Harvey Weinstein and all of his enablers (men - from the year dot to today) in our society are beyond sickingly vomitrocious.
Old Boys Clubs are falling apart everywhere.
This was another reason for Trump's election, as Hillary has been on the OBC's hit list since Bill was President. Bob Dole even went out of his way to attack "It Takes A Village" in his RNC nomination acceptance speech. Lots of powerful, influential men have been attacking her ruthlessly since.
The "Heman Womun Haters Club" (misspelling courtesy of the famous kids show it came from) is an American institution as heavily indoctrinated as White Nationalism.
They similarly won't go down without a fight -- but they will go down. Finally.
3
Ronnan Farrow who broke this story has stated this is not about Weinstein or Hollywood. Wake up and get real. This is an issue in every industry and among men (and some women) of power across the board.
7
His sexual atrocities aside, Weinstein's record of revolting behavior toward employees, filmmakers, executives, indeed any human being within a mile radius, has been so flagrant that it's no surprise everyone's chiming in to dump on him. Finally it is safe for everyone to vent, as they've been unable to do until now because he was so punitive and powerful. This is a moment of catharsis for hundreds of industry figures, high and low, who can at last give him as good as they got.
6
It's almost the same story as Roger Ailes, but instead of actresses it was news readers, commentators. etc. Remember all the outrage from Republicans about Mr. Ailes? Me, neither. The talent at Fox was silent because they had a lot to gain from Ailes,"a good guy," in the words of our president. Others in the media feared Ailes. In both cases it was a simple abuse of power by terrible, morally bankrupt human beings. These scandals say something about the repulsive behavior of Harvey Weinstein and Roger Ailes, and little else.
6
It's a bit rough to equate Weinstein with Clinton. Clinton cheated, which was bad enough, but Weinstein is a monster. Conflating the two loses the vital distinction between monsters and regular humans.
4
I keep thinking of the young woman who had the courage to go to the NYC police to file a complaint about what he did to her. She then displayed continued courage by agreeing to wear a wire and returning to his lair to get proof of what he had done. She was successful and the result was..... nothing happened. No charges filed. It is easy to say that successful women should have spoken up, but really even the most successful woman has to deal with being treated like a woman. Meaning a little less respect, a little less power, a little less control than a man. Now it is the victims' fault again. Even Donna Karan said it. Somehow it is always the woman's fault. We even have a president to prove it, better a philandering vulgarian, than an intelligent woman.
13
Why is Weinstein's politics at all discussed in this piece? Weinstein's abuse of power and abuse of young women is horrible, and saying that it is like a jungle out there is empty and specious. It has nothing to do with Democrats. Equating Bill Clinton with Donald Trump is part of the self-indulgent anti- Clinton trope that Stephens lards his pieces with. There is no truth. Weinstein was canny and chose his victims well. That those that escaped his casting couch never spoke up is sad. They were afraid of his power and reach. I liked Stephens before this piece but it is not balanced, not fair, defense of power without limit and not protective of the vulnerable.
5
Another enabler is Meryl Streep, who innocently claimed she knew nothing of the allegations against Weinstein. His corruption and decadence were written plainly on his face. And she didn't hear about anything? Perceive anything? She may have been too big a fish for him to go after, but she certainly knew what he was up to, and covered up for him.
3
Just think how any society treats those who try to expose "misbehaviors." We call them "rats," 'narcs," "whistleblowers," and worse. "Stoolies," "tattletales," and it starts with little children. We are to suck it up, handle it like an adult, or perhaps it is our fault. Why is it so surprising that any one abused is afraid to come forward? Only when someone person is brave enough or angry enough do more victims come forward and then they are often accused of lying to try to get in on what ever gravy train of financial compensation there might be. And, often, as with the many Trump accusers they are threatened with lawsuits. The older I get the more cynical I am about human relationships. And I hope that I am smarter in my choices although I tend to find my "social circle" shrinking and not just from age and death! The one thing that encourages me is reading letters to the Times from people who seem thoughtful and caring. Hope there are a lot more where those are coming from, but I won't hold my breath.
7
You have to laugh. Bret Stephens carves into a hated enemy with snickering delight: "Perhaps it should come as no surprise that an industry built around pretended characters and scenarios could have pretended for so long that nothing was amiss. Perhaps it should be no surprise, either, that its concept of ethics is every bit as ersatz and inconstant as most everything else in Tinseltown."
Or Fox News, Bret. Or Breitbart. Or the Republicans. You have a beam in your eye. Teachable moment alert!
12
Why is he not in jail for sexual assault?
What does his looks have to do with it?
4
What the Weinstein enablers did -- let a creep get excitement by forcing encounters (not "rape" yet, but could be) on women who didn't want them. (A weird power play, since he could have had sex for far less money and none of the notoriety with prostitutes.)
What the Trump enablers did (with help from Putin et al,) -- made him President.
2
I dream of the day the President of the United States will be held to the same high moral and ethical standards as a Hollywood movie producer.
26
I'm clipping this article for my file on Great Writing. What careful word choice, high-charging moral outrage contained by precise prose and rhetorical development, and the easy natural flow from sentence to sentence, point to point, paragraph to paragraph. This guy sure knows how to write!
2
This is a canker in the very heart of Hollywood. A lot of people need to think about the things that happened and how they allowed them to happen. While they're at it, I wish Hollywood moguls would look at the amount of on-screen violence they're producing and how it's affecting the people of this country.
5
Let's face it - the reality of what was happening was too uncomfortable for many people who were benefiting from the success of Weinstein's company. It was easier to pretend (in a culture of being rewarded for your skills at pretending) that this was no big deal or not really happening. Women working for Weinstein allowed themselves to be used to entrap young women. Maybe they were slightly jealous of these pretty models and actresses, maybe money mattered more than sisterhood or maybe they were good at playing dumb too. Men working for Weinstein just signed checks for settlements and avoided asking questions and busied themselves making more money. Politicians enjoyed the circus. Actors wanted money, attention and Oscars. How satisfying it must have been - to stand by Harvey's side, holding an award and saying - "We did it!"
Now Harvey is asking that we give him a 'second chance'. How many people gave him too many chances, made too many excuses for him and cleaned up his messes. Today he is saying what he deserves is to get help for himself. I don't hear him offering any help to his victims - who became depressed, suicidal, addicted to various substances and who gave up on their dreams. Who is helping them and who is just - as usual - helping themselves?
5
Yes, other industries have Harvey Weinstein’s, but Hollywood is rampant with these types, far far more are in Hollywood than most other industries. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to downplay the pervasiveness of this behavior in Hollywood, trying to defend the culture of Hollywood - and this defense is not much better than saying, its okay that I did it because everyone else is doing it too - unacceptable. And this Hollywood, donates millions to the Democratic Party, and its “celebrities” do the same. What a bunch of hypocrites.
4
As I said earlier, I dream of the day the President of the United States will be held to the same high moral and ethical standards as a Hollywood movie producer.
7
And Clarence Thomas remains on the Supreme Court.
14
Harvey Weinstein’s next movie project is reportedly a biopic of Fatty Arbuckle, directed by Woody Allen, and starring Bill Cosby in the title role. A backer of many Liberal causes,, Weinstein reportedly said when questioned on the project: “I think race should never be a consideration when casting leading roles. Sex, yes! But not race. i even offered a cameo role as brother Bob to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.”
The next step for all the male ingenues who have been casting couched to step forth and air their experiences. Hollywood has not been too dissimilar from the Catholic Clergy's laser focus on boys.
But, Hollywood has always been about this since the days of Joseph P Kennedy
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2002/04/joekennedy200204
I think it is also an equal opportunity offender—genderwise. I wish the NYT would taken on the the execs who have violated men.
2
Good grief, are people still blaming the 60s and ’70s for the downfall of civilization and proper mores? Read some history; it's filled with Weinstein-like behavior. No excuse for him and we must do better, but please stop with the specious claim that it's the fault of hippies, anti-Vietnam protesters and liberals.
17
I’ve just watched a few videos recorded at different times in the past of actors making jokes about Weinstein as a kind of entertainment at public events. Most people seemed to be having a good time. (I’m not so sure the young women were enjoying it so much, though.) There was even a shot of Weinstein laughing about a joke made about him. (At least he was a good sport.) So the impression I get is that the whole thing was a joke and the people in the business were in on it. What bothers me is now that it’s come out into the open, the same insiders are feigning such righteous indignation.
4
I've been thinking about my observation. It isn't that the people in the business are any worse than the rest of us. It's that they are just like the rest of us. So this should be taken as a sociological description of how things are, not as a condemnation of inferior beings. Of course, we would like things to be otherwise. That might require individuals to act according to there consciousnesses rather than according to what is convenient. But I'm no better than anyone else. I condemn our current foreign policy of perpetual wars, but my life is pleasant now, so I don't want to mess it up.
Gotta love Rose McGowan. Specially for calling out the Affleck bros.
10
I don't get the hyena analogy. Is it a reference to the way hyenas kill? But they kill to eat and survive, as do tigers, lions, humans, and many other animals - unlike Weinstein's actions. Is it a reference to the way they seem to "laugh", maybe alluding to the way Weinstein laughed at society's mores? That seems like a stretch, and anyway hyenas don't really laugh. Is it a reference to hyenas not being known as attractive? That would tie into the earlier poke at Weinstein's looks, which I found to be ill-advised - it's lame to go after someone for being visually ugly.
Maybe there's something I don't know about hyenas... More likely it's just a bad analogy.
4
I believe they're scavengers...still, the analogy is unclear.
Silence on this subject feeds the continued abuse that's going to keep happening if victims don't speak out. The communities they live in must support them. Money or no money these perpetrators won't be stopped until until that happens.
1
Another Weinstein story. Why is everyone -- Stephens included -- too PC to mention that among Weinstein's enablers were the victims/accusers who sold their silence for cash?
Then, again, the anachronisms in the Stephens standard account are piled almost as deep as the list of accusers. Now we are told that his business associates, stars, employees, friends, everyone with an inkling -- had a duty to speak out. Really? In a few cases that many have been true, but in those days as I recall there was no such duty. For better or worse, the consensus at the time was that these were private matters. People might shake their heads, stay out the cad's way, but they would have been bewildered to learn that they would be pilloried by Stephens for not going public.
Goodness knows, Weinstein is creepy (lay off his looks, will you?). His MO was tawdry and cheap. But, although the R-word has surfaced, my impression from the accounts I've seen is that he more pathetic than villainous. Unless I missed something, even though he pressured the women who had the misfortune of being tricked into going to his hotel room, he did not use force. (There may be a few such accusations, but they don't seem in character). He backed off when his intended victims stood up to him.
But anyone who points to such nuances risks being declared complicit. Certainly their days at the NYT would be numbered. Maybe we should wait until the hysteria has subsided and we can look at the facts in the cold light of day.
5
I had a similar reaction -- that Weinstein is "more pathetic than villainous." I also am not particularly shocked by this behavior which is quite common. I am now past the age of being "hit on," many of us have dealt with men like this and survived unscathed. All of the women who have now come forward describe their complete rejection of this man and in one case, he apparently sat on the corner of the bed and cried that the object of his desire didn't like him because he was "fat." I get the sense that Weinstein was routinely mocked and ridiculed. While it is concerning that he appeared to prey on very young actresses, and it is appalling that the other men and at least one woman were often in on the deed, acting like procurers at times, all of the women apparently got away after rejecting his advances. I feel none of this is my business and I can only imagine how humiliating this must be for the man's family. Our President behaved in exactly the same way of course. The public's appetite for shaming of private behavior is most likely wearing thin.
4
I like to think (hope?) that Monica Lewinsky was Clinton's come to Jesus moment, and if it wasn't, surely--sooner or later--truth, like murder, will out. I think it's human nature to want to believe the best of people we know, but certainly there were too many who knew the truth and found it easier just to keep quiet. Sadly, this is not a Hollywood problem or a DC problem. As a college teacher, I have had students come to me with stories like this, and I know too many women my own age who had their own Harvey Weinstein moments in bank vaults and offices. As for his liberal causes: piety, like patriotism, is good cover for those who are scoundrels, and it doesn't matter what credo the piety is attached to.
I told my husband that all these dirty, narcissistic old men tumbling like dominoes gave me hope that the professional world would be better for our daughter and other women. Then he had to go and spoil my optimism by reminding me that (sigh) one still inhabits the White House and is likely to do so for years to come. We knew him and we enabled him anyway.
6
Why no mention of Fox News? Hardly a liberal bastion, but certainly a culture of ingrained abuse--abetted by HR and management as well. No to excuse Weinstein, but at least if you fended him off you might be able to get an Oscar for a complicated role. You were not forced to sit with your legs exposed under a glass desk playing dumb even if you were a Stanford grad...
7
It's hard to stomach all the hypocrisy of those pointing fingers at the so-called enablers. Women have been punished for speaking out about abuse since the beginning. It's easy to say integrity should come before money when it's not you and yours wondering how the bills are going to be paid, or worrying about your future.
As usual, it's women's job to make men behave.
11
Every person who voted for Donald Trump is enabling this behavior. His support did not dwindle, even after the reports that he enjoyed groping women.
11
Bulletin. This just in to the news room: Hollywood just discovered the casting couch.
2
He should be put on an island alone forever. Men like this are not fit for human company and not redeemable.
3
I have been sexually harassed twice in my career - both times by grabby older men. I reported both problems to HR, and in both cases no action was taken. I could certainly have hired a lawyer, but both times I chose to just find another job. I was afraid that even if I sued and won, I would be wrecking my career. I knew perfectly well that the next person who hired me would also be an older man. Over the years, all of my male bosses have consistently complained to me about how they hate feeling that they have to "walk on eggshells" around younger women, worrying about whether they're going to be sued if they say the wrong thing. Which seemed super weird to me, since it was pretty clear that older male bosses get away with just about anything (Weinstein and Trump being public cases in point). Then I realized that they weren't complaining, they were warning me: letting me know that they were judging how I reacted to their jokes, or un-PC comments, or their passes, and letting me know that "uppity" women don't get into the club. I doubt that it would occur to a single one of those men that they were creating a culture that enabled sexual harassment and kept women silent. But it sure worked on me!
11
TRUMP Only claimed to have schlonged Hillary during a presidential debate. But Harvey, if reports are accurate, made a cottage industry out of schlonging people who wanted to get into the media industry. They don't refer to the couches in movie moguls' offices as auditioning couches because they comfortable for reading parts from scripts. The premise in the entertainment industry is that everything comes from exhibitionism. Hence, those who wish to enter the industry must exhibit their exhibitionism. Preferably to an older male who has far greater power than the aspiring starlet and whatever the male counterpart for that would be. Maybe starlette being the feminine and starlet being the masculine. It's the worst kept secret in the world that there's lots that's rotten in Hollywood. To the extent that in some ways it resembles a training program for practicing the oldest profession in the world. None of which is to suggest remotely that anything Harvey the Pig did is other than subhuman, slimelike and putrid. Of course what he did was his fault. The point is that he did what he did in a highly flawed culture where advancement is earned by putting out on while you're your back. Unless your practicing sexual positions depicted in the Kama Sutra, that is.
1
Weinstein wouldn't be in the news so much but for the fact he's a major Hollywood figure.
The same Hollywood community that thrives in lecturing America who to like and support, who to hate, what is right, what is wrong, what is acceptable and unacceptable, and--my favorite-- their values! They brag and claim to support women and minorities more than anyone.
Each Academy Awards gets worse with the soapbox lectures. Meryl Streep whips out the alligator tears, the whole bit.
Yet they all knew and did nothing about Weinstein. The most powerful people in Hollywood did nothing about Weinstein. They've lost all credibility. When they start lecturing us in the future, who's going to be dumb enough to listen?
6
"Hypocrisy is the homage Vice pays to Virtue." And other than Politics, no industry pays higher tribute to Virtue.
2
Whatever the industry, most employees are enablers to a greater or lesser extent. That's why employees don't give their managers straight feedback even when the managers ask for it. Who can really trust that the manager won't find a way to retaliate?
It's not always about sex, but it's always about power. No surprise then that as Weinstein lost power, he became vulnerable.
That includes Cy Vance the District Attorney. Why is someone not challenging him in the elections. It is precisely why these men can be swayed by the millionaires...the Trumps and now Weinstein. I wonder what else he turned a blind eye to I am sure its not the little man!
4
Powerful men who take advantage of women are in every industry, unfortunately. Much worse in male-dominant industries like investment banking. I have a feeling these stories will continue to break, one after the other as women have more courage to come out.
