intentionally flawed.  I'm also concerned about some changes to definitions for what constitutes abuse in general.  Emotional abuse and economic abuse seem to be defined both vaguely and overly broad.  That could make getting a clear picture difficult through survey results. 

 

The numbers I was using concern physical violence and those definition still seem to be specific.  We have numbers for "slapped pushed or shoved" and severe violence which is defined as "hit with a fist or something hard, kicked, hurt by pulling hair, slammed against something, tried to hurt by  choking or suffocating, beaten, burned on purpose, used a knife or gun."  I haven't read anything that disputed those numbers or methodology yet. 

[Kosher Ham]

Numbers fit narratives too many times in debates. 

 

Bias is the reason for that. 

[grego]

6 hours ago, Destino said:

 

I'm aware of the recent debate on sexual violence statistics, some methodology is very obviously and intentionally flawed.  I'm also concerned about some changes to definitions for what constitutes abuse in general.  Emotional abuse and economic abuse seem to be defined both vaguely and overly broad.  That could make getting a clear picture difficult through survey results. 

 

The numbers I was using concern physical violence and those definition still seem to be specific.  We have numbers for "slapped pushed or shoved" and severe violence which is defined as "hit with a fist or something hard, kicked, hurt by pulling hair, slammed against something, tried to hurt by  choking or suffocating, beaten, burned on purpose, used a knife or gun."  I haven't read anything that disputed those numbers or methodology yet. 

 

the bureau of justice statistics disputes it. i think the definition of sexual assault is the issue. from the post article- 

 

"Instead of such straightforward questions, the CDC researchers described a series of sexual encounters and then they determined whether the responses indicated sexual violation. A sample of 9,086 women was asked, for example, “When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, how many people ever had vaginal sex with you?” A majority of the 1.3 million women (61.5 percent) the CDC projected as rape victims in 2010 experienced this sort of “alcohol or drug facilitated penetration.”

What does that mean? If a woman was unconscious or severely incapacitated, everyone would call it rape. But what about sex while inebriated? Few people would say that intoxicated sex alone constitutes rape — indeed, a nontrivial percentage of all customary sexual intercourse, including marital intercourse, probably falls under that definition (and is therefore criminal according to the CDC).

Other survey questions were equally ambiguous. Participants were asked if they had ever had sex because someone pressured them by “telling you lies, making promises about the future they knew were untrue?” All affirmative answers were counted as “sexual violence.” Anyone who consented to sex because a suitor wore her or him down by “repeatedly asking” or “showing they were unhappy” was similarly classified as a victim of violence. The CDC effectively set a stage where each step of physical intimacy required a notarized testament of sober consent."

 

so, theres the CDC survey, and the bureau of justice statistics survey, and they appear to be at odds (by alot). nearly 20% of women raped vs 1 or 2% is a big difference. (its actually 1.2 per 1,000, or .0012% per the link below)

 

"So why the massive disparities between these numbers? Partly, it’s because the CDC and Justice Department reports have different goals. While the NCVS simply seeks to record the incidence of crimes across the country, the CDC approaches sexual assault as a public health issue. That affected the kinds of questions the surveys used to determine which respondents were rape victims."

https://newrepublic.com/article/119364/cdcs-report-one-five-women-raped-other-statistics-disagree 

 

whats weird is how what study one finds credible seems to come down to political affiliation. i know the post opinion is a more conservative woman (i think, anyway) but time and new republic arent conservative. other left leaning outlets seem to think the CDC study is more accurate. 

 

 

 

Edited December 8, 2017 by grego

[grego]

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv16.pdf

 

cant quote the page, but its page 5 on the report. they list 'rape or sexual assault' as 1.2 per 1,000, which is obviously not close to 19 in 100.

 

i dont know what numbers are more accurate. its just interesting how they are so far apart. 

[Elessar78]

19 minutes ago, grego said:

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv16.pdf

 

cant quote the page, but its page 5 on the report. they list 'rape or sexual assault' as 1.2 per 1,000, which is obviously not close to 19 in 100.

 

i dont know what numbers are more accurate. its just interesting how they are so far apart. 

are the reports' definitions of SA apples to apples?

 

What was the review process for the respective reports?

Edited December 8, 2017 by Elessar78

[Springfield]

21 minutes ago, Elessar78 said:

are the reports' definitions of SA apples to apples?

 

What was the review process for the respective reports?

 

What exactly IS sexual assault?

 

I do wonder if the goalposts are moving on this issue.

[grego]

8 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

What exactly IS sexual assault?

 

I do wonder if the goalposts are moving on this issue.

 

the links i posted above touched in this. one point of difference, for example, was that drunk sex, apparently, counted as sexual assault. or, if you were lied to in order to convince you to have sex, or if you got tired of being asked to have sex, so you gave in. 

