Celebrity Sexual Harassment Charge Sheet

[Forty Two]

She was a piece of ass back in the day, that's for sure.

Can we say that in the sexual harassment thread?

[JimC]

Catherine Deneuve sticks her neck out to discuss nuance.... https://www.afp.com/en/news/206/french- ... doc-w392z1 - she and her fellow cohorts say that pickups, the odd knee-touch, and attempts to seduce women are not the same thing as sexual harassment. Does she have a point? Is this going too far, and aiding the reactionaries and right wing religious nutters and anti-sex conservatives?

Wait for the "No, Catherine Deneuve, it's not a witch hunt, and you're a rape apologist" article in 3, 2, 1....

Well it's pretty much a continuum, and then people put a line somewhere. The excessively PC lot might draw the line right near one end, probably too far, but it is pretty clear that previously, the line was sitting (in the sense of what was being tacitly allowed) much too far in the other direction, mainly because of the power some predatory males had in the whole industry...

[Rum]

The BBC's headline quotes her as saying men should have the right to 'hit on women'. Now that is a phrase you never hear in the UK. It is American as far as I know and has connotations of violence - as does so much of American culture.

There is of course a danger that men will get too anxious to even make overtures and ask women out in the hope things develop further. That is probably already happening in some circles.

The problem here of course is that anyone attempting to moderate the current (probably quite well justified) witch hunt will be seen as an apologist for rape and aggressive male behaviour towards women of other types too.

Part of what she said:

"What began as freeing women up to speak has today turned into the opposite - we intimidate people into speaking 'correctly', shut down those who don't fall into line, and those women who refused to bend" to the new realities "are regarded as complicit and traitors", they said.

"Instead of helping women, this frenzy to send these (male chauvinist) 'pigs' to the abattoir actually helps the enemies of sexual liberty - religious extremists and the worst sort of reactionaries," the women asserted.

"As women we do not recognise ourselves in this feminism, which beyond denouncing the abuse of power, takes on a hatred of men and of sexuality."

[Forty Two]

Catherine Deneuve sticks her neck out to discuss nuance.... https://www.afp.com/en/news/206/french- ... doc-w392z1 - she and her fellow cohorts say that pickups, the odd knee-touch, and attempts to seduce women are not the same thing as sexual harassment. Does she have a point? Is this going too far, and aiding the reactionaries and right wing religious nutters and anti-sex conservatives?

Wait for the "No, Catherine Deneuve, it's not a witch hunt, and you're a rape apologist" article in 3, 2, 1....

Well it's pretty much a continuum, and then people put a line somewhere. The excessively PC lot might draw the line right near one end, probably too far, but it is pretty clear that previously, the line was sitting (in the sense of what was being tacitly allowed) much too far in the other direction, mainly because of the power some predatory males had in the whole industry...

I don't know. I'm pretty sure 98% of everybody has always said that what the power-player predators like Harvey Weinstein did was not cool. The difference at this point is not that people didn't take the type of allegation seriously before -- it's that we never had the deluge or the proof before that we have now. Weinstein was the perfect case, because they got that guy dead to rights on tape. And, then dozens of women came forward. If it wasn't for the tape, it would never have happened. We also had men admitting their wrongdoing, like Louis CK and such, and admitting that they did some rather felonious deeds.

[Forty Two]

James Franco --

There was more bad news to be had, however. On Tuesday, The New York Times announced that they were canceling Franco's TimesTalk about his award-winning film, which had been scheduled for Jan. 10.

"The event was intended to be a discussion of the making of the film, The Disaster Artist. Given the controversy surrounding recent allegations, we're no longer comfortable proceeding in that vein," a Times representative told ET in a statement.

https://www.bustle.com/p/james-franco-h ... en-7835508

So, Ally Sheedy posts a cryptic quote about him, asking why he was allowed into the Golden Globes, and Franco says he has no idea what she's talking about.

Here is the tweet -

Remember the time you pushed my head down in a car towards your exposed penis & that other time you told my friend to come to your hotel when she was 17? After you had already been caught doing that to a different 17 year old?

Aren't there unanswered questions here? What was the context of the car? Were they fooling around? What did he do? For no reason just pull out his dick and try to force her head down ("a Bill Clinton")? And, a 17 year old is generally at the age of consent. What's wrong with telling this woman's friend to come to his hotel room when she was 17?

[DRSB]

Settlements are under way currently too.

[Forty Two]

The BBC's headline quotes her as saying men should have the right to 'hit on women'. Now that is a phrase you never hear in the UK. It is American as far as I know and has connotations of violence - as does so much of American culture.

You "hit the nail on the head" with that one (hit the nail on the head was a saying all the way back to the 15th century). The etymology of "hit on" as a phrasal verb meaning "to make a pass or request for sexual favors" goes back to the 1940s. from Juba to Jive: A Dictionary of African-American Slang

There is of course a danger that men will get too anxious to even make overtures and ask women out in the hope things develop further. That is probably already happening in some circles.