These men need to learn that it was never OK to abuse power and take advantage of others. Boards and companies need to learn to act fast to prevent these cases, by setting up clear rules.
But more importantly, we should also let people understand that it is not OK to remain silent and come out so late when they know there is a crime being committed. Women - please speak up. It is way more important that you speak up for other women when men will not. It is not OK to stay silent knowing someone has committed a crime and will continue to do it to others if you keep quiet. It is not OK to accept settlements from an abuser and allow them to continue. Angelina J and Gwen P waited too long to say anything, and it is disappointing that they did. Their names have been bigger than HW for at least a decade. They had nothing to lose.
Stand up. Speak up. Do it before it is too late for the next victim.
Hollywood is entertainment. And entertainment, at least the Hollywood department of it, is big business. Very, very big business.
What is the whole point of business, especially very, very big business. Making money. As long as money is being made, there is very little limit to what behavior is tolerable.
Yes, there are companies with some moral scruples. But you won't find many in the entertainment business.
1
Harvey Weinstein is an adult who is responsible for his own actions. There's no excusing his behavior. And people acted as enablers not because they approved of his actions or didn't care, but because this man had amassed enough power to threaten and silence anyone who thwarted him.
And I don't know where this nonsense about "gentlemanly behavior" came from, but during the decades before the '60s and '70s, domestic abuse was mostly seen as a private family matter, and women were routinely blamed for rape and sexual assault. And the term "casting couch" was around long before the '60s, as was the cliche of the businessman chasing his secretary around the desk. The latter was supposed to be funny, by the way. By the way, is the culture at Fox News liberals' fault, too? I have no idea how we got away with that one.
2
I am afraid that not all the gentlemen in the past were in fact Gentlemen, as Bret Stephens seems to nostalgically propose. It was just that then all the newspaper MEN would have been complicit. In fact, they would not have considered it a problem: did Mozart not write Don Giovanni, about a cad who made out with 1001 women and made lists of them? And didn't Mozart himself give himself the freedom to copy his hero? I talk of Mozart because it popped into my head, but it could be any gentleman at any time before the 60's and 70's who wanted to show his power over any powerless woman, and call it libidinous (it is not the libido that is the problem, it is the power) Look at Madmen. The difference is that with each decade since then, more women have said enough is enough. Each time another cad is uncovered (!) we inch forward, and that is good.
2
Enablement is also a product of, or reinforced by, solidarity. Solidarity is often if not always centrally defined by loyalty to identity. In this context, it is especially pronounced and defined by ethno-religious tribalism which by its nature is sectarian. It values exaltation of particular social bonds that are inherently selective or relativistic in normative, or moral matters, especially in means-ends tests, and particularly pronounced when economic advantage is pursued or promised. McFarland addressed it as well at the same Oscars event, and it too was laughed at because everyone also got it.
4
As of this moment Mr. Weinstein unlike Donald Trump has no base. Weinstein is the poster man to the delight of the Trump/conservative base which villainizes the arrogant Hollywood liberals. Trump goes merrily on. Talk about enablers!
3
Yeah, yeah yeah...nothing's changed... current top leader (s) in government remain immune...how can any "enabler" be criticized in these circumstances?
1
Very easily, because we are not talking about the President. me thinks the arguers of your argument argue too much....
1
It would be utterly foolish for conservative males — whose behaviors and hypocrisy when it comes to sex and sexual behavior (and abortion if she becomes pregnant) are well known — to make any attempt to cast this as an issue about "liberals." This is an issue about men who fail to respect women...period. There's nothing wrong with appreciating beautiful females, but objectifying them, particularly with behavior that is illegal and immoral ("no" actually, truly means no), simply has no excuse. If men only had to experience what women do from far too many men...they might understand how unacceptable their attitudes and behaviors are to males who do, in fact, respect women.
Eclectic Pragmatism — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
3
Let's not pretend this is a fairly recent phenomenon. How many decades ago did we hear about the "casting couch"? This has been going on forever whenever someone has power over another person. Is it more sensational because it involves celebrities?
I find the line "Hyenas cannot help their own nature." to be totally problematic. We're not talking about hyenas here, we're talking about human men who are 100% capable of noting their desires and then taking a minute to make a thoughtful decision about whether or not it's appropriate to act on them. You're giving the Weinstein's of the world an excuse for their behavior by saying that they "cannot help [it]". They can, actually. They're not slaves to their hormones. They CHOOSE to behave in this way. They might not CHOOSE to be attracted to a specific person, but they DO choose whether or not they act on it. Writing this off as "their...nature" needs to stop. There are plenty of men (most, if I were to guess) who have looked at an attractive woman and wanted to act on their attraction to her, but most men have the decency not to act on their basest impulses, and instead behave with something resembling decency and respect towards those women. To say that some men "just can't help it" is insulting to women because it tells women that we have to put up this kind of behavior because men simply have no control over their actions. They DO have control over their own actions. It's time they start acting like it and stop blaming other things or other people for their own deplorable and dehumanizing behavior towards women.
8
A pack of wolves will leave their compadres alone until the moment they sense some weakness. Then there will be nothing left but maybe a tuft of tail hair. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
1
I was originally going to pity poor HRC for her 'I had no idea' about HW, until I remembered that was the same look when WJC was doing the nasty behind her back.
AT least she didn't blame this one on a vast right wing conspiracy...but it's still early.
7
These times are surely sparking wit! That's the "best of times..." part.
Does this mean that the other members of Weinstein's sacred-victim fake minority part of our 1% - who everyone is terrified to disagree with for fear of being branded as bigots, the same immune from criticism gang that destroyed millions of lives in their 2008 Wall Street casino, corporate CEO, and economics "priesthood", "Oracle" betrayal of humanity will finally be held to account? Will the holier than thou talking heads, now piling on this one no longer as powerful animal over his depredations of a few members of our most privileged class, finally scream for the break up of the infinitely more destructive billionaire monopolies and make illegal the Wall Street Ponzi schemes of organized hedge fund theft from most of us 'baskets of despicables'? Will our weepy 'tell us how you feel' media 24/7 hammer our 1% into bringing manufacturing back to the US from the no rights slave-labor China "free trade" cheater that charges 10 times as much tax on our exported cars as we do on theirs, and stop the elite orchestrated flood of 10's of millions of desperate immigrants into the US intended to shove most of us into 3rd World serfdom? No! Too much money still to be made by pretending that its racist to hold those like Weinstein, often the public faces and mouth pieces for the rest of the rich and powerful, accountable to the same moral standards and laws as the rest of us not as "hard working" too Anglo nativists.
3
Off the top of my head I can think of two super star actresses who recently have been connected to Harvey Weinstein and nobodies mentioning them. Anne Hathaway and JLAW. Two of the hottest actresses in the world, he had access to them when they were very young, and he didn't make a play for them? More like they aren't going to say anything because he was successful!
2
Please Please Please do not make these allegations against women who interacted with HW but who are not saying anything. If you are correct they are victims that you are harassing if you are wrong you are a bully. Either way you are cruel. Leave them alone.
2
So now actresses have to answer to busybodies "wondering" about them?
4
Perhaps the Russians are behind all of this this, in order to sow division in our society?
1
Looking at this from another angle, perhaps the weaknesses and divisions in our society that we create and exploit ourselves also provide openings for others to exploit.
The emergence of a Weinstein and Trump's knee-jerk withdrawal from UNESCO are two seemingly independent events which actually combine to expose America's true identity as a coarse and uncultured nation of philistines.
2
A long time ago I was sexually harassed by a female instructor while in graduate school.
I grew up in the fifties and sixties so it still sounds somewhat ridiculous for me (an old, retired guy) to write that, but it was true. Many of my friends made fun of me, saying either "c'mon, gimme a break" or "what's the problem, just take advantage of it."
For a variety of reasons I did not.
And for the record, I was in a graduate school from which I became a guidance counselor and the instructor was a psychotherapist. Some of her friends and colleagues at the school took her side. She denied it up and down until I went to the vice president of the school and she finally came clean.
(They did not fire her; they "warned" her and she went into therapy. Ya, big deal.)
It feels TERRIBLE for anyone who is harassed. I have nothing but sympathy for the women this Weinstein guy harassed.
Hang in there ladies; you have a lot of support out here.
12
Actually, we don't.
1
A hyena does what it has to do to live. It is part of the balance of nature, and it is not going to "take over the savanna." A pig is a fairly intelligent mammal. We would to well to refrain from calling Mr. Weinstein a hyena or a pig; he is a despicable human.
10
Let's not forget to add Justice Clarence Thomas to the list.
15
So where has Bret been and all the other journalists that cover Hollywood?
Oh yeah...cowering in the corner because Harvey had power and could hurt their careers!
Followers are not the brave ones. Leaders are! And it does not sound like we have many 'true leaders' in Hollywood. Just a bunch of ambitious people looking for their big break.....Sad...
3
A glaring omission: the culture of the religious and political right and the sexual misdeeds of their leaders, both Protestant evangelical and Roman Catholic. No mention of their enablers.
8
Did we need to her Bret Stephens weigh in on the Weinstein case with a predictable anti-liberal bias? There is, of course, just one brief mention of the leading republican serial abuser (who just happens to be our president) and no mention of his republican enablers in the piece. Perhaps because that would tarnish too many of Stephens' advocates.
9
That was supposed to be "hear."
Sharks and tigers must eat vulnerable prey. They care not one whit about the lives of those whom they eat. Weinstein is a similar predator. We must learn how to identify his sort early, and stop them in their tracks.
26
Well, ok - then how can we hold Speaker Ryan accountable to President Trump?
I find it interesting that President Obama's daughter worked for Weinstein. Did the Secret Service vet this job? Did they find out or were they too incompetent to find the worst secret in the industry? Did Obama know of this and let his daughter work there? There is something amiss if the Secret Service cannot protect the First Family from a predator like this. It is hard to believe that everyone knew except the Secret Service.
9
Maybe part of a solution to this kind of thing, is to make Harvey W/Cosby-type agreements unenforceable. Just as people can’t enter into a private agreement to sell themselves into slavery, because it’s illegal, so I think agreements and money to settle sexual abuse cases should be outlawed. You should not be able to make a private agreement to cover up what’s essentially a crime.
6
Predatory behavior is tolerated when those at the top are willing to accept it.
And they do tolerate it in Hollywood, so long as it isn't public, as long as those predators are making them lots of money. Disney is as much to blame for this type of behavior as any other studio, because they ALL knew right up to its revelation. When it becomes public, then they put the back of their hands to their foreheads, run to twitter and reflect "shock". Then they denounce the behavior they have for so long turned a blind eye to. Now that Weinstein cannot make them any money, typical Hollywood culture is to pounce like Jackals and tear him to shreds to demonstrate their "shock" and intolerance at such behavior. Capt. Renault would be proud. But he had more moral courage. I don't blame the young actresses, as power and ambition can be a caustic potion. I blame the hypocrites who run this industry. Where is SNL and Kimmel now? They love to deride a President they don't like, but they have for years turned their backs on all the young females who were preyed upon. What, nothing funny to say now? Make jokes about Weinstein now, like a rabid mob determined to lynch someone. Squeeze out just a little more money before it isn't funny anymore and we have another tragedy to report. The shame is the leadership of Hollywood, for their hands are not clean.
3
"Our society, by contrast, festooned Weinstein with honors, endowed him with riches, and enabled him to feast on his victims without serious consequence for the better part of 30 years." This is a surprise!
For the better part of 30 years, other women were also victims and the majority of white men and white women festooned that man with honors and voted that man President of the United States.
The misogyny and racism in the U.S. is sickening.
3
If this were a true denouncement of the culture that enables individuals like Weinstein to sexually prey on women, then it would be most welcome. But Stephens stops short of identifying its root causes, and in fact absolves Weinstein and other predators of personal responsibility. He writes: "The important truth is that [Weinstein] was just another libidinous cad in a libertine culture that long ago dispensed with most notions of personal restraint and gentlemanly behavior." Respecting women (or men) and choosing not to sexually assault them has nothing to do with 'restraint' or 'gentlemanly behavior.' Stephens seems to suggest that men are 'naturally' inclined to sexual assault, and in fact says as much: "Hyenas cannot help their own nature. But the work of a morally sentient society is to prevent them from taking over the savanna." Men are not hyenas. They are not naturally inclined toward sexual assault; they are taught to do so. Our culture, in film and on the street, teaches and encourages men to be sexually aggressive. To suggest that men are naturally so, and that the purpose of culture is to make them into 'gentlemen' who will 'restrain' themselves from raping, is to absolve society from inculcating human values and respect, and absolves the individual of responsibility for his (or her) actions. Stephens is right that we must "transform a culture” that enables assault, but his 'apology' is an apologetic for the actions of many men like Weinstein who knew better.
71
Exactly. Thank you, Tyler Williams. You said it much better than I could have.
This claim, that men are not naturally agressive but must be taught to be so, is popular today in a number of variations (substitute "racist" for "aggressive," for example) -- but this claim seems to fall victim to an infinite regress of causality which leaves everybody and nobody responsible for very real actions. How did the culture get this way if not for the inclinations of its members? It's ultimately a question of what used to called "class," or the lack thereof. Human conduct can sink very low indeed, in the absence of recognized codes of conduct and a social shaming mechanism. This public shame falls on Weinstein belatedly and only after he's expelled from the closed society of the entertainment business.
I think that this comment is very perceptive. Until i read it, I thought that Bret Stephens's column was adequate to the occasion. Now I see that it falls short.
And "The old saw that all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing..." [Stephens] is an inaccurate version of the quotation often attributed to Edmund Burke): "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for enough good men to do nothingl"
This is a dicey issue. Oh, I don't mean Weinstein, he's a sexual predator, perhaps a rapist but clearly one who used his position to coerce sex.
As did Bill Clinton.
But the dicey issue isn't Weinstein, there will always be a Weinstein. The dicey issue is the enablers, perhaps including some women who have come forward now. Certainly male colleagues who knew about him but did nothing.
Clearly, a rape victim isn't an enabler -- unless they don't bring charges. That may sound harsh, but if Weinstein did rape someone and they had gone to the police, he might have been stopped in his tracks.
Those he groped or exposed himself to aren't enablers. But again, if they had come forward before now, who knows?
Then we have those who perhaps made a cold calculated decision to accept a quid pro quo. They may not have liked it, because as Bret points out, Weinstein is no Paul Newman. But you accept the proposition -- you enable him.
And I've seen that proposition made & accepted quite often in grad school and business. In grad school, most of the male faculty, often married, had female grad students (sometimes male) who they, shall we say, closely advised. As my mentor told me -- who was well known in the field but hardly Paul Newman -- it's a fair exchange. Career support for sex. And none of the grad students (sometimes upper level UG) complained.
Ditto business. Women using their sex appeal, sometimes sex, for career purposes -- which enables predators.
4
"Libidinous cads," you say? No, they're rapists. And in Weinstein's case, the media closed ranks to protect him because he has liberal politics.
3
Just like Roger Ailes and Bill O'reilly. Talk about closed ranks protecting someone. All because they are conservatives. Seriously and Trump. This is men behaving badly and has nothing to do with politics. Except the biggest of all Trump.
2
"Most victims of sexual violence are hurt by someone they know and trust. We need to be careful and eternally vigilant."
The best comment so far, imo, penned by Blue Moon.
Having experienced unwanted advances by people I desperately needed to help me, like a family-law attorney for one, the trauma and subsequent distrust of authority has been the most difficult thing I've had to overcome.
8
Bottom line this story is about men behaving badly and getting away with it. Before it is over there will be a lot of people who will need to take stock of their soul. Enablers one and all, and honestly the women coming forward really need to ask themselves what they should of done differently. I recognize they are victims but they also are enablers. They knew this was going on but not one of them publicly spoke up, some took pay offs to keep quite and now they are mad they know one did anything, That they knew and didn’t say anything but let other women experience that same grotesque behavior. Quit waiting on men to do the right thing, we have it in our power to stop this if we would be willing to speak out when it happens. Are there consequences to speaking out, of course, however the consequences to not doing so are as bad or worse.
2
Okay, Bret, I get it. Enablers are bad, bad, bad boys (and girls?). Even so, I'm very skeptical of the sub-text involved in this business, which is to make government the enforcer of chastity, any and every time someone complains that theirs has been violated. Just saying.