[Destino]

1 hour ago, grego said:

 

the bureau of justice statistics disputes it. i think the definition of sexual assault is the issue. from the post article- 

 

I get what you're saying but I wasn't using any sexual assault statistics.  You can find the questions here: https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/24726  The questions related to violence (top of page 2) are very straight forward.  The question reads:

 

Quote

Physical Violence
How many of your romantic or sexual partners have ever...

- slapped you?

- pushed or shoved you?

- hit you with a fist or something hard?

- kicked you?

- hurt you by pulling your hair?

- slammed you against something?

- tried to hurt you by choking or suffocating you?

- beaten you?

- burned you on purpose?

- used a knife or gun on you?

 

I'm not really seeing a lot of wiggle room there, so I don't see how discrepancies between the two reports (on this specific issue) could be attributed to bias or unclear questions. 

[Destino]

1 hour ago, Springfield said:

What exactly IS sexual assault?

An increasingly unspecific umbrella term that causes entirely too much confusion.  I think it's obvious that language needs to be changed to improve clarity when discussing these issues.  The term can mean anything from sexual torture inflicted on children to some drunk slapping your ass at the club, and it's not uncommon to find articles or accusations that use the term without getting into specifics.   

 

Another issue is with the use of the word violence, which has expanded well beyond what I think most people consider would consider reasonable.  In the CDC survey I posted above (that Grego seems to really dislike ) you can find the following question under the heading "sexual violence"

 

Quote

How many people have you had vaginal, oral, or analsex with after they pressured you by...

- doing things like telling you lies, making promises about the future they knew were untrue, threatening to end your relationship,
or threatening to spread rumors about you?

- wearing you down by repeatedly asking for sex, or showing they were unhappy?

- using their influence or authority over you, for example, your boss or your teacher?

Using the word "violence" to describe some of that seems unreasonable to me, and is sure to create confusion.  I doubt that very many average people would consider coercion, without threats of any kind, as violence.  This isn't a comment on the acceptability of any of the things listed in the question, only the clarity of the language used.  

[Springfield]

11 minutes ago, Destino said:

An increasingly unspecific umbrella term that causes entirely too much confusion.  I think it's obvious that language needs to be changed to improve clarity when discussing these issues.  The term can mean anything from sexual torture inflicted on children to some drunk slapping your ass at the club, and it's not uncommon to find articles or accusations that use the term without getting into specifics.   

 

Thats the impression that I get, and it’s very unfortunate.  I have more sympathy towards a woman who has been raped or forced to perform acts by her supervisor at work than I do for a woman who went to a bar and drunkenly made a mistake with a guy she thought was attractive at the time.

 

Ultimately, these lesser cases of harassment are weighing down ones that need to be keyed in on.

[grego]

41 minutes ago, Destino said:

I get what you're saying but I wasn't using any sexual assault statistics.  You can find the questions here: https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/24726  The questions related to violence (top of page 2) are very straight forward.  The question reads:

 

 

I'm not really seeing a lot of wiggle room there, so I don't see how discrepancies between the two reports (on this specific issue) could be attributed to bias or unclear questions. 

 

i gotcha. i think you are talking about specific incidents of violence that may not be actual rape and i was talking about rape.

 

i agree that the meaning of violence, or rape is the key. the CDC study uses a very liberal definition as opposed to the BJS survey. 

[Zguy28]

Bryan Singer - accused of sexually assaultinga 17 year old boy in 2003.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2017/12/08/director-bryan-singer-sued-for-sexually-assaulting-a-teenager-in-2003/?utm_term=.141a8290dad0

 

 

Edited December 8, 2017 by Zguy28

[Springfield]

14 minutes ago, Zguy28 said:

Bryan Singer - accused of sexually assaultinga 17 year old boy in 2003.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2017/12/08/director-bryan-singer-sued-for-sexually-assaulting-a-teenager-in-2003/?utm_term=.141a8290dad0

 

 

 

I wiki’ed him to find out which movies he’s directed... this ****ing guy has been accused of kid touching for decades.

 

Also, Usual Suspects.  ?

[BurgundyMalaise]

15 hours ago, Jumbo said:

 

 

 

I was going to address this earlier today, and it relates to what Des posted-- you should know that any mod could tag that a rule 5 violation.

Don't do that.

 

That's quite interesting to me that of all the words I wrote over the past couple pages, you choose to address one thing that I already acknowledged being in the wrong for and was told to me already.

1 hour ago, Zguy28 said:

Bryan Singer - accused of sexually assaultinga 17 year old boy in 2003.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2017/12/08/director-bryan-singer-sued-for-sexually-assaulting-a-teenager-in-2003/?utm_term=.141a8290dad0

 

 

 

 

Worst Kept Secret Ever.

