“Who do you think gets taken more seriously Amal Clooney or Kim Kardashian, both successful women?”
Apples and oranges. Probably not the best example as one is a well-educated and well-regarded lawyer and one became “famous” for a leaked sex tape. It’s not about their breasts.
I don’t give a journalist a pass just because someone could destroy her or his career. To me, she is just as blameworthy as the editors of the 2004 times.
It is an insult to pigs, @JustaMom! 
He needs to be tarred and feathered.
There’s a really excellent opinion piece in the Washington Post about this.
That’s what it has always been about – turning the focus to what women are wearing, drinking, where we choose to go and who we associate with. And so it continues with no deterrence to those men who do harass.
We should change what we are doing so those men don’t have to.
If you don’t mean to imply that it could be a woman’s fault fit dressing a certain way, why even mention how people dress?
I mean, there are a lot of things I’ve advised my kids to do over the years. Including occasional suggestions about how they present themselves. I don’t feel compelled to share any of that advice on this thread because it has no relevance.
Paltrow, Jolie and others
Retching.
I don’t want to seem to defend anybody, but I would note that there is a difference between “procuring women” (particularly if they are prostitutes) and sexually assaulting people who are trying to get acting jobs. The first is certainly gross, but I doubt if it would be career-destroying for it to come out about a Hollywood mogul. I haven’t read everything, but wasn’t the 2004 story about a guy whose job was to “procure women,” such as Russian prostitutes?
She has Urban Zen instead of DKNY; she sold DKNY to LVMH.
Oh, and she’s apologized for her earlier comments, FWIW (a little late IMO)
http://variety.com/2017/biz/news/donna-karan-harvey-weinstein-defends-1202585345/
^^ Sure, but the point I was making was that the board of directors ok’d that executive’s salary. Therefore they knew what Harvey was up to. The board is probably the only group that had the power to stop him, and they didn’t. Although, there is speculation that Harvey’s brother is the one behind the most recent NYT story. Perhaps he had finally had enough and knew the board wouldn’t act.
Unfortunately, this may indicate that too many people (both men and women) do not think that sexual misconduct (up to and including rape) is unacceptable (even if they would not do it themselves). This includes both those who claim conservative family values and those who claim liberal feminism.
Indeed, the willingness to give men a pass on sexual misconduct may be related to other social phenomena, such as the historical and current greater hostility against male homosexuality compared to female homosexuality. Perhaps the idea of potentially being the target of sexual misconduct leads some straight men to be hostile to all gay men (but not care at all about whether women are lesbian), rather than the idea of sexual misconduct that they themselves may (hypocritically) practice against women.
True, Hunt. The escort stuff would be an internal company matter - some sort of breach of fiduciary duties by using company funds on personal (icky!) “entertainment.” Assaults are criminal. Paying women to go away after sexual assaults could be criminal. Waxman also claims that she had accounts of at least one person who was paid to shut up after she had been harassed or assaulted.
You’re mostly right, @ Hunt, but…
There is a big difference IF the women who were being procured were in fact prostitutes, but NOT if they thought they were auditioning for movie roles and then were subjected to sexual assault. At this point, I don’t know which it was–or even if it was always one or always another.
According to Wikipedia, the Weinsteins own 42% of The Weinstein Company. So, he doesn’t get to spend company money for someone to hire prostitutes for him. Nor can he list that salary as a “business expense” in calculating taxable income.
And back in 2004, my understanding is that he was still working for Miramax and Miramax was owned by Disney, a publicly traded company. And, no, IMO, it’s neither legal nor moral to use the money of a publicly traded company to employ someone --to the tune of $400,000 for less than a year–to act as your pimp. BTW, this was DISNEY–can you imagine the fall out it could have for that particular company?
Does this mean people will now believe Corey Feldman and his accusations about the treatment of children in Hollywood?
Donna Karan’s comments were ridiculous, and both ill-advised and thoughtless. Victim-shaming is cruel and unproductive. That said, there is also nothing wrong with making a general observation, or holding an opinion (we are still entitled to that in this country, aren’t we?) that women should be mindful of how they dress. Not that it has any CAUSATION to how Harvey Weinstein behaved, and I don’t believe that is what busyparent was suggesting. Geez, everyone needs to stop the moralizing. I have a daughter and trust me, we’ve disagreed many times thru the years on her dress, just as my mom and I did on mine. That’s just general parenting. But had she ever been the victim of an assault, her manner of dress would never have leapt to mind as being a cause for it!
The magnitude of the cover up of all this is really shocking to me. The actresses knew, but so did many people who worked for Miramax. They set up the ‘meetings’ in the hotel rooms, the actresses agents knew of the meetings in hotel rooms, assistants knew, and on and on. Apparently it was such open knowledge in Hollywood that an Oscar broadcast joke was made about Weinstein.
And yet, until now, no one did anything.
Any doubters still out there? As for criminal case, DA chose not to press charges.
@dadoftwingirls I always believed Corey Feldman.
Predators seek opportunities to gain power and use it particularly over those with less power. In our society that will be noticeable for women, children, minorities, poor, uneducated, etc. Those are groups that tend to be given less credibility by the public, especially when they are speaking against the rich, or white, or men, or attractive people, or celebrities, or authority figures who tend to more often be given a benefit of the doubt.
if you watch the entire Donna Karan video with her comments, (saw it on MNBC) it’s hard to see how they were taken out of context. They actually seem worse on tape!
A testament to just how powerful he was and how that power can silence people. If you worked in that industry you could not afford to take him on. You would lose your livelihood post haste. Seems like his misuse of that power affected both men and women who might have suspected or actually known about his tendencies.