I think the goal among the extreme element is to simply put men at risk regardless of intent. If a woman feels uncomfortable with an overture, then it's improper, end of story. That's not what most women want, but it is what the extreme element that we talk about here often want.

The problem here of course is that anyone attempting to moderate the current (probably quite well justified) witch hunt will be seen as an apologist for rape and aggressive male behaviour towards women of other types too.

Indeed, and that's just the overall inability, or in some cases purposeful tactic not, to recognize that there is nuance. The extreme element wants no nuance, because any nuance is a foot in the door for the wrongdoers to get away with something. You hear it in the phrases that suggesting a pat on the butt is different than Harvey Weinstein is apologetics and makes it harder for victims to come forward.

[Forty Two]

Settlements are under way currently too.

Nothing wrong with settlements. That's one way that victims can get some significant compensation.

[laklak]

hit it.jpg (10.96 KiB) Viewed 2258 times

[Forty Two]

A couple more of these memes, and Ratz will be featured in an article and start trending on social media....

[DRSB]

Settlements are under way currently too.

Nothing wrong with settlements. That's one way that victims can get some significant compensation.

In this case the settlement is not a compensation or even acknowledgement of the abuse, it is hush-hush.

[Brian Peacock]

Blood money is still money, some might say. When money talks, harassment walks, some might say. When victims get paid off by their abusers it's not justice, it just is - some might say. I can keep on like this all day, or so some might say.

[Forty Two]

Settlements are under way currently too.

Nothing wrong with settlements. That's one way that victims can get some significant compensation.

In this case the settlement is not a compensation or even acknowledgement of the abuse, it is hush-hush.

She has to agree to it, so if she didn't want the compensation then she could have said no. Confidentiality is one of the things a party paying a settlement is buying. And, they generally - whether it's personal injury or sexual harassment - do not admit liabilty. They are paying to end the matter, and put it to rest. If the party being paid the money is going to run around telling the story, then the party paying the settlement is less likely to be willing to pay anything.

[Forty Two]

Blood money is still money, some might say. When money talks, harassment walks, some might say. When victims get paid off by their abusers it's not justice, it just is - some might say. I can keep on like this all day, or so some might say.

It's the only justice civil suits offer. That's how sexual harassment is compensated. There is a civil suit.

If the conduct arises to the level of criminal harassment, then the cops handle it. And, a person does not have the power to settle a criminal investigation. All they can do is tell the cops they won't want to testify, or will refuse to testify, or they may refuse to "press charges" (which basically means they aren't going to cooperate with the police), but it's up to the police and the prosecutor whether the case goes forward.

Most sexual harassment is not criminal. Some of what Weinstein did certain was criminal, assuming the allegations to be true. But, most sexual harassment, like the workplace kind where you have jokes, or come-ons, or inappropriate sexual overtures, and that kind of thing, that's not criminal stuff. That's civil stuff. In civil suits, you almost never get an apology, and courts will not compel one. What you get is money - an amount of money the jury or judge finds is appropriate to compensate for the injury suffered, and/or in some jurisdictions to exact a punitive punishment against the defendant. So, the settlement is a means of paying money in exchange for the plaintiff not having to prove her case in court, and the defendant getting the matter over with without risking greater money damages in court and without having to pay the cost and attorney fees in defense.

[JimC]

Blood money is still money, some might say. When money talks, harassment walks, some might say. When victims get paid off by their abusers it's not justice, it just is - some might say. I can keep on like this all day, or so some might say.

It's the only justice civil suits offer. That's how sexual harassment is compensated. There is a civil suit.

If the conduct arises to the level of criminal harassment, then the cops handle it. And, a person does not have the power to settle a criminal investigation. All they can do is tell the cops they won't want to testify, or will refuse to testify, or they may refuse to "press charges" (which basically means they aren't going to cooperate with the police), but it's up to the police and the prosecutor whether the case goes forward.

Most sexual harassment is not criminal. Some of what Weinstein did certain was criminal, assuming the allegations to be true. But, most sexual harassment, like the workplace kind where you have jokes, or come-ons, or inappropriate sexual overtures, and that kind of thing, that's not criminal stuff. That's civil stuff. In civil suits, you almost never get an apology, and courts will not compel one. What you get is money - an amount of money the jury or judge finds is appropriate to compensate for the injury suffered, and/or in some jurisdictions to exact a punitive punishment against the defendant. So, the settlement is a means of paying money in exchange for the plaintiff not having to prove her case in court, and the defendant getting the matter over with without risking greater money damages in court and without having to pay the cost and attorney fees in defense.

And a system like this automatically means that wealthy people can buy their way out of trouble, which means little incentive to change their ways...