[Zguy28]

On 12/8/2017 at 1:17 PM, MondayNightCowboyKilla89 said:

 

Worst Kept Secret Ever.

I've heard rumors before, but from what I read in the article he was cleared of previous accusations.

Edited December 11, 2017 by Zguy28

[Jumbo]

2 hours ago, MondayNightCowboyKilla89 said:

 

That's quite interesting to me that of all the words I wrote over the past couple pages, you choose to address one thing that I already acknowledged being in the wrong for and was told to me already.

 

 

 

Actually, I did want to say quite a bit more about "all the words" you wrote but lacked the time. 

 

I dispute the substance of your reply but don't care to elaborate. BTW,  per the rules, any response to any mod action/directive is to be via pm or http://es.redskins.com/forum/77-feedback-and-tech-support-20/ in order to avoid uninvited off topic commentary. 

 

Now, given your own choices, including a seeming lack of appreciation for the free pass you got, you'll have opportunity to find interesting things elsewhere for a bit.

[Mournblade]

Rose McGowan calling Meryl Streep a liar over Streep's comments on Harvey Weinstein

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/celebrity/rose-mcgowan-slams-meryl-streep-over-harvey-weinstein/ar-BBGpkVf?li=BBnb7Kz

 

McGowan is a total nut, I'm convinced of it. 

[LadySkinsFan]

Anyone standing up for Weinstein, regardless of their own non-violated experience with him, needs to stop it. The guy's a creep and serial abuser. 

[Mournblade]

Streep did not stand up for Weinstein, its just her condemnation was not as scathing at McGowan would have liked. But for a silly little TV actress to call a major Hollywood legend like Streep a liar is a bad, BAD move. 

Edited December 9, 2017 by Mournblade

[Destino]

3 hours ago, Mournblade said:

Rose McGowan calling Meryl Streep a liar over Streep's comments on Harvey Weinstein

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/celebrity/rose-mcgowan-slams-meryl-streep-over-harvey-weinstein/ar-BBGpkVf?li=BBnb7Kz

 

McGowan is a total nut, I'm convinced of it. 

She's also guilty of the very same thing she's accusing so many others of doing, that they were willing to look the other way and work with abusers.  Check out this portion of an interview she did in 2011:

 

https://www.advocate.com/arts-entertainment/features/2011/08/11/rose-mcgowan-my-life-l-word

Quote

You’re starring in the upcoming thriller Rosewood Lane, which was written and directed by Powder’s Victor Salva, whose films often reflect his gay sensibility and outsider mentality. Is that the case with Rosewood Lane?

I don’t think so. And I do not have good clothes in that film either; I had to wear office-lady clothes and it killed me. That was an interesting dynamic, because Victor had never done a movie with a female lead, and he was uncomfortable. He really doesn’t relate to women well. He was open about that, which was slightly jarring, because I don’t really know what to do with that information.

 

Well, Salva is a convicted and registered sex offender, which might account for some social awkwardness.

Yeah, I still don’t really understand the whole story or history there, and I’d rather not, because it’s not really my business. But he’s an incredibly sweet and gentle man, lovely to his crew, and a very hard worker.

 

This doesn't mean that she's wrong for calling anyone out now, or that what was done to her is less wrong.  Just shows you how messed up Hollywood culture is.  

[Destino]

2 hours ago, Mournblade said:

Streep did not stand up for Weinstein, its just her condemnation was not as scathing at McGowan would have liked. But for a silly little TV actress to call a major Hollywood legend like Streep a liar is a bad, BAD move. 

I don't know, I think Streep is lying her ass off.  That statement she put out early in this scandal was terrible.  

 

Here it is

Quote

The disgraceful news about Harvey Weinstein has appalled those of us whose work he championed, and those whose good and worthy causes he supported. The intrepid women who raised their voices to expose this abuse are our heroes.

 

One thing can be clarified. Not everybody knew. Harvey supported the work fiercely, was exasperating but respectful with me in our working relationship, and with many others with whom he worked professionally. I didn’t know about these other offenses: I did not know about his financial settlements with actresses and colleagues; I did not know about his having meetings in his hotel room, his bathroom, or other inappropriate, coercive acts. And If everybody knew, I don’t believe that all the investigative reporters in the entertainment and the hard news media would have neglected for decades to write about it.

 

The behavior is inexcusable, but the abuse of power familiar. Each brave voice that is raised, heard and credited by our watchdog media will ultimately change the game.

The brunt of it was assuring everyone that she personally knew nothing (even though she wasn't exactly under fire at the time) and that it couldn't have been an open secret because the media would never have neglected to tell us all.  We know that last bit is false.

 

So I'm left wondering if she's really that naive, or if she's just as cutthroat as everyone else.  I find it hard to see her as naive.