3
This isn't a case of the government enforcing chastity. It's about enforcing laws against rape and assault. He didn't wink and flirt and make it clear he's LIKE to have sex: he offered not only a quid pro quo arrangement to many women, but put his hands on their bodies, stuffed his private parts in their mouths, and in at least one case was accused of rape. This is not like boys being boys. Most men I know outgrew being boys a long time ago. This is about a few men using their position to bully, abuse, and rape.
Harvey Weinstein is just the biggest fish in a very, very big sea of predators. I appreciate this article but your statement that the "libertine" culture of long ago (I assume you mean the '60s) dispensed with most restraint and gentlemanly behavior. I came of age in the '60s and believe me that so-called "gentlemanly behavior" was no such thing. Women were literally enslaved in plain sight and basically told to stop complaining because they had it so good, i.e. they didn't have to work all day (housework and raising children didn't count). Our neighbor routinely practiced his "golf swing" on his wife and at cocktail parties everyone laughed and shook their heads about how awful Mrs. B must be to her husband to make him so mad at her. I had friends who died from illegal abortions, a friend who was raped by her brother and was blamed for "seducing" him (she hanged herself at age 40), my mother was not allowed to have either a checking account or a credit card without my father's approval; when she went to the doctor, my father went with her and the doctor talked only to him about my mother's symptoms. She was totally dependent on his money, and switched price labels on food to stretch the dollar. There were pederasts in schools, at church, in social clubs. Wife beating was ALWAYS the fault of the wife. Even rape was often considered to be the woman's fault for wearing high heels on the street. Don't give me that line about gentlemanly behavior. We needed the '60s - badly.
16
Artistcon3: yes it seems to be a meme on the right to blame men's bad behavior on the libertine 60s.
The sixties was never about disrespecting women. Criminals are criminals whatever the era. All these men who are predators -- and they do NOT include ALL MEN, were never taught by their fathers to respect others nor to respect women, but to consider them objects for their use and pleasure.
There are plenty of men who came of age in the 1960s who have wholesome respectful relationships with women, partners and lovers.
It's the male dominance and power structure that has been the corrosive effect on our society. That explains all the predators over the last 50 years who are still active today.
2
Wow, 2 of the 3 NYT picks blame the victims to some extent, suggesting they kept quiet because they sought fame or money.
No.
These women were pursuing careers in their chosen field. Period. A man with the power to end those careers threatened to do so. Period.
Weinstein exploited his power to influence his victims' careers, first to lure them into carefully disguised traps, a harmless lunch at a hotel or a meeting in a hotel room with another woman present to assuage doubts.
Once in the lobster trap, he'd cajole a woman into a carefully scripted scenario of increasingly demeaning compliance: choose to stay after the other woman leaves, wait while he takes a shower...
After getting his way he would give them a final choice: keep silent and possibly be rewarded with work or complain and have the full force of his connections, lawyers, and publicists unleashed against them.
The choices started out small, but a no at any stage put victims in jeopardy and the victims knew they wouldn't be saying no to a single job, but their entire career, regardless of whether it was nascent or well established.
Most male readers have the luxury of considering what we'd do in such a situation only as a thought experiment rather than in real life, in real time, with the attendant anxiety and disorientation --and we'd likely imagine a simple yes/no scenario rather than an elaborate, thoughtfully planned scheme.
We have no right to impugn the decisions these women made.
13
The Right Emphasis. Stephens' column is brilliant and profound, particularly in its emphasis on the deeper issues of our culture and especially our politics more than the too easy, obvious critiques of Weinstein's behavior. How wonderful it would be if one saw the same emphasis on CNN, NBC, and the rest of the Democratic Party. But it hasn't happened, and very likely will not.
2
"Gentlemanly behavior" being widespread in some golden age before the 60s is a myth. The casting couch didn't begin with Harvey Weinstein. When I was growing up, my grandmother would speak of female secretaries in a hushed voice, because back in her day men so often treated them little better than prostitutes. The phrase "She was a secretary before she married" was tantamount to calling the person a scarlet woman. And of course, all the judgment was on the woman.
4
Fifty years of sexual liberation has done little to liberate women. My guess is there are plenty of beautiful women who willingly slept with and flattered this grotesque man in order to get work. Some probably did it reluctantly and others flat out rejected him. Men are never going to get this right until women decide to quit undermining each other and insist, as a sex, that men start behaving like human beings with souls instead of untrained, intact dogs.
8
If they exist, and they may, women who "willingly slept with" or othewise consented to The Weinstein Way are not likely to come forward.
And because human beings are so varied in their tastes and interests, it seems possible some, if they exist, might have enjoyed whatever occurred.
This is not to support Weinstein or others who abuse power (male or female) or to demean men and women who when subjected to intimidation or who crave/need employment, go along to get along. Throughout human history, authority and power have been exerted in many ways, both good and bad. Urges, whether testosterone-abetted or not, will continue to have results -- both good and bad. How much of the tragedy, drama and comedy portrayed in novels, on stage, on screen deal with human emotion,
desires, needs, hubris, folly and foolishness? Real Life is not a tidy bubble floating in rarefied air. Real Life. What would we do without it?
Doug Giebel, Big Sandy, Montana
2
Mr. Stephens. I appreciate you and other writers keeping the tacitly tolerated issue of sexual harassment in the public conversation. However, your message was muddied right at the beginning of your editorial. "Mr. Weinstein, whose repulsive face turns out to be the spitting image of his putrescent soul." I'll agree with you on the soul issue, but using someone's level of attractiveness as a metric for their goodness is a poor choice. The halo effect goes both ways and it is irresponsible to imply that one's looks inform one's capacity for moral choices.
94
I took it to mean he's so grossly unattractive - one's putrid soul does indeed eventually appear on one's face - because of his moral failure. Normal people don't understand what goes into that depth of repulsive behavior but humiliating women comes from a very dark soul. All the success and power in the world can't fix that.
Brava!
Disagree. After a lifetime of gluttony, the glutton has the face he deserves. Weinstein's life was plainly written on his face. I could see a creep in photos. To claim those who knew him weren't aware he was "putrescent" is disingenuous in the extreme.
Correct me if I'm wrong, isn't the "casting couch" a Hollywood custom? This isn't actually news, is it? I'm not saying it's good at all; I'm just saying it is a cliche going back to the beginning of the movies, and probably before that to vaudeville, etc. It is long past time to call a halt to this kind of behaviour. But don't pretend Weinstein invented it and don't blame the 1960s.
13
This has nothing to do with acting and "Tinseltown." It is power, privilege and domination which have been, and continue to be, tools used to subjugate the weak. Happens everywhere there are wealthy people who can manipulate those around them. Easy to say people should speak out at the time, but it's often more complicated and frightening than that. My lesson from experience.
19
As I have written before, Americans and especially American women are a spoiled lot. Perhaps it is necessary to have lived and earned one's living in a "developing nation,"euphemistically called, to realize how hopeless and tough daily life is if you are a member of the female sex, and are not born into a wealthy family. Subject to fgm in Islamic countries before you are into your teens, having no means of controlling your own life and destiny, since birth control is seldom practiced, and married to a husband unable to find work except as perhaps a taximan earning grosso modo equivalent of $5.00 daily "et encore,"life is an ordeal with no relief in sight, which is why a visa to the US is balm in gilead, liberation and hope. If average African female were offered what those spoiled starlettes were offered by HW, who looks to me like a good bloke,a good fellow, she would not have to be asked twice.Apart from the rape aspect, which is unacceptable, what has he done that is so unpardonnable, beyond the pale?Why the moral outrage, since his lascivious habits were known for decades?And what man among us would not be tempted to do likewise if given the opportunity? Think of all those over the hill female stars with little talent who commanded back in the day millions per picture thanks to HW!And they're now complaining of sexual harassment, saying, like Paltrow, Streep inter alios, this must stop, referring to HW's libido? Cry me a river, Mr. Stephens!
The real enablers are members of Boards of Directors of organizations allowing the men in power to continue as they payout millions in settlements.
After all we never saw a Fox News woman go on air and tell everyone of all the crimes committed by the men in power at that fair and balanced network. They could easily of outed those men on live TV, but no doubt been fired and black balled for doing it.
Victims are not enablers, the powerful who do nothing are.
10
"The old saw that all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing was never truer than it was in Weinstein’s case." Of course, this type of behavior has been going on for decades and in many businesses across America. I doubt this will change anything.
1
It's not just Weinstein and Hollywood, it is the men (and they are almost always men) in power at the top of every single powerful institution in this country. None of them are held accountable for anything they do, no matter how damaging it is to others or how many laws they break. And they all know it. So they commit all of these criminal, unethical, and heinous deeds knowing full well they will never be brought to account, never challenged, and never brought to justice for their actions. The only (rare) exceptions are the ones who get caught and (usually because of a media feeding frenzy), get tossed to the wolves and scapegoated to protect the other 99.99% doing the same things. The Madoff's, the Shkreli's, the Weinstein's. To these elites, literally anything goes. Their mantra is simple - "do what ever you want, no matter the damage or harm it does. Just don't get caught. And if you do get caught, find a way to blame someone else, ride out the bad publicity (assuming there is any), and have enough money, connections and clout to avoid punishment anyway. That's the way a country with no real justice system works, for the elites. Restore justice, now, before it is too late.
8
Yes I think it is fair to say that the sexual freedom of many of us during the last sixty years has just meant different sexual prisons for both women and men - but particularly women - rather than the patriarchal marriage of the past and today. Realistically in the future I think there are still going to be many more stay-at-home mums (or moms) than dads; but for others aren't more respectful, committed relationships between relative equals possible; rather than the at least tawdry if not potentially abusive casual sex markets of the present? Can't more of us be happily and unselfconsciously gentlemen and gentlewomen?
1
I kept reading, knowing there would be a punch-line. More accurately, an attack on the rebellions of the 1960s. And sure enough, it came.
Mr. Stephens takes Weinstein's words to launch the assault: "The important truth is that he was just another libidinous cad in a libertine culture that long ago dispensed with most notions of personal restraint and gentlemanly behavior. “I came of age in the ’60s and ’70s, when all the rules about behavior and workplaces were different,” Weinstein wrote in his mea culpa to The Times last week. 'That was the culture then.'"
The trashing of Old Testament, patriarchal morals was long-overdue, and one wonders if this is what Mr. Stephens is yearning for. Moreover, Mr. Stephens is silent on the matter of what those feminists of that period accomplished precisely in confronting the use of women as sex objects.
I cannot help but feel Mr. Stephens is an advocate for the morality that Margaret Atwood so rightly and eloquently trashed in The Handmaid's Tale. And if you're not familiar with that book (or movies), the enforcers of public morals in those religious states kept their own private pleasure dens while they imposed their puritanism on the rest of society. Weinstein, Bill O'Reilly, and any number of powerful men (emphasis on men) fit right into Ms. Atwood's fictional nation of Gilead.
20
Good for you. A creepy conservative lashing out against those oh so horrible, immoral '60s. If this author thinks going back to the Old Testament 'morals" that the '60s helped get rid of, he wasn't there, he's not a member of a minority or a woman, and he's painting his moral code with a very broad brush. He's seeing it from some philosophical mountain top, not from the homes and families and the individuals who were destroyed in so many cases where white male patriarchy in all its viciousness reigned unchallenged, in fact glorified, by a white male power structure that thinks it owns not just every thing, but every person on the planet.
8
Replying to myself about fitting into Margaret Atwood's fictional Gilead - how could I forget Trump & Pence?!?!
"There ain't a dime's worth of difference" George Wallace used to say about the two major political parties. As far as Weinstein, Trump and Ailes, what's the difference, except that the real show is in how their enablers slavishly expose their hypocrisy in defending them.
9
Well. there's quite a large difference. Trump is just a big talker. Ailes was guilty of workplace harassment. Weinstein has been credibly accused by multiple women of forcible rape. I certainly HOPE you can see a large difference.
1
Re: CD in Madison's comments: I agree with you wholeheartedly right up until your very last sentence: "That culture is called in another opinion piece, the white working class."
The majority of D. Trump's voters, his "enablers," weren't white working class Americans. They were--and are--white, middle, upper middle and wealthy suburban Americans. Take a look around your own neighborhood and be honest about who and how many of them voted for and continue to support D. Trump.
11
I really just profoundly disagree with this. I live a solidly working class neighborhood. I went to my GOP precinct caucus to support Marco Rubio and was surprised to find almost everyone on my block there - all for Trump. On the other hand, at my academic workplace, the richer the were, the more all-for-Hillary, AND the more contemptuous of anyone not of that opinion.
So why is that? I truly think that the Obama years of "nation of cowards", "you didn't build that", the whole "we know best" attitude took its toll, AND Hillary's fundamental entitlement and dishonesty were painfully clear. Dems have to face this. I doubt anyone thought Trump was a great candidate - just the lesser of two evils.
3
You can disagree with this as much as you like, based upon your personal experience and emotions, but take a hard look at reliable demographic analyses from the election, nationwide.
Blaming bad behavior of wealthy powerful men on the "white working class" (of which I am one) is a red herring.
1
At this point the "righteous enablers" can be as evil as you imagine Harvey Weinstein to be.
7
Spot on commentary.
2
First, Weinstein appears incapable of healthy sexual expression, instead he engages in force and violence. His sexual perversion seems to derive pleasure from repeated rejections and expressions of repulsion from women. He is a pervert and a criminal.
Second, victims and their attorneys and perpetrators' attorneys, and our entire legal system, should recognize that financial settlements and non-disclosure agreements are enabling serial sexual abusers and rapists. Instead, victims need to be able to count on police support to enable the gathering of evidence of illegal activity so criminals can be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
20
Oh, the enablers are at least as numerous outside Hollywood.
Why aren't the NY Times, the LA Times and WaPo demanding detailed timelines of Noah Oppenheim who spiked Ronan Farrow's story at NBC? The big media cone of silence about Oppenheim's decision at NBC, and the inevitable twist in the few stories published to re-focus on Trump, are blatantly obvious.
And the issue of abuse of power to obtain sex in Hollywood surely is not limited to Harvey Weinstein. Why is no one ferreting out other abusers and a culture of cover-up?
The media knew how to do investigative journalism on the pedophile priests and the Catholic Church hierarchy coverup. They were relentless. But this time not so much. The reluctance is both ongoing and palpable.
Why?
13
And Weinstein is captured, convicted, and disgraced for his behavior
over years in the movie business in Hollywood. Consider, the U.S.
public survived the advenures of J.F.K. and Ted Kennedy, Hollywood will
survive because it is about sex and money and images. Nothing really
changes, except the names of the players.
2
Well, well. This sets the brand back a bit, no? How many election cycles worth
of ads might come of this, and how many of the enablers will star in them? Hee! ALL of them. Even now, we are culling every source for photos of big mouths and Harvey, big boobs and Harvey and big political people with Harvey. We will of course be underwriting the tell-all exposes, and offering free legal counsel to any victims or aggrieved parties that come forward. The country will learn to ignore and even oppose every utterance from those now "shocked"...yeah, shocked their hypocrisy is on full display. A bit more of this and the country might welcome a "gift" from North Korea presented at Holywood & Vine as necessary fumigation. Failing that, decades in the political wilderness as we rip at the fabric, publicize the excesses and render the entire industry as toxic. Sometimes God is good.
Sir, people who live in glass houses.........ask Mr. Weinstein. The Film biz has many scoundrels, in fact the US makes a lot of films about scoundrels (the anti hero).
You conservatives: oh the sixties were so bad, sex, drugs and rock and roll!
If you recall the sixties revolt was about WAR, Vietnam, Corporatism washing out the rule of law for the full on permanent war economy. And RACISM!
Weinstein disgusting. Enablers on all sides cowardly.
But blame it all on the sixties? Both of you?
15
Rich, white, Male. The trifecta of privilege, power and abuse. Maybe HE should run for President, he has the training and experience. Right, Donald? Gross.
14
"...whose repulsive face" is no way to engage in any conversation, but followed by "his putrescent soul" qualifies this commentary as the opening lines of a prayer book and deserves no light beyond the candles in whichever holy edifice this has been written.
Cleary Mr Weinstein is a disturbed man who, like every other person on the planet, had no choice in his physical appearance and was not born with a predisposition to be the oafish. ill featured bore, portrayed. He was tutored by family, friends and a male dominant society which is skewed to exploit the social weakness in which it holds women.
This is a poor excuse for a column in any newspaper beyond a tabloid edition.
13
Well, his face wouldn't be so repulsive if he got rid of his ridiculous five o'clock shadow that he cultivates; and if he lost a lot of weight. So I think your attack on this accurate description of his physical appearance is off the mark.
1
What is it with these gross figures not shaving? Do they think their stubble is attractive? He looks as repugnant as he behaves, in his vain failure to groom.
4
and now all is a big surprise.....no kidding....
1
How about writing a column demonizing the republican war on women. This even more destructive set of behaviors dwarfs the damage powerful pigs like trump, Clinton and Weinstein can do to women. Your party is taking away reproductive rights from low income women. This will kill them and their unwanted children( who will not be able to have health insurance).
16
Again, it comes down to the basic----MONEY.
1
At the heart of all Liberal philosophy--and behavior, is the belief in big government. All sins will be forgiven, for any politicians, or celebrity who believes in government solutions to every problem, government involvement in every aspect of our lives, central planning, income redistribution and abortion on demand.
Not a peep was heard from feminists about Monica Lewinsky--or the various other Bill Clinton scandals. Try to remember one Liberal who ever denounced him.
Nary a peep was heard by the liberal media, denouncing Anthony Weiner, and his serial depravity. His behavior had to become so twisted and obvious, else Liberals might have elected him the next mayor of New York.
Marion Barry was re-elected, despite drugs and hookers.
Barney Frank consorted with a congressional page, apologized an went on to win his next election in a landslide.
The list goes on....John Edwards, Gary Hart, Elliot Spitzer, Kwame Kilpatrick, JFK, David Patterson, Gary Condit--all left unscathed by the liberal press.
Liberals simply don't care--about morals, about conventions, about laws, or even sexual harassment--as long as its adherents support a big government agenda. Congratulations to Mr. Stephens for being brave enough to point out how Liberals are so quick ot look the other way. Honestly, I'm wondering how this piece made it past the editors.
7
Keeping women from contraceptives by law is not 'big government'?
4
This is an interesting and not-unusual "conservative" analysis leading to the question:
if the media (liberal included) did not extensively report on and did not publish editorial comments on the writer's list of misbehaving males, how does he know so much about them? Why did and does the nation know about them
if there was "nary a peep" about their stories in the national press?
A two minute Internet search will turn up a lot of information.
2
This behavior ha existed forever! Weinstein did exactly what culture taught him to do. His wealth insured that he could abuse without consequences. Women have been sexually assaulted & battered all through modern history & before. Few cultures have EVER held men accountable for their violence against women. As soon as European, male deity worshiping tribes spread across the earth women became whipping posts and objects to be used. Disagree? Explain why women are still beaten and raped today! The answer is because they CAN! It's not "individual pathology" that causes male violence to women. It's the power society gives to men; it's how we raise them. The worst thing you can call a boy/man is a girl/woman. 150 years ago women couldn't file for divorce, have custody of their kids. We were non-people/citizens. We were property. Kinda like slaves. Racism and sexism are intricately linked in our culture. Imagine a continuum. On 1 end are men who rape & batter. On the other are men who see women as equals. The majority of men fall somewhere in between. The majority believe that in some way women are not equal to men & that they are less than. The Weinstein thing is not an anomaly. It's the norm. It's stupid to think less powerful men could stop him. Violence against women is all about Power & Control! These men were socialized the same way. Men are rarely held accountable because women/girls still don't matter. Ready to change that? Stop thinking women lie about abuse.
12
Blaming the libidinous culture of Hollywood doesn't explain the sins of Ailes or O'Reilly.
5
Good essay.
1
So basically people criticising Stephens' article over here are using Trump's favorite tactic: Whataboutism. What about Fox News? What About the Iraq war?
Just accept that the author has a point and move on...
5
"Hyenas cannot help their own nature," except human beings aren't, you know, hyenas. Give us a break, Bret.
8
Mr. Weinstein enjoyed one-night stands. CBS launched a new situation comedy this week with the same topic featured in the series pilot. Either it wasn’t very funny or I am becoming an old prude. I didn't even laugh when Lewis C.K. compared abortion to bowel movements.
It seems we have the Hollywood we deserve and it has given us "The America We Deserve" - one of Trump's lesser known books.
6
This is not about "one night stands."
4
"The important truth is that he was just another libidinous cad in a libertine culture that long ago dispensed with most notions of personal restraint and gentlemanly behavior." Mr.Stephens...Harvey Weinstein is a libidinous cad? Hardly; Weinstein is a monster. He had money and power. And he used it to prey on women. Many of his acts were likely criminal. No woman should have to endure the likes of Harvey Weinstein whether its in Hollywood or Topeka, Kansas. He knows what he was doing was very wrong. He doesn't need counseling. He needs jail time.
8
The hypocrisy of liberal Hollywood is unreal.
1
The hypocrisy of conservative Evangelicals and businesses is unreal.
2
Like the hypocrisy of Washington?
The hypocrisy of the religious, tribal and wealthy is very real.
"Mr. Weinstein, whose repulsive face turns out to be the spitting image of his putrescent soul" (loved that). Followed by a not so subtle vituperation at the expense of liberals whose souls must be infecting America; how befitting for a conservative slant, Mr. Stephens.
Now, let it be known that I personally believe that many if not most faces of Trump supporters who defend him on media posses "repulsive faces" that might be "the spitting image" of their "putrescent" souls..., may my opinion be excused.
Perhaps nature did design some humans to look "heinous" and act as stinkers....
But then we forget the nurturing part which, truth be said, is complicated and varied as we move through time and "cultures", for it is well known that the advent of "professions" involved sex and "libidinous" men...Here we are thousands of years later trying to make sense of it, and correct human designs, be them bestowed by nature (repulsive faces) or as result of nurture (putrescent souls)...
Indeed, it's complicated!
2
That opening sentence that you relished is the one thing in the article that turned me off. How can an argument that starts off with an insulting reference to a person’s appearance (a Trump-type attack) be taken seriously? I was surprised that Mr. Stephens, whose articles I usually enjoy reading despite my being on the “opposite side” to his, would engage in this kind of writing, tempting as it may be to indulge his spleen.
5
Exactly how I felt about the opening line; need I say I was facetious?, although I indulged for I am a liberal and associate faces with political stance that is plain mean, politics are personal, are they not?, mea culpa. Bret Stephens is a skilled writer and his verbiage impressive as is his knowledge but then his ethos can be murky and his consciousness blemished, owed to, you guessed it - his spleen.
1
Shame on you, you missed the biggest enabler: the NYC prosecutor, Cyrus Vance. Jr, who could have put a stop to this. In most jurisdictions, prosecutors prosecute when presented with solid evidence, as was the case with Weinstein. In NYC, prosecutors find way to avoid charging the rich and famous, while pocketing tens of thousands in “campaign donations” from the suspect's lawyers.
7
I knew that this would happen.
What surprised me is the suddenness of the entire affair "Weinstein"
The Emasculation of the American male has begun.
It's terrible time for a male to live in America.(sperm counts are decreasing at alarming levels)
In the good old days,if he winked at the girls(albeit slyly) it was construed as an Proposition.Take it or leave it:simple as that.
Not anymore,this is "Hyena-s" behaviour & is a clear case of "Sexual Discrimination","Sexual Harassment",Most Uncouth behaviour & what have you...
Being a male is becoming a Stressful,tension filled,Worrisome gender.
Specially,if you are hyper successful like a mega star or mega producer...
Everybody East of Eden is in the pursuit of trying hard to recollect maleficence three decades ago.
She recollects vividly,he trying to sexually harass her by asking "would you like a massage"
She is outraged,her innocence has been shredded by the audacity of this vile man in asking her the strange question.
Three decades later she recollects the most insolent incidence.
Ask her if she can remember her papa's birthday,NOPE.
Harvey Weinstein was naive,he never took recourse to high end lawyers for Confidentiality clause...
He spoke like an American Male.
Whatever be the outcome of this steamrolling of Harvey,one thing is for sure,it's going to spawn a huge Insurance business of protecting the hapless male from future Law suits for past "discriminations & harassment" sexual or otherwise.
What I've never understood about the "proposition" is the fact that males believe they are that attractive that a woman would buy a proposition on a "wink." In general, men are attracted to a woman's physical appearance, but I can tell you from my experience being female, and from knowing many females, women fall in love with their ears and hearts.
"The important truth is that he was just another libidinous cad in a libertine culture that long ago dispensed with most notions of personal restraint and gentlemanly behavior."
Just another libidinous cad? Weinstein is a rapist. There is no equivalence. The issues are power, consent, and violation, not simply libido, crudity, or decorum. The false equivalence Mr Stephens suggests in this essay have made him "just another" enabler of criminals like Mr Weinstein.
4
And there was Hugh Hefner.........the "moral example" for a generation of men in our culture. Don't forget Hugh Hefner!!
4
You shouldn't insult Hyenas, they take care of each other. Weinstein is an example of a particular human crime.
I think the most depressing part of all of this isn't the lack of heroes, it's that women were raped and abused by this man in the first place.
12
Okay, so Harvey is a pig, and probably a psycho, but come on. This kind of thing is not a new story from the film industry, the ultimate objectifier of beautiful women, which loves to trot them out in revealing outfits and in sexy poses and scenes, and which gives its best opportunities to the hottest young beauties of the day. And what do the young women actors think about what they're likely getting into? And the women executives and beneficiaries involved are just as culpable as the men. Are you really going to tell me that Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama hadn't heard the stories about Harvey before she took his checks? Please.
What I find interesting is that the press is hard out to get a weird old unshaven fat man rather than asking what it all says about an industry that celebrates youth, beauty, and sex and about the society that so eagerly pays for its products.
4
Honestly, why can't we all just blame the alleged perpetrator; Harvey Weinstein himself? He alone created this sick world that fed only himself - his behavior, if true - is criminal. He abused and victimized everyone in his path. His employees, I'm sure, all did as they were told - as employees; and if they didn't like it, they presumably left. Still, shame on those who left in dismay or perhaps shock! and did nothing ... following their nondisclosure clauses to the letter. Cowards.
2
The enablers are those who speak about Mr. Weinstein but not about venereal decease that spreads through promiscuity. The enablers offer free birth control to teenagers and pretend to know about safe sex. The enablers are CBS that launched a situation comedy this week about one-night stands. So funny I forgot to laugh.
3
I am astonished to learn that a powerful man in Hollywood used his position to extort sex from women. No, seriously, the casting couch is as old as Hollywood, as old as the theater, and probably goes back to Aeschylus. Weinstein had the power to confer wealth and glory on people who desperately wanted both. He made a lot of money and won a lot of Oscars for those he supported. As long as he had the prospect of providing more of the same, no one wanted to cross him. If he still had the hop on his fastball, he'd be doing business as usual. Age and declining powers have as much to do with his downfall as changes in the culture.
5
I wonder why DJT isn't Tweeting his head off about this Hollywood elite and big contributor to the Democratic Party? Perhaps even he has limits.
1
I think that Ben Affleck has emerged as the next Mel Gibson.
The films of him pawing young women journalists trying to do their jobs is absolutely disgusting. He seems he learned a lot from his pal Harvey.
Buh-bye, Ben. Good riddance.
8
I agree with virtually every syllable of this piece but . . .
". . . repulsive face . . ." is a gratuitous and irrelevant characterization. Weinstein's appearance is no more at issue here than the appearance of his victims. This disgusting saga should not be tacitly accompanied by an implication that it would be different if either Weinstein looked like George Clooney or his victims were "less attractive."
5
I think Weinstein is just a symptom of a more dysfunctional culture in Hollywood, which by itself is just a symptom of a dysfunctional general culture. I just watched the sequel to Blade Runner at the movie theater yesterday (I am huge fan of the original). What I saw was the ultimate display of gratuitous of objectified of the women's bodies (which does not even seem to bother anybody anymore). And all I could think was, why do women subject themselves to such treatment, to such banalization? The only answer I could come up comes from the mouth of another famous abuser of women: "It's the economy, stupid."
3
Remember when Jack Nicholson made lascivious remarks about Jennifer Lawrence...like he wanted to sleep with her. Of course, I am not saying that Nicholson committed an act but the notion that it was even an acceptable remark that took place at the Oscars by a man 53 years OLDER and nobody was shocked and everyone pretty much laughed like "how funny" speaks to the disgusting, imbalanced, sexist culture we live in.
5
Yeah, look how far we have come, to the point that we can pile on Weinstein in a way that we could not pile on Bill Clinton. Even Hillary sees the issue of sexual predation now, and is now free to attack a serial molester and sexual assaulter, in a way she could never do with Bill, if she wished to preserve her political viability. Perhaps, after Harvey is crushed we will have more success crushing Donald?
4
Mr Stephens had me nodding my head up until the line "Hyenas cannot help their own nature." That, right there, is why it still happens. To fall back on the old, tired trope that "Well, they can't help it, you know. That's how God made 'em!" is to ensure that this will happen over and over and over.
At least Mr Weinstein was fired and his wife ditched him. Conservatives had a similar situation last year and elected the guy President instead. Sad.
6
Another word for this industry missing from the piece, incestuous. Nepotism in bed with enabling. You have to wonder how many talented women walked from his advances and never made it in the business because of Weinstein's abuse of power?
5
Putrescent soul - really piling on here. But don't you think condemning Weinstein ad hominem in stronger terms than the Vegas gunman really suggests something's upside down in this culture? The media are zealous analysts of motive and circumstance in other crimes - why is this one treated as heresy? Are women so vulnerable that they need hysterical levels of media chivalry to single out crimes against them?
Obviously there is no excuse or justification for forcing oneself upon women and I'm not making one (nor would I ever act like that). But seeing Leo DiCaprio and Clooney savaging Weinstein in the press leaves behind a bad smell. There are two men who - thanks solely to their non-repulsive faces - have had sexual and affirming attention from the most beautiful women in the world freely available and on tap. Meanwhile Weinstein, born with his repulsive face, gets none of that despite working in the same industry and - as I'm sure he would feel, and it's not hard to argue - being several times more brilliant and doing more, objectively, for the careers of women across Hollywood.
Reminds me of the SNL skit on "Sexual Harrassment and You". You can argue politics all you like, but people are people, not aggregate statistics. Easy not to have a putrescent soul when you don't have a repulsive face.
4
What about Matt Damon? How did you conveniently leave him out of your article? Or is that you doing an impression of "a good man remaining silent?"
2
Too many words for a guy who should have already been in jail for a long time. White privilege at its finest. End of story.
2
"Hyenas cannot help their own nature. "
Perhaps not, but humans can and should control their libidinous urges in inappropriate circumstances.
Mr. Stephens, you do an injustice to hyenas when you compare them to Mr. Weinstein, who apparently believes that his status entitles him to abuse and harass any woman he chooses.
I use the present tense here because Mr. Weinstein is unlikely to change. His public mea culpa was lacking in true remorse and understanding of how he affected the many women he attacked.
And let us not forget the willing aides who set up trusting young women. They no doubt were rewarded for their complicity and duplicity.
At the same time, all of our society is not complicit in this. Women, by and large, do not condone this behavior. As time goes by, fewer will be afraid to come forward when men such as Weinstein harass them. Our culture will be better for it.
1
The most depressing aspect of it is that propagandists like Stephens make too much of UNELECTED fools.
As obnoxious as Weinstein is, he only hurt himself, family, and adult starlets who for some mysterious reason kept journeying to his hotel room to discuss "business."
2
Women and other minorities are powerless things in our society, to be used and disrespected by the powerful. This is allowed and condoned with a wink and a nod. It isn't limited to Hollywood, it exists everywhere.
Bragging about treating women as things is "locker room talk" and is to be dismissed as inconsequential. Filling your speeches and twitter with disrespectful and belittling comments is considered strong. This is our culture and we have rewarded those who wallow in its filth.
I'm sorry to tell you Mr. Stephens, but the savanna is already overrun by hyenas and they are feeding on our carcasses.
1
"Like those other libidinous cads — Bill Clinton and Donald Trump — Weinstein benefited from a culture that often celebrated, constantly depicted, sometimes enabled, seldom confronted, and all-too frequently forgave the behavior they so often indulged in." That's laughable. You think sexual predation was reduced in the 1950s and 1940s? MAGA?
4
The Weinstein "scandal" actually seems "normal". As Americans, we have always commented cynically about Hollywood behavior, giving it a wink and a nod, for over 80 years now. One of the classic American stereotypes is the lusty, borish, arrogant Hollywood Mogul that beds every starlet in town who is hypnotyzed by the empty promise fame and fortune.
We even make movies about this kind of behavior...glorifying it even more.
Tax Hollywood. Close the loopholes for making government propaganda during WW2. Limit Hollywood Lobbyist access to DC by TAXing PACs. SuperPACs. (Citizens United comes to mind, liberals...use your heads.)
This kind of behavior comes to a screeching halt.
1
Hugo, how does taxing and limiting Hollywood access to politics end the male creep factor?
What were not seeing, or considering, is these lousy male behaviors exists all the way down to local theater. When a young girl who wants to start out, even older ones...they meet up with the male director, or the local male theater star, who tells them they can help theid career.
Commercial work, modeling, photographers who take portfolio shots...
Its all thru the entertainment and modeling industries, their support industries, and everyplace else males can have even a few ounces of power...or so they claim.
1
This Margaret Atwood parody is way too on the nose.
1
Excellent article. Sexual harassment and abuse of women is as old as time. Until everyone takes it seriously and works to eliminate this disgusting attitude towards women and the culture that nourishes it, this will be with us.
That great Lothario Don Draper never sexually-blackmailed the creative women in his circles. In fact, he mentored, encouraged and promoted one of them: Peggy Olson, former secretary, who, when last seen, was a formidable creative ad copy writer) in her own right.
He also never dismissed Joan because of her beauty, recognizing that she, too had creative brains.
Why can't more creative, powerful men be like Don Draper?
1
Because he is a fictional character.
4
Don Draper was an incredibly flawed AND fictional character.
4
Bret you fail to add the Times to your list of enablers for its failure to publish Ms. Waxman’s article in 2004. Also your insulting reference to Weinstein’s face is sophomoric.
He preyed on powerless women but there are plenty of powerful women who failed to act. Ashley Judd, Meryl Streep, Hillary Clinton. He got a pass not only because of his power and wealth but because of his politics.
1
Ms. Doc, there is no way to know IF HRC knew of HWs behaviors. None, unless she admits to it, or an incident of obtaining such knowlege comes out, and is not second, third, fourth person...
1
I object to saying, about Weinstein 'repulsive face' Would it be any less objectionable if he had been handsome!
Recently it has become acceptable to make personal comments, calling people 'liddle' or mimicking someone's disabilities.
Stop it already.
6
As is said of rape, Weinstein's serial sexual abuse of women is not about sex, but is about abuse. A man of Weinstein's wealth and power could easily and legally have indulged any conceivable sexual appetite and found willing partners. That he would impose himself on unwilling partners is evidence of psychopathology or at least a personality disorder. The very unwillingness of his victims appears to have been an essential element of his sick game. The failure of those around him to protect his victims also represents a failure to protect Weinstein against himself. A true friend would have done both.
4
Once again, mans best friend is shown to rule the male brain. A friend like that will get you into trouble every time, if you let it.
What is most concerning is that the big names (Damon, Streep, Affleck) all knew and know and are able to speak up about any and all matters and not something as horrific as this. Enablers receiving money (Obama,Clinton, Schummer) knowing darn well who he was is just another example of how these powerhouses cover up for each other at the expense of the weaker. It is sincerely disgusting! What is worse is like you say no consequences so this will just continue and it will be business as usual in a few days. Birds of a feather flock together so all the knew and are associated with him are equally as guilty and should pay! But the victims (Rose McGowan who got her twitter account suspended for speaking up) will be the ones persecuted!
The only thing I remember about the 60's and 70's is that under the guise of "free love" women were purported to have more choices sexually. But they were the same choices and those hippie men could be just as insistent as the Weinstein/Trumps of today. The same hypocrisy regarding birth control and abortion, the same Victorian shell of virtue and rectitude and christian goodness. The same sexual entitlement with a freedom bow wrapped around it. Nothing has really changed.
1
Enough already with the moral preening, sanctimony, and veiled anti semitism exemplified by your words that Harvey Weinstein's face is "repulsive!" Who looks as good at age 60, man or woman, as he or she did in their twenties? When I was 38 and walking Halls of Congress for LS,girl came up to me and thought I was Ted Kennedy. 5 years later folks said I looked like Leo Gorsey, and several years ago at a wedding reception, someone said, "I know who you look, like Warren Buffett!"Your use of adjective, "repulsive" to describe HW's face is similar to what the anti semite, JM Le Pen said about "Francais d'origine juive," that they were "repoussants,"which translates as repulsive in English. So, as father of son who graduated Ramaz and with close links to Jewish community, I am offended.But put yourself in HW's position:What would you have done in his place? Would you have resisted the temptation? Even James Earl Carter, informed by his religion, confessed that he had lust in his heart. Never judge others. Paxton, in his books about collaborators and collaborationists in Vichy--there is a difference--advised readers before judging too harshly Frenchmen who went along with Vichy and/, Gestapo during Occupation by the Third Reich, what they would have done in their place.Ask yourself, Mr. Stephens, what you would have done if you had been faced, as a producer who could make or break movie careers, when constantly approached by young, beautiful would be starlets?
1
Another conservative pointing the finger, without irony, at Harvey Weinstein, who deserves all of the scorn and degradation that he gets. But when the Miss Universe contestants come forward; when the Apprentice tapes surface; when the scores of women Trump has abused over the years go public; Trump will make Harvey look like an amateur.
4
Everyone in Hollywood knew, from the powerful to the desperate: agents, managers, journalists, paparazzi, actors, directors, makeup artists, location scouts, extras. Rumors, as well as direct accusations had been floating around for years. No one was going to risk their job by actually taking a stand. If they had, no one would have supported them by joining them in protest.
It was only the people in positions of great responsibility who could have done something about this years ago and protected scores of young women. They did nothing, silencing those with less power.
The leaders of the Democratic party certainly knew, despite their very late and scripted statements. President Obama, I am sad to say, had to have decided to turn a blind eye when Malia was an intern. Hillary Clinton has been a serial enabler of male misbehavior for decades. Who were a couple of ambitious actresses to her? She was comfortable around hounds and this one was a conduit to tons of money and power. The silence helped her, allowing her to maintain her feminist brand, a brand we should all now see as false.
We are all enablers. I knew about Weinstein and I didn't boycott any of his films. I know about the sexist pig and serial groper now sitting in the White House and I'm writing a comment but I haven't been out there getting arrested every day. Trump's not paying me to be passive, but he's got the cops on his side and I've got mouths to feed.
2
Let’s face it, those who “enable” get promotions, money, and a great career. Yet ye who hath not sinned........ be unemployed!
1
Today it's Hollywood/Weinstein. Earlier this year it was FoxNews/Ailes et.al. The problem isn't limited to the entertainment industry but American business in general. A good place to start NYT is right in your own backyard, Wall St.
2
Weinstein is surely just the tip of an iceberg that goes well beyond Hollywood - all the way to Washington, DC.
There's not really much difference between Weinstein and Trump, except for the way they made their money.
Money. Sex. Power. They say if you have enough of any ONE of those, you can and will attract and gain the other two.
We can wear fancy suits of clothes, but we really haven't advanced all that far from the savannas.
4
Bret Stephens, how do you suggest the community transforms a culture that, on the one hand rightly condemns Harvey Weinstein, but on the other has rewarded Donald Trump with the Presidency, even after he candidly boasted on the Access Hollywood tape about the ease with which he sexually molested women, allowed him and his supporters to pillory as liars the women who complained of exactly that conduct, preferred him to the eminently qualified Hilary Clinton and even now lambasts her and would happily re-elect him? I contend so long as Trump is President, the task is beyond you.
4
Harvey Weinstein abuses his position of trust - gets caught, loses his company. Bill O’Reilly, basically the same thing maybe on a smaller scale. All terrible of course. However the really terrible sidebar is this: Donald Trump gropes woman and boasts about on TV. Now he’s the president, in part because of the added “ street cred” that his actions gained him.
4
The Weinstein Company said they knew nothing about this imbecile's actions and yet multiple payments were made to his victims. Who paid them off? I may be crazy but I am not stupid.
2
It may interest my fellow readers to know that Weinstein means ‘dregs’ in German, specifically the dregs that form at the bottom of a bottle of wine. Nomen est omen.
1
The sad rush of Conservatives to employ the Weinstein criminality case to somehow weirdly excuse (mask over) Conservative politics is telling.
1
Do keep in mind how utterly unlikely it is that Harvey Weinstein would have carried on his decades-long program of seduction, harassment and even rape if he had not realized a fairly robust return on investment for his depredations. Which means that, for every Gwyneth Paltrow or Ashley Judd who rejected his come-ons, there is likely another well-known name who succumbed to the career seductions of the casting couch. We’ve yet to hear from any of those people in this great chorus of present righteousness and indignation.
1
Wow.
Sounds like this guy's got the makings to become perhaps the second best President the likes of which the world will ever see.
5
Hey Brett:
Two comments.
First, I was a child of the late 60s. I was a Hippie into sex, drugs and rock and roll in college and beyond. I enjoyed the “sexual revolution” as much as anyone but it never, ever, crossed my mind to force myself on a woman. Sexual predation was absolutely not part of the “free love” culture, and predators my age who grew up back in that day are simply lying through their teeth to claim otherwise.
Second, it’s great that Paltrow and Jolie have lately added their “me too’s” to the Weinstein story. I completely understand their silence when they were young women in their 20s starting their careers. But both women have long been independently wealthy and bulletproof in terms of any career retribution Weinstein could visit upon them.
Especially disappointing is Jolie’s silence in the light of her carefully crafted persona as a champion of of world wide civil rights.
I wonder how many women could have been spared Weinstein’s predations
had Paltrow and/or Jolie done the right thing say ten years ago?
77
jolie is speaking with action - her interests suggest she's been taken advantage of and is perhaps unable to talk about the experience. nothing strange about that. both these women are routinely attacked in press so your suggestion they should put themsleves out there, 'bulletproof', is silly
1
Victim blaming is so fun. Let's try another: The concert goers in Las Vegas got what they deserved because they were outside! I love America.
You forgot Gingrich, Vitner, McCain, Craig, Spitzer, and others.
As a young guitar player I almost worshiped John Lennon and Bob Dylan, and I tried to ignore their more human traits such as meanness and using their status to use others. Eventually I decided that I didn't need to ignore their less desirable traits to respect their artistry.
What really ticks me off about Cosby is how his venality has completely destroyed his genius. The man was truly funny back in the day. Now Fat Albert is dead.
Sad.
2
It is interesting to see the enormous amount of coverage this disgusting situation has received from the various media, including the NY Times (more than 2 dozen articles have been devoted to the topic since the news emerged last week). All of the women who have decided to come forward to speak about Weinstein's assaultive behavior deserve high praise for their courage.
However, such "casting couch" behavior has gone on for decades with numerous films and stage productions featuring this despicable theme. Moreover, if it were not for Weinstein's "liberal leanings," would there be so media attention devoted to this topic? The headlines devoted to sexual predators on those with "conservative leanings" back in the spring involved numerous individuals and settlements that exceeded $60 million, and resulted in the firings of a number of other celebrities, e.g. Ailes, O'Reilly, Horowitz, & Bolling. The current resident in the White House was taped bragging about his ability to grope and sexually assault women because of his celebrity status and was elected anyway.
I understand the horrible implications of such shameless behavior, and am glad men who behave in this way are being brought to account. Yet the incredible amount of attention the Weinstein imbroglio has generated seems to have overtaken reportage on topics having a much greater impact on the general public, like North Korea, tax reform, health care, environment, DACA, etc. Enough of these Weinstein headlines already!
How many more idols of admiration are set to fall soon when victims' fear factor starts to dissipate? It just may be necessary for a period of great and unpleasant revelations to take place in order to facilitate a major sea change in what is acceptable in heterosexual relationships today.
The permissive period of the Sixties during which lotharios such as Trump and Weinstein came of age was a time when age-old means of channeling libidos -- marriage-- were cast to the wayside in the name of immediate, guilt-free gratification. We can now see that such hedonism is not innocuous, that we mere mortals cannot deal with absolute freedom without terrible consequences for the objects of our desire. A new conversation between men and women is in order. Otherwise the media will continue to inform an increasingly jaded readership of campus rapes and other Harvey Weinsteins.....
Perhaps Mike Pence has it right, if for the wrong reasons. Men in power should not meet with women without chaperones.
1
Wish you hadn't brought hyenas into this. They're matriarchal -- the females rule and the females decide which male may copulate with the dominant female. The males have not much say in their sorry lives.
You'll be the laughing stock of the biologists with that line. And as to the savanna, it's still the lions who are on the top.
1
Weinstein, Cosby, Roger Aile, the list could go on forever. This is about men wielding their power over women in order to subjugate, demean, humiliate and in these cases sexually abuse. But men often use this kind of power in domestic violence, which is certainly related .
Then there are other forms of power use, such as Donny demanding the NFL bend [in this case stand] to his will. Each is the face of a basic need in those to feel superior, showing off to others and themselves who they are. "Who you are speaks so loudly I can't hear what you say".
The hypocrisy of the Hollywood women’s rights crowd is mind blowing. Streep, Paltrow, and the many others who were either personally involved with or clearly knew about this creep have a lot to explain. Now that that this lowlife has been emasculated in Hollywood, we will no doubt be hearing from all the heroes and heroines who aided and abetted by their silence.
1
Comparing Weinstein to hyenas is a terrible insult to that species. He'd have to evolve a lot to reach a hyenas' level of nobility
2
Is The Times going to address it own complicity? Sharon Waxman, "After intense pressure from Weinstein, which included having Matt Damon and Russell Crowe call me directly to vouch for Lombardo and unknown discussions well above my head at the Times, the story was gutted.
I was told at the time that Weinstein had visited the newsroom in person to make his displeasure known. I knew he was a major advertiser in the Times, and that he was a powerful person overall."
2
"There are Harvey Weinstein in every single industry - from law to finance to retail." Don't leave out the military .
The military particularly the Army top brass circles the wagons whenever one of their General officers are caught red handed. The latest was the despicable Major General who was caught sexting a young enlisted soldier's wife over a thousand times at a Army installation in Vicenza Italy . The Army suspended the General in place since Sept 1, 2017. So the Army Chief of Staff General Milley is allowing this two star General to collect his salary for house sitting while somebody decides what to do with this predator. Sad state of affairs in civilian and military circles of authority in that no one seems to protect women or men from predators.
2
Yep, nothing signifies or typifies the Trump Era like sexual misconduct, which I use as an umbrella term and quite loosely. And it should include misconduct of all forms by the Donald and his minions. Shock and awe are the spillways of their foul and unacceptable behavior. Round and around we go, where it will stop nobody knows.
Trump Era? He was doing this for thirty years, all through the Bill Clinton years. It was finally stopped in the first months of the Trump Era.
That is no credit to Trump, but neither is it right to blame his time.
Wait for it... wait for it.... There it comes: "The outrage over Mr. Weinstein also has a whiff of opportunism."
As a society, we will never, ever quit shaming the victim, right?
To those who enjoy pop culture, you have your reward.
Guy need to leave the country asap, it clearly isn't safe for him to live here in the USA anymore.
At least the Democrats and liberals are acting outraged when the news of Weinstein’s sexual misconduct was published and could no longer be denied. On the other hands, The Republicans and so called family first conservatives show no faux outrage about the commander in chief as he still has power. Better faux outrage than no outrage at all.
Don’t disparage hyenas. Their social group is matriarchal and would not tolerate a Weinstein amongst them.
1
"Harvey the Horrible is incorrigible.”
You can sense the relief that Conservative commentators have now that a liberal sexual predator has been exposed in the age of Trump. Finally, Conservatives can get back on their moral horse, riderless since their nominee confessed to his own sexual assaults.
A liberal! Hillary took his money! And, Bill Clinton, oh my gosh, Bill Clinton must be in there too.
Conservatives gave their money and support to Trump, and stIll praise him as the best American while furrowing their brows and clucking at the disgraceful actions of a powerful man in the entertainment industry who admits to assaulting women.
And with absolutely no irony, Stephens writes about a culture of enablers.
1
A lot of us who came of age in the '60s and '70s have somehow avoided turning into libidinous cads. Same libertine culture. I wonder how that happened. Bret, you should be careful when expanding your thesis from the specific to the general.
4
Weinstein's behavior was reprehensible and hopefully, will be found to be illegal.
However, Stephens' and other commentators' descriptions of Weinstein's "repulsive appearance" make me uncomfortable. Would his behavior have been less terrible if he had been better looking? SNL and Chris Rock both had routines that, jokingly, suggested "it's only sexual harassment if the guy's ugly".
Rip him and Hollywood's complicity apart; expose his enablers; mock Hollywood's hypocrisy. But please, stop talking about Weinstein's looks.
2
Please. Enough energy on disgusting Harvey. He has been exposed. let's shift your resources to expose others like Harvey. you can be sure there are many. And let's not take our eye from the current administration and Trump. They are destroying the country...
In Hollywood, where Weinstein was at the top of the power pyramid for many years, with money, lawyers and a PR machine to destroy anyone who accused him of anything, it is unreasonable to expect a young actress just starting her career to speak out against such a man. It would have been incredibly brave and career suicide.
But I don't particularly see the bravery in Paltrow, Jolie, Julianne Moore and other big stars now coming out to condemn Weinstein. They have long ago become successful in their own right and have no risk at this point. It is safe to tell your story now. It would have been better, and braver, for them to have come out earlier, when they could have helped prevent this pig from preying on other young women.
2
I understand what you're saying about the actresses who have come out now with their stories, but you have no idea what they went through or their motivations for staying silent. Perhaps Ms. Paltrow, Ms. Jolie, and Ms. Sorvino could have come forward and accused Mr. Weinstein of harassment when it happened and still salvaged their careers because of their family connections, but most women could not withstand the brutal attacks he would have leveled at them. And, for what? If only one or two actresses had come forward, no one would have believed them and they would have destroyed their careers (or potential careers) for nothing. Victims of this type of harassment and assault have their reasons for staying silent and the public should respect their decisions.
1
When are we going to stop confusing sexual predation with sex. It's about power and subjugation. I'd be very surprised if Weinstein didn't use his power to subjugate men in other ways. And those men and women who look the other way, not to mention those who enable sexual predators, should realize that they, too, are diminished by failing to act.
2
"Conservatives are trying to make hay of the fact that Mr. Weinstein donated lavishly to Democratic politicians."
This wins the prize for hypocrisy of the week! Republicans nominated and conservatives elected a well-known serial sexual harasser of women to be President of the US! I'm sure Trump paid off at least as many victims as Weinstein did, yet his behavior is ignored or excused--disgusting! Where was the outrage, the public outing, the much-needed scrutiny of Trump during the presidential campaign? Do we really care so much more about Hollywood than our nation as a whole?
2
Sharing the prize are those who ran against him the defender and enabler of decades of the same behavior in Governor's Mansion and White House.
There was nobody clean in that general election.
At least Weinstein is not the president, although if he was we wouldn't have to worry about nuclear war, trashing the environment, sabotaging the ACA, alienating our allies, moving backwards on civil rights, etc.
Two things you get wrong: (1) that American culture alone has this problem--good heavens, this is an international (and millennia-old) problem; and (2) characterizing Weinstein's face as "repulsive"--you may find the man himself repulsive, but why are you slamming his appearance (and other men who look like him)? Given the history of anti-Semitic cartoons, your remark carries some dark baggage.
“I came of age in the ’60s and ’70s, when all the rules about behavior and workplaces were different,” Weinstein wrote in his mea culpa to The Times last week. “That was the culture then.” NO IT WASN'T!
2
“It is difficult to get someone to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Upton Sinclair.
Add in the power imbalance between women, children and other marginalized groups in a white patriarchal hegemony and you get abuse of every stripe in every sector of society.
We see this currently being played out by a power structure vying for ever more control over women's bodies (no abortions after 20 weeks, eliminating insurance coverage for birth control), the haughty dismissal of the Black Lives Matter movement (consent decrees to stop police abuse rescinded by AG Sessions), and the failure to fund the Children's Health Insurance Plan which would leave 9 million children uninsured.
Widespread and deep is the trauma born of power.
1
This is what happens when we refuse to do he useful thing- which is to ostracize dishonest, abusive people. Instead, we call them "winners", we let them be president or get close, and we "admire" them for "leaning in" and other such nonsense. Outside ones of ones children, no one has any obligation to do anything but to reject the dishonest and abuse. Imagine if trump, Weinstein, putin, etc were friendless and without allies? Hopefully, they would freeze on he streets.
Whatever criticism you heap upon Hollywood must surely also be directed at voters who put another accused sexual predator in the White House. What of the enablers in the West Wing and in the Republican Congress who, every day, not only overlook charges against an admitted groper and obvious bully but ignore his dangerous unfitness that make us all unsafe? At least Weinstein's victims could hope to avoid future contact with him, damaging as he may have been, to limit the harm he might cause. We, the citizenry of the country, are stuck with Trump and all the risk and danger he brings until he either implodes or those enabling him decide we have all been harmed enough.
1
'The old saw that all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing was never truer than it was in Weinstein’s case.'
Or The Donald's Case perchance? With Mister Trump threatening war along with a backdoor shutdown of health insurance while CONFIRMING that mercury will again be dumped in water and black lung particulates in our air, who on the 'right' side of the aisle is up to the task of 'doing something?' Sometimes I think you, Mister Stephens, so far not all the requisite times. Buck up, would you? Be a good man.
1
"To remain silent and indifferent is the greatest sin of all" Elie Weisel. I'm not surprised that it took so long. But in Hollywood the box office gross and power, trumps morality. Speaking of Trump he's really no different. Look how many republicans remain silent, as well as his cabinet members and staff Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely (Lord Acton?" Weinstein and Trump supporters look the other way when it comes to speaking out. Sexual predators are not just limited to Hollywood and D.C. They infest every level of our society.
The story here should not be solely Weinstein, but the entirety of Hollywood and the entertainment industry. Weinstein is nothing but the current face of the sickness. And, the industry is sick. What is being told and (re)discovered about Weinstein is just the tip of the iceberg.
Even to talk of the problem within just the scope of Hollywood and limit it to the entertainment industry is inaccurate. The problem is societal, and one of power and abuse. Yes, Weinstein is a pig, and he will probably face charges if we can get him back from Europe or wherever he hides (Polanski showed him the way).
I blame our media. It used to be (at least by intention) that our 4th-estate should serve to uncover and report on cases like Weinstein, Cosby and others, thereby bringing to public view the underbelly of society- but, this rarely happens, at least not until such time disclosure is unavoidable or serves to benefit the media industry itself. By media, I am specifically referring to that which would have us believe it is, News.
And, herein is the essence of the problem. News, media, entertainment work hand in hand. We need a separation of news and entertainment, we need News to stand alone, separate from general media, we need to reinvent our 4th-estate.
The sad fact is, the current Weinstein story would have continued to be little reported had it not been unavoidable, had the situation not reached the stage that not to report would have become the story.
The NYT shares culpability.
1
And still, with all of that has happened at Fox, and now Weinstein, I still listen to some of my business friends complain, sometimes make jokes, about, having to be politically correct at work---translation---their lawyers have told them they can't tell off-color jokes or in their words, compliment females are how they look or dress.
2
Many have read the archived biographies & catalogues of legendary Hollywood actresses (Marilyn Monroe, Joan Crawford, etc.). We learned some of these actresses were contracted based on detrimental abilities & "informal tasks" to perform during interviews (behind closed doors). Many of the actresses became legends (and earned it) . Within the past few 10 yrs these new "A lister" Hollywood ladies weren't using their smarts nor intuitive ...Thru many grapevines, Hollywood is known for past/current unethical hiring methods. Still in today's world, yes, quite a few moguls are still ignorant of current sexual harassment /assault & indecent exposure laws. My mother , An Executive/ SR HR Hospital Director, says to me - not wise to interview alone with opposite sex behind closed doors. Only w/exception of a 3rd party present or visible to others thru an office window.
Ronan Farrow, the supposed son of Woody Allen, exposes this story! Now there's a nice piece of Hollywood irony. So let me say this about that that. If Mr. Farrow is the son of Woody Allen, I am the son of the Count of Monte Cristo.
3
This all has to be taken in the current context. We are currently in an attempt to shift the culture to a time before the sexual revolution, before equal rights, and before civil rights existed. . The tug of war is between ending the abuse of women and other human beings and returning to a time when men dictated what a woman could do with her body. Birth control was women keeping their legs closed, abortion happened in back alleys, out wedlock children were hidden behind the scenes, and the shame was paid off and buried. Not really sure how you stick your head in the sand but, at the same time, have one eye looking above ground level and expect it to mean something. But I guess we will find out. It's funny, here we are in 2017, Harvey Weinstein's behavior is finally being addressed, just like it,was for Gary Hart and John Edwards, yet Donald Trump is just a guy in the locker room whose behavior should just be ignored. I wonder if Trump has discovered the old tunnels in the White House Kennedy used? I think we still have a,ways to go. The American people just have to decide whether they want to go forward or backward.
Earlier I went to get a cup of the best coffee in America at the gasoline station on the through-way to America and it was a slap in the face to see a rack of newspapers with Harvey Weinstein's photo splattered on all the front-covers and headlines, with the exception of the New York Times.
The man has been beaten to a pulp. There is no need to keep kicking him in the face when he is down and out, and a few of the stars that came forward with their revelations, have forgotten that with the rise of this Hollywood Tycoon, they rose with him.
Sexual miscreants are to be found in every line of life. Monks have been known to be great lechers. Hollywood is opening a new door, but the lust for these games in some of this producers is not going away, There will be other ways of making one's power felt. A lesser salary from women in the entertainment business, less perks and treats.
The New York Times Film Critic, Manohla Darges, perhaps summed it up best when mentioning that Hollywood still has a problem after the departure of Weinstein, and should We the Public at Large and the Media continue to pursue this Movie Tycoon now fallen, we will in fact become 'enablers' in keeping this flamboyant bonfire burning.
After all the Trump-bashing and moral grandstanding by Hollywood, the hypocrisy is exposed. I am shocked.
Newsflash - there's a casting couch in Hollywood! This has been happening for so long - it's just Weinstein's moment to get caught. Hopefully. More of these brutes will get exposed
1
If Weinstein were still "winning", and therefore at the peak of his powers, this never would've come out. THAT is all you need to know about this debacle.
3
I am not only outraged by Mr. Weinstein's behavior, but also that it was an no so well kept secret in Hollywood and yet he was able to continue to do this! Yeah, it's great that Brad Pitt threatened him with a "Missouri Whooping" whatever that was, but apparently that was the extent of his efforts to stop this predator! I do applaud Angelina Jolie for trying to warn others, but I think from this article, an important lesson must be learned: ... "all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing was never truer than it was in Weinstein’s case." You know there are more out there, it's time to shine a bright light on these cockroaches.
I don't understand. Are you saying Hollywood culture made Weinstein do this? Or coming of age in the '60s and '70s? How, then, do you explain similar behavior in every other industry, in every other time? The failures in our society that allow this sort of thing to happen are not limited by profession, geography, politics or age. Suggesting that they are underestimates the scope of the problem drastically (or is just a way to set up a shot at Hollywood and the '60s).
2
Ronan Farrow, the supposed son of Woody Allen, exposes this story! Now there's a nice piece of Hollywood irony. So let me say this about that. If Mr. Farrow is the son of Woody Allen, I am the son of the Count of Monte Cristo.
1
We live in a rape culture. When one woman is assaulted/harassed/violated/raped, all women feel it. I understand that men don't necessarily 'get' that, but that's how it is. The author here writes, "if some allegations are to be believed..." Are you kidding? Rape is pandemic.
One of the foundation elements of the "culture" that permits this kind of behavior is the belief that "men's got their needs" along with rights to meet them any way they see fit. They're raised & encouraged from early childhood to see sex as a male purview in any form desired. Aided and abetted by media & internet, as well as organizational culture and social practices, this will just continue until it's called out for what it is and subjected to systematic re-education. Perhaps some psychiatric & legal labels would help begin to change the mind-sets.
1
Stephens mentioned Clinton and Trump as similar cads. Let's not forget Ailes and O'Reiley.
How can you direct the "enabler" hate toward Hollywood when Fox News and the Republican party does the exact same thing? What is extra rich about your argument is that the GOP actively suppresses women, women's health issues, women's pay, women's representation (Mike Pence can't even have a meeting with a woman), and you fail to mention their enabling of misogynistic culture?
2
"Culture of enablers" indeed: with all the corporate crime and fraud in this country, strange that we only see a conspiracy of silence and denial for sex crimes.
Bret, who did you last enable?
The Enablers' sins of omission are just about unforgivable. They sold their souls to the devil. How will they explain their behavior to their daughters? An equally relevant question for both men and women. Where were all of you when your friends and colleagues were being preyed upon? Did you only pretend to care about them? Had you all banded together decades ago and revealed the truth so many young lives would have been so much better.
1
I think everyone--especially the media and celebrities--needs to stop being so self-righteous. Ask yourself, how many people, including yourself, intervene at work and other social situations to call out an injustice. (Some do, but, in my experience, it is not the norm; people mind their own business and look out for their own self interests.) Sexual harassment of women ain't going away anytime soon. It is not surprising that someone as powerful as Weinstein got away with using his power to coerce women into sexual situations. The good thing is that his behavior has finally been brought to light, and he has been taken down. Instead of shock (really?!) and self-righteous grandstanding (pleeze), perhaps it is better to look in the mirror and see who each of us might be enabling through silence, beginning with our president.
4
This isn’t a problem of “libertine culture,” but rather of patriarchal power systems whose entrenched misogyny fetishizes, dehumanizes, “others” and degrades women as objects, chattel, and living dolls, a deuxième sexe, to be used and disposed of by men in high places but harboring lowly moral and ethical sensibilities. The answer is not “gentlemanly behavior,” reverting back to an imagined paradise of Victorian Ruskin-esque musings on how little ladies need to be rescued by virtuous men, so that those same women can be apotheosized as household angels within the prisonhouse of oppressive gender roles and traditional domesticity, which are death to any woman’s intellectual, creative, or indeed libidinal desires of her own; which obliterate all women's agency as complex, multifaceted, dimensional beings who yearn for self-actualization like any other being, like any man, or any person of any gender identity. Libido, erotism, and environments dedicated to creating the fever dreams of art are not the problem; primordial misogyny and the patriarchal ideologies and practices that it enable it are. So too are the whitewashing of sex warlord-magnates who engender empires of "female" abjection, and the election of men who engage in the virulent objectification and depredation of women to the highest office in this nation.
Where was this Op-Ed for Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly? All acted inexcusably, but Ailes and O'Reilly directly impacted the politics and the world we live in with Trump as president. At least Weinstein gave us good movies to watch. Not excusing his behavior. All should be behind bars except Ailes is dead. Boo-hoo...
1
You left out the NYPD and prosecutors' office who couldn't bother pressing charges against him even after he's on tape admitting to fondling a young actress. That was literally their job and they couldn't be bothered to do it.
The problem extends beyond Hollywood culture.
1
In the NYPD's defense, the prosecutor's office makes charging decisions. The police department can't do anything if the DA chooses not to pursue charges. In one article I read, an NYPD detective who was involved with the case said he was livid that Weinstein wasn't charged because it was such a solid case and everyone believed the victim.
1
no one ( I don't think) has mentioned that this man is probably mentally ill. He should have had treatment decades ago but the sick enabling that went on for so long contributed to his illness. This bar of moral depravity just gets lower and lower. when will we reach the bottom I wonder.
The Times film critic Manohla Dargis made an excellent point in an op-ed yesterday when she said, “Outsiders tend to see the industry as liberal, and while insiders do promote progressive causes, the business hews to a fundamental conservatism. This conservatism shapes its story recycling, its exploitation of women (and men) and its preservation of a male-dominated, racially homogeneous system.”
Bret Stephens is wrong when he ties Weinstein’s behavior to the “libertine culture” of the ‘60s and ‘70s. As Dargis points out, the “casting couch” and other gross abuses of actresses started when Hollywood did.
Misogyny isn’t new; it’s ancient. Sexism isn't liberal; it's conservative.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/11/movies/harvey-weinstein-hollywood.html
4
How does one man have so much power? I heard The Daily on this and feel somewhat relieved..digging and reporting from the NYT made his dog-like behavior come to light. There is power in reporting and unearthing. We have a long way to go, though. Harvey was manic and cruel in how he treated women, and no amount of lawyering up can take away from the fact that he, over too many years, has inflicted too much damage. We have a long way to go.
1
Well written Bret, but you forgot one other group. I know it is not PC to say it but the group you left out are "the victims".
The real heroine in this horror story is the young italian female model who fought back and did not become an enabler. Some of the most well known female actresses in Hollywood, some of who were already stars could not do this?
Pre 1980, I would have agreed with these victims, ie, there is nothing they could do, they cannot use that excuse anymore.
Since then, drastic change has happened and sexual harassment (and medical discrimination) are the two easiest or better phrased least hardest cases to win.
It is the same old Anita Hill type story. Stay silent till many yrs after the crime, or worse only bring it out when the promotions stop or even worse pro actively aid and abet it.
3
Hillary Clinton was an enabler of Bill Clinton and took money from Weinstein although his abusive behavior was an open secret.
I'm mentioning this because there are still, still people here defending Ms. Clinton.
2
The only "culture" at play here is a culture of male dominance. Men like Weinstein and Trump, and their dominance helps create an environment where they can get away with whatever they desire. These men feel they are superior to the women they harass and harm. Women have a right to be protected from this kind of sexual threat. But in a world dominated by men, they are collateral damage.
2
Can't say I'm surprised that Weinstein supported progressive/women's causes, or distributed a film like The Hunting Ground. People of bad intent with the means to burnish or falsify their image will often throw people off the scent by -- think: Gus Fring -- hiding in plain sight.
As for who did/didn't speak out at the time, Weinstein's targets might have found his actions disgusting but not necessarily criminal (if you know anything about reporting harassment, you know no woman wants what comes her way after making an allegation -- and if said allegation doesn't rise to the level of calling law enforcement, imagine approaching HR in a company owned by the accused.)
And it seems that sympathetic men -- i.e., NOT the ones who negotiated settlements, signed checks or otherwise enabled this behavior) witnessed nothing firsthand. Predators succeed by isolating their prey.
Then there's the common knowledge that Weinstein used to his advantage -- Hollywood is a town fueled by fear.
4
Having lived through five decades as a legally adult woman, I can testify to the brutal reality of Mr. Stephen's excellent article. As a young advertising assistant in Manhattan, as a Peace Corps volunteer in West Africa, as a teacher in the Pacific NW, as a researcher and international development consultant in Washington, D.C., as a board member and volunteer in numerous organizations, I have personally encountered male bullying and sexual mistreatment, both towards me and my colleagues, too many times to count. When will it end? I hope my daughter, now in her late twenties, experiences less of it than I have, but as the writer of this article sadly concludes, we shouldn't bet on it.
1
I'm certainly not carrying the can for Harvey Weinstein and I'm not terribly impressed by the long list of celebs who've now "courageously," stepped forward, but I'm also not impressed by Mr. Stephens' attempts to run between the raindrops here.
The words you need, Mr. Stephens, are "patriarchy," and "capitalism," words you can't use, as they are essential to your views of the natural order of things.
And by the way, this country's violences overseas, and the Right's cheering for them, and conservatives' turning a blind eye, are every bit as morally revolting.
1
I was a labor and employment lawyer for going on 40 years, in private practice with a large national firm and later as chief labor/employment counsel with a large publicly traded company. I have also been sexually harassed.
As a lawyer I can tell you that while the majority of other employment claims are dismissed, virtually every sexual harassment claim I ever saw had merit--whether arising from a consensual relationship gone sour or from the behavior of an appalling man, perhaps more charming and better groomed than Harvey Weinstein, but with some level of power.
As someone on the receiving end of such behavior, I can say it is a more shockingly lonely experience than one can imagine. From my own experience and discussions with other women in the many years since, I know those who are harassed not only typically feel they alone have been singled out for such awfulness, they also feel a surprising guilt, almost invariably fearing there were things they said or did to bring it on themselves. As much as the imbalance of power, it is that fear of somehow being seen at fault that inspires silence. And it is only when word of similar experiences starts seeping out that someone comes forward--in the safety of numbers.
That is why the publicity of cases like Ailes' and Weinstein's is so important. It lets harassed women know they are not alone. Knowing "it wasn't JUST me" helps one see "it wasn't ME," that this is what some men do until someone stands up to stop them.
130
The book, "Sex in the Forbidden Zone" by Dr. Peter Rutter, addresses the unequal power imbalances and codes of behavior and should be written into every corporation and institution's governance rules.
Is it at all ironic that your accurate account of Weinstien and the entertainment industry resembles what is transpiring in Washington these days in the Administration and the Republican Party?
1
Bret Stephens: "In movies as in politics, hypocrisy isn’t just an accepted fact of life but also an essential part of the job."
Fascinating statement. Obviously the statement says directly that hypocrisy is essential in politics, and that hypocrisy is essential in the art form film, and I suppose we can extend this essentiality of hypocrisy to other art forms as well--or is there at least one art form excluded from hypocrisy? Never mind. This observation by Stephens is the mindset of the propagandist who not only declares hypocrisy essential in politics but must undercut truth emanating from most anywhere lest it cut into his field of propaganda.
But most relevant for our purposes, those of us dedicated to truth, is the core assertion that hypocrisy is essential to politics. That theory, that practice is the core from which radiates untold, incomprehensible amount of harm to all fields dedicated to truth, and I believe film is one of those fields far more than it is a field of "essential hypocrisy". Why exactly is it that hypocrisy is essential to politics?
Must it be for all progress toward truth for the human race that fundamentally a countercurrent must always exist--fundamentally because politics is foundation--of hypocrisy, lies, propaganda, for the sake of the human race, that the human race can only exist by narrow, careful step toward truth followed by countercurrent of lies, that we live politically by a physics of lie followed by truth by lie? Horrible thought.
I wholeheartedly agree .. except for the comment about a 'repulsive face'. Please. Mr Weinsteins behavior is indeed repulsive, but we should be far beyond connecting appearance and moral character.
1
Kudos to the NYT editor that did not nix Bret's on-point comment about Weinstein's physical appearance. I don't think I've seen a comment like that elsewhere and us readers would have not been allowed to make it. In this case it is highly relevant.
1
And just as bad as, if not worse than, the enabling of Harvey Weinstein is the enabling of the equally loathesome predator, Donald Trump. After all, some ten or more women have accused him of similar behavior, and he has openly boasted about groping, harassing and sexually assaulting women. His actions were and are an "open secret" throughout the Republican Party and among the 60 million plus people who voted for him. One might say that by electing this cad President of the United States, the American people have given their official seal of approval to powerful men preying on women. Along with Trump's shallow and coarse Twitter rhetoric, his demeaning of the office and otherwise boorish, buffoonish behavior, this is a message that America is sending, loud and clear, to the rest of the world. As an author recently argued, Donald Trump is showing Americans what the rest of the world already thought of the United States.
1
So, Harvey had people paid to lure and then abandon women to a known predator? I think the term for that is to "Billy Bush" the woman.
Former WH denizen Steve Bannon declared that Billy Bush Weekend was a litmus test. That litmus has been around for a very very long time. Many female watchers of the show Mad Men recall those particular Bad Old Days personally, when failure to perform sexually for your boss was the end of employment. Many watchers of Handmaid's Tale feel they are watching real life follow this dreadful fiction, esp with Trump removing the mandate for women's healthcare.
It's a small step in the right direction that Weinstein was at least fired. But when an entire political apparatus exists to pass Bannon's litmus test and negate or even praise such depraved behavior in the highest office in the land, Weinstein's fall is but a sideshow.
5
Interesting that Bret limits his list to Trump, Clinton, and Weinstein, when just in the last few months we also had O'reilly and Ailes, with Ailes in particular being a near exact copy, right down to the physical description. Clinton's encounters appear to have been based more on charm and the aura of power, and seemed to be as consensual as imbalanced trysts can be. Trumps appear to be direct frontal assaults, if his own "Billy Bush Tape" is to be believed. Weinstein and Ailes seemed to have relied on their power over the careers of their victims. These may be meaningless shades of gray in the world of sexual predation, but perhaps not in a courtroom....
1
If, as commentators state or imply, Weinstein's behavior was very well known within the movie industry - an industry covered more widely in the navel-gazing media than any other - why wasn't it exposed earlier by commentators? Instead of hunting for actresses who'll join the bandwagon now, how about exposing the "journalists" who knew everything and said nothing? What did THEY have to lose?
1
This is not an anti-feminist, anti-woman suggestion. It is made out of genuine curiosity and an interest in enlightenment.
Do women commit sexual harassment? If any, how many? What are the facts in such events? What were the consequences of investigations and rulings?
Will some enterprising investigative journalists please report?
Doug Giebel, Big Sandy, Montana
1
An excellent column--but a terrible lead-in. 'Hyenas can't help their own nature?' Are we back to saying that sexual predators cannot control themselves, like animals (or worse, really)? That it's society's fault for not controlling them, that they can't help themselves? There's a meme about a woman named Brae and her dog and a steak about this...
Ok, so outing Harvey Weinstein is a great start. Here's another set of initials journalists can explore, if at all interested:
JT - Director, preferred transgression: sexual harassment of prospective actresses.
I heard about his MO at a Film panel conference. A young woman, maybe 19 years old told of her experience being offered an acting role in exchange for sex, and when she refused, the director then using what other "contestants" were willing to do for the role, as an inducement for her to submit.
The professional industry rep on the panel, an executive assistant to a well known producer, asked if it was this particular director by name, and the girl confirmed it was. The producer's rep said she had been hearing stories about this director for years.
Do journalists really care about this type of story? Or is it enough to blame Harvey for all of Hollywood, and feel like it's a job well done?
1
The truth is that the nature of the human animal is towards their own tribe, which is immediate family, extended family, neighborhood, work, religion, political party, friends, race, gender, etc. There in is the problem, as tribal people can never be truth tellers as you have to go against the tribe on a daily basis to truly matter in the course of changing society for the better!
1
While its important to address the enablers of this behaviour, to just dismiss Weinstein and other men who do this as libertine cads grossly downplays that this is widespread cultural issue amongst American men and that it is a crime. He and others are not Hyenas who can't help themselves. We spend so much time policing the actions of women, especially women of color, everywhere and yet we do none of that for men, particularly white men.
4
“There are no secrets in Hollywood! Every P.R company in the entertainment community which are financially hired and controlled by all the decisive powers in the entertainment business. The rumor vines within the entertainment business in the valley of Hollywood’s belly are known and controlled by the exclusive members in the all-powerful cartel of insiders; powerful studio executives, powerful agents and powerful managers in the industry. Wielding their devastating supervisory power over the careers of studio executives, producers, directors and actors who are not part of their exclusive carte! Those palpable facts or rumors within the industry are only exposed and released to the public depending who the rumor is about. That’s the History of Hollywood since the days of the Hedy Hopper’s, the Louella Parsons’s the Joyce Haber’s and Liz Smith; who were paid and instructed by the powerful cartel to protect the detectable rumors from the public and only release the name or names of those who the insider of Hollywood’s elite cartel mentioned above, wanted to expose for their device. The visible rumors would be released or controlled, when it benefited the cartel! Harvey Weinstein’s was never an insider, his insidious rumors have been protected for decades as long they were also protecting the cartels self-serving maleficence including Harvey’s, by bringing his brown paper bag with money and donating it to the special interest of the Hollywood political cartel.”
The answer to the problem of sexual exploitation is to enforce anti-discrimination (and rape) laws. The problem with their enforcement is the huge gray area that exists in this kind of human interaction. It is the essential problem of "legislating" behavior.
But it's of absolutely no importance whether Mr. Weinstein has a "repulsive face". Harassment is harassment, rape is rape, whether the perp is handsome or ugly. Whipping up the mob through stereotyped descriptions isn't helpful.
1
I remember one anthropologist twenty years ago that said that successful CEO's were alpha males and "therefore" driven to collect multiple females. In other words, CEO's are glorified apes.
1
I know this is going to sound terrible, but I don't really care about these women. I feel no sympathy or compassion for them at all. Get real, for every actress that turned him down god knows how many enthusiastically took him up on the offer. He's physically unattractive and would be invisible to women if he didn't have money. What's more, we live in a culture where strong, independent, liberated women still rely on men to risk socially, win social status, initiate, and so on. So what did anybody really expect? Weinstein is just playing the game that women set up.
I realize this is horrible. I feel horrible for having no compassion for them. But I don't think I'm alone in this at all. A lot of men secretly feel this way because it's a culture in which marriage has broken down and women now form harems around a minority of above average men with uncommon resources, status, and so on. This shows up statistically, it's not speculation. Adhering to the role women still go on obliviously imposing is high investment for men, so what happens when a ballooning portion of the male population is stuck in extended or possibly even permanent singlehood? It has a way of changing the way you think and feel about women even without you realizing it, in ways you didn't even consciously choose and may not be aware of at all.
This is a failed culture and society. I just don't care about wealthy and famous women who had the opportunity to sleep with somebody to advance their careers. Sorry.
1
Better phrasing of "one can mount a defense of sorts of Weinstein" would have been "one can mount a prosecution of sorts of not only Weinstein but those elements in Hollywood complicit in despicable acts of sexual extortion and who now feign shock."
Weinstein is the tip of an iceberg that's miles wide and oceans deep.
With the DOJ now getting involved, this may be only the first of many sick, demented, predatory executives to get their due.
If women band together and speak out, perhaps the industry can once and for all extinguish this scourge.
1
I agree with most of this piece but I do believe that Weinstein deserves special condemnation specifically because he publicly supported progressive causes & candidates while apparently behaving like a Neanderthal. Similarly, when a PA congressman proposes an abortion to his mistress while simultaneously denouncing "all abortions", as was revealed last week, his failings take on an additional moral dimension.
Behaving improperly (sexual harassment, cheating on your wife) has its own moral implications. Making ostentatious public displays that are 180 degrees opposite of your private behavior earn you an additional dose of disapproval.
Mr. Stephens also incorrectly compares Trump to Weinstein. No. Trump's behavior is just as appalling in public as it is in private.
1
The grand and glamour-filled lives of powerful men like Weinstein and Trump, and, yes, Bill Clinton, sets them up as powerful role models for large segments of the male population. This is so tragic for any society. Side by side we have the parallel image of licentiousness of women like the Kardashians.
The media doles out their escapades and the uncritical public laps it up. Others also lurk in the shadows of these role models - coke-snorting investment bankers who aspire, with their wealth, to somehow emulate the great.
You raise the question of "enablers". You are wrong to shine the light on some flunkies and other beneficiaries - some of them also powerful folks - who look the other way. I would suggest that we are all enablers in some way or the other, through our silence. And I would include even hallowed institutions like the Church, whose hypocrisy often knows no bounds.
AG
Calgary, Canada
2
If you want to talk about a culture of enabling, let's not forget that millions of Americans voted for a man who openly bragged about sexually assaulting women. That man is now our president. He said he could get away with it because he was a "celebrity". Majorities of white women and white men voted for him anyway. This was out in the open, in his own words, on tape, for the entire country to hear. Up until the other day, unless you were a movie buff, I doubt most Americans had heard of Mr. Weinstein.
On tape, in your own words, bragging about sexual assault, elected President. Now that is a culture of enabling. That culture is called in another opinion piece, the white working class.
225
To CD
That is why I have zero respect for any woman who voted for Donald Trump. Those who did exhibit signs of self-loathing and simply poor self-esteem when they spout such nonsense as preferring to view the destiny of America in the long scheme of things whilst turning a blind eye to Trump's own slobbish attitude towards women. An American tragedy lies within, Trump should not have received more than 20% of the vote, really.
4
The fact that he normalized and legitimized this kind of behavior was a strong element of his appeal to that class.
Any man who voted for Trump obviously does not have a mother, sister, daughter or niece.
1
The really scary bit? How long before some ambitious rep or Senator decides that a congressional committee should be struck to investigate "predatory sexual attitudes and practices in the American entertainment industry"? Try to imagine the potential media circus arising out of that one.
"Of all of the dismaying and disgusting details of the Harvey Weinstein saga, none is more depressing than this: It has so few heroes."
Just replace Harvey Weinstein with Donald Trump, and the sentence still resonates with meaning. There are many enablers and no heroes in the saga of 45 as well.
6
In my opinion, enablers have to be treated as what they really are - accomplices. Maybe THAT is what it will finally take to get other 'enablers' to listen to and actually ACT on their consciences.
His behavior was, at the very least, bordering on criminal. Someone who assists in criminal behavior or knows - and profits from - that behavior opens them self up to criminal liability; and most definitely civil liability. The latter is the real reason we see so many board members and and others close to him in major denial. So many rats fleeing the sinking ship, as it were.
2
The less-powerful people surrounding those with power, success, or money always fear that their world can not suffer the loss of their more powerful benefactors. Great movies wouldn't get made, important books written, or deals agreed to.
Clearly that's not true; great movies would have been made without Harvey Weinstein and real estate deals in NYC done without DJTrump. Yet people avoid the risks, they look the other way, and it is their fear of what might be lost that enables the predators.
No one is irreplaceable, and exposing and punishing boorish, criminal, or immoral behavior should always trump saying nothing. No person is too big to fail.
4
When it comes to sexual abuse, our society is more "morally sentient" that it has ever been. In the Golden Age of Hollywood, these stories just didn't get reported––less because of the power of executives than the indifference of the public. Sexual harassment laws didn't exist until 1980. When Anita Hill testified against Clarence Thomas, public opinion was only beginning to shift.
It's true that Americans elected someone a lot like Weinstein as president, but that fact sent millions of women and men into the street to express their revulsion about it.
2
What's equally sad is for every woman that was offended, there is another that obliges. I look at the current employees in this administration the same way. Is the job worth the cost of your reputation or moral conscience? Seems like there are a lot of souls for sale
1
Patriarchal societies have struggled with this behavior for centuries. The Catholic Church, the boy scouts, Hollywood; the thing that these groups all have in common is that they are patriarchal societies based on power and control. Become powerful and you can do whatever you want. Your victims can speak out if they dare but they have to ask themselves if it's worth losing everything they hold dear.
Yes the enablers are hypocrites. Waiting until someone is basically out to pasture is the height of cowardice. But it's still better late than never. Everytime victims speak out and offenders are punished it makes it easier for others to come forward when they are victimized.
2
If Bret Stephens and esteemed reporters would dare to take a look at what goes on in national league sports culture. MLB, NBA, NFL..these players seem to be above law, above scrutiny. There are stories that surface occasionally about abusing women in hotel rooms, these same women chase the players and fling themselves at them. That kind of culture is so pervasive no one talks about it. Because, you know, wink wink, boys will be boys. And designers like Donna Karan put the blame on women for dressing provocatively so surely its the problem of these women whose parents never guided them.
1
Some truth to "I can't help it, I grew up in the 60's"? Please! Are you saying there weren't 100 times the number of sexual predators in the 40's and 50's? I guarantee you, there were more men in the 60s who learned the opposite, that women were not objects, but human beings that should be respected, than learned it was "OK" to be a predator.
5
Call me crazy, Mr. Stevens, but wasn’t this exact same scenario playing out at conservative Fox News with Roger Ailes playing the part of “the libidinous cad”? A similar scenario at Uber? And at Kleiner Perkins? Most of Wall St? Is everyone of these workplaces, along with countless others, a place where libertine morals run wild? Let me answer that for you: no. The only common denominator is a lack of a mechanism for women to blow the whistle on predatory men without retaliation. The HR departments at most companies—like Weinstein’s—are a joke, sweeping multiple transgressions under the rug, blaming and paying off victims. Here’s an idea: why not an OSHA for workplace harassment and hostile environments? If an agency can be created to audit companies after an employee has blown the whistle on safety violations, why not a similar agency for blowing the whistle on employers in violation of Title IX? You want women to fight back and make it so their silence doesn’t put another woman at risk? Then make sure we have laws that encourage reporting predators and not hide behind systems that enable them to do more damage.
2
I don’t know...After being outed in such a public fashion, I finding journalism’s lens and approach to covering stories of men with power abusing power to be even more bizarre because it is men who are being published and given voice and so few women are. I don’t trust the lens and opinion of external inexperienced observes and potential perpetrators or enablers giving their opinion about the experience of and impact on those who experience this type of outrageous violation of their human rights. It’s as if it just dawned on these types of writers and publishers that suddenly denial no longer works and they are trying to get ahead of their own persecution. If, as an affiliate member of the group that has enabled perpetrators, enablers and long distance deniers, you want to say something, try deep writing about your deep self reflection and give us evidence of self-flagellation and then your voice will matter.
A mechanism that explains some, but not all, of the enablers of Mr. Weinstein is that they participated vicariously. That is, they too "perpetrated" -- but at a remove -- the abuse he inflicted on his victims (& with reduced responsibility). That's why they enabled.
Sometimes this mechanism was unconscious, more or less.
A mechanism (a displacement, a projection) much more commonplace than is generally acknowledged.
I do not mean to excuse any bad behavior in this case, direct or indirect, only to explain a part of it.
And shed some light on why he got away with so much for so long.
In a more general sense, the entire operation of Weinstein and his enablers demonstrates the lure of evil and the aura of attractiveness around it (something Hollywood mercilessly exploits).
The nexus between sex and evil, long a part of certain religious formulations, is also evident here.
Of course sex is not evil. But those who have seen its undeniable potential for evil will find their fears vindicated in this instance.
LIke Jung, I believe that society must above all channel instincts positively and not repress them blindly, otherwise they will rise, rise like shadows -- here in the form of Mr. Weinstein.
How did he get to be that way?
Finally, something that haunts me. How could such a man have been at the heart of a some of the finest films made by some of the finest actors and directors?
15
Possibly the problem is that to be the kind of person who believes everything and everyone is his (or hers) for the taking, is often to be the kind of person who bullies, manipulates, charges into powerful positions, and wields that power against everyone.
You don't hear a lot about really nice despots.
For sure, people could have contained Weinstein, who is both successful and sociopathic, but generally the despots get powerful BEFORE people realize they need to be contained. Then it is difficult. Weinstein could have killed Affleck's career just as easily as he promised to kill the careers of women who did not bend to his will.
Weinstein was a master at making sure the stakes were too high for everyone, and he didn't fall until he'd lost enough mojo that the stakes were acceptable.
It doesn't excuse the moral vacuum of the people who surrounded him, but it might explain it.
Weinstein is the problem of America? Brooks says that Abbie Hoffman created Donald Trump. Ross Douthat says, ask the Vatican for guidance.
These three, if we only LISTENED to their wisdom will solve the world's problems.
Rest easy.
As one who does remember the days before AIDS and the time when sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll offered a new world, I do not recall that rape was ever acceptable in any way. To pretend that the sixties conferred some approval of anything other than a more casual attitude toward consensual sex is to lose sight of the freedom women gained when they gained control over their own bodies. Weinstein's behavior was not a product of that time at all.
There are women who have chosen to sleep their way to the top. That does not mean that every other woman must be forced to do so. Men know the difference between casual consensual sex and sex for power's sake. And so do women.
1
Well, while it did take too long, Weinstein has been fired from his company, his wife is divorcing him, he is now a pariah -- and he has not been elected President of the United States. Trump has been just as bad - and he's on tape about it -- but, "conservatives" - and especially the evangelical (ie - so-called religious folks) community - looked the other way and voted for him.
2
The problem isn't a "libertine culture that long ago dispensed with most notions of personal restraint and gentlemanly behavior." It's the impunity and entitlement of rich white men and it long precedes the cultural changes of the 1960s that Stephens now wants to blame for Weinstein's behavior. Plantation owners and factory managers, Senators and police chiefs have conducted themselves like Weinstein for centuries. The ideal of "the gentleman" always covered up more than it actually prevented. The real change that the 60s wrought was not an end to some mythic era of a well-behaved elite. It was that women began to name their personal oppression as political and to fight it. What has changed is not that there is a Harvey Weinstein, but that feminism has achieved the cultural and political power to start bringing them down.
Stephens calls Weinstein a "libidinous cad" instead of a sexual predator because that allows him to imagine a return to a time when better-behaved gentlemen would have supposedly restrained him and no public discussion of the politics of sexual violence and male supremacy would have troubled us.
In practice gentlemanly restraint provided no real protection and went hand in hand with a culture of shame that silenced its victims.
2
Based on the headline, I thought the writer was going to connect Weinstein's enablers to Trump's enablers, who turn away and remain silent toward his sexist comments and petty insults. Our culture of enablers is throughout society and is only now being exposed regularly (Trump, Ailes, Riley, now Weinstein).
Let's go back it President Clinton..oh I forgot, the 21 yr old in the presence of the MOST POWERFUL MAN IN THE WORLD was an equal and willing partner. Give us a break
Those who knew - and it appears there were many - should be ashamed. Don't defend Hollywood by bringing out the "Trump" card. This goes beyond politics and no matter where this kind of behavior exists, it must be stopped. Silicon Valley, Hollywood, what's next? Bring it.
Comedian and singer Rose Marie, age 94, has tweeted that she was the target of sexual harassment from early in her adult career. To what do you attribute the actions of her abusers: the permissive standards of the Great Depression era?
4
Excellent article. My only quibble is the use of the phrase "spitting image"; in fact, it was spoken as spit'n'image, or spit AND image, flesh and perception.
If anyone is scared straight it should be the victims of Donald Trump who ought to come forward and build a solid case against his exploits. Little children are watching and learning, they needn’t be told that the President is above the law when it comes to his demeaning and objectifying women
4
Harvey Weinstein of Hollywood accused of having sexually harassed, and probably worse, women over the years?
His downfall is almost mythical, certainly seems to fall into a particular pattern historically. The conjunction of the not particularly attractive man physically with great beauty, glamor, power. For centuries keen intellects have noticed the similarity between collectors of rare and beautiful objects, artists, and men of power. The almost desperate attempt of a corrupt being to seize beauty, to control it, to bring it to obedience, the holy grail to be able to create beauty at will.
Every artist worth anything goes through that internal struggle when faced with dry period of wondering what needs to be changed, am I good enough, strong enough, smart enough, not bold enough, what? what? Weinstein, a not particularly attractive man yet with the great ability to rise to the top of Hollywood yet faced every day with stunning talent, beauty, glamor, that which is out of reach to ordinary Americans and plays on the silver screen, must have had a difficult time.
Hitchcock comes to mind, all the stories heard over the years of casting couch. Picasso's ill treatment of women. John Fowles' the Collector and so on. Beauty and the beast, but we all know beauty is rarely attracted to the ugly man let alone a beastly animal. Kindness wins beauty if a man happens to be ugly, without money? I guess I'm being a beast for not seeing it here at all from a woman's perspective.
I find this writing very myopic. Weinstein is not an aberration even if he represents an extreme example. The practice is called "casting couch" and it exists in some form or another in almost every industry. The difference is largely a question of degree. I first learned the term while studying the Bollywood film industry. If you think Weinstein was bad, you don't want to know anything about Bollywood.
Favor-asking is probably a more general description though. We're talking about an asymmetrical reciprocal exchange. If you've ever declined to tell your boss "no" even when you know he or she is making a mistake, you've experienced the starting point for the Weinstein phenomenon. It only gets worse from there. However, the experience is certainly not unique to the celebrity industries like film and politics.
By this same standard....do we remember Trump's admissions (caught on tape) prior to the election? Yet, he is not held accountable? Instead he gets to be president. Help me understand. Weinstein is deplorable....but so is Trump - both should be accountable for the abuse.
9
Here's the difference though. The Access Hollywood tape was made public, and Trump's words roundly condemned. I believe he was elected in SPITE of that - his opponent had been involved in worse in the covering up of her husband's behavior. You may not agree, but it must be faced that many people who were alive in the 90's remember Hillary's hypocrisy. It's no use trying to pretend otherwise.
In Weinstein's case, with much more than foolish words to condemn him, a world of sycophants and political beneficiaries excused it. Hollywood spouts off about gun violence and sexual harassment when it involves political adversaries, but no one has done more to glorify these behaviors in their "art".
Becky - Yesterday I asked why the revelations about Bill Cosby didn't seem to catalyze the overall "enough is enough" response that we're now seeing. As you rightly point out, the same question applies to Trump. My listener suggested that the key difference is that Cosby went into denial mode. Trump did too. Weinstein, on the other hand, while issuing the standard phrasing regarding rape allegations, has essentially fully admitted that this has been the pattern of his career.
Unfortunately that suggests that denying the behavior is an effective strategy, which is NOT a heartening conclusion.
rileyburke - Leaving aside the other backward-minded nonsense, it is noteworthy that this situation is playing out within an industry that profits by the depiction of similarly abhorrent behavior. I wonder whether that fact contributes both to the culture of complicity and the (justifiable) tidal wave of outrage. I.e. a culture based on confusion and a reaction based on guilty feelings.
Enabling beneficiaries are everywhere and their rewards include money, jobs including film roles, fame or perhaps most commonly, escape from punishment. Too many people, especially young people, neither designate nor enforce the red lines or dealer breakers that should guide their lives. The initial episode of any type of abuse in any personal or domestic relationship or in the corporate sphere should be the “goodbye” flag...full stop. No second chance...no more opportunities because then the victim becomes the enabler.
Odd that there's no mention of Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly and their enablers. The fact is that sexual predators cross party lines, and that having power enables sexual predators to escape accountability more easily. Trying to make it a Democratic or Republican issue totally misses the point.
11
Exactly, I'm glad you mentioned this. I was about to post the same thing but you beat me to it. Fox News is tripping all over itself reminding their cult members of the Weinstiein/Hillary connections. They conveniently omit the fact that they had to pay out big time for O'Reilly's and Ailes' wandering eyes and hands. What hypocrites!
1
We have men’s rooms and we have woman’s rooms, when it comes for going to the restroom. Male doctors are supposed to have a female nurse in attendants, when attending a female. It’s time we went back to, “Leave the hotel room door open when entertaining a business associate of the opposite sex. And when someone enters the business office of a person of the opposite sex, the door stays open. Perhaps OSHA needs some new rules, including Office Romance Rules, and to be involved in all aspects of Weinstein’s industry as well as the Oval Office.
3
This was not office romance.
1
I think some of the blame has to be on the victimized women. I understand it's very hard when you're a 20 year old trying to get a break into the film industry, but how about those who went on to become stars? Why did they only speak out after the Times article? They could have spoken out 10 or 15 years ago, even as an unnamed source and save many others from having to go through this.
3
I think you need to go back, actually READ all the articles published about this, and learn that PEOPLE DON'T LISTEN TO WOMEN WHEN THEY REPORT THESE EVENTS. They tried to speak out YEARS ago when it happened.
4
Because they thought crossing Weinstein would hurt their careers and that information about who talked would get back to him.
I have read that before penguins go into the water, they jostle each other until one falls in. If the leopard seal doesn't eat it, the rest dive in. That's the pattern of accusations against Cosby, and its the pattern of accusations against Weinstein. Only after one accuser makes the accusation without being destroyed to the rest decide it's safe.
4
One mention of Trump (who of course instead of being shunned and shamed as Weinstein is became the President of the United States) and no mention of Roger Ailes, Bill O'Reilly, and the other creatures of Fox News who carried on an open campaign of harassment of women for decades. More IOKIYAR. Also, the standard gratuitous shot at the sixties. Shirley Temple, who Bret Stephens may catch up on at TCM, mentioned in her memoir that in 1940 a studio executive exposed himself to her when she was 12 years old. The "Casting Couch" was already a Hollywood cliche when Kirk Douglas made the "Bad and Beautiful" in 1950. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casting_couch
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Weinstein had a great deal of power for 30 years to make or break careers of women actresses and film professionals. As long as some men get that kind of power, they will abuse it. He was enabled, but he was enabled by people who either wanted something from him, or feared him, or both.
4
We already know the problem, it's been around since the beginning of time. Where are the ideas on how to protect future generations of women or men who are victims of sexual harassment in the many industries where this behavior proliferates?
4
Amen Mr. Stephens--" Our belated indictment of him now does too much to acquit his many accomplices, and too little to transform a culture that never gave him a reason to change."
It will be generations, if ever, before we don't allow, as a society, abuse of others.
2
The old saw that all that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing was never truer than it is in trumps case.
4
Societies where men enjoy greater power than women always experience abuse against women. The greater the imbalance the greater the abuse. Anyone who has studied history knows this. So if you want to reduce the problem of the Harvey Weinstein s of the world you have to have a society where significant percentages of women are in positions of power. I'd be willing to bet most if not all of Weinsteins board was male. Equal representation in senior management roles has to be the aim of any society aspiring to be fair and enlightened. Nothing less will do.
4
Never liked Nixon but for two VERY important things: He created the EPA - AND he was a faithful husband. Why don't we hear more about Nixon's commitment to his wife?
1
"In movies as in politics, hypocrisy isn’t just an accepted fact of life but also an essential part of the job." Well said. Look at the speed of Weinstein decline, he never had a real friend not even a real wife. Of course, these poor innocent women had no idea that bad hollywood executives could do all these terrible things to them that they role play in movies, which made them a fortune. As for the guys, how disgusting that they could be tempted being surrounded by the most beautiful (and accessible) women on the planet. Mr. Stephens forgot the journalists who delight in a story guaranteed to increase sales. And we, hypocritical readers, my brothers and sisters are buying.
2
As more women have come out, plenty has been written about how this type of abuse is common in Hollywood. Men abusing power. If you don’t name the abusive men, how does it change? Lea Seydoux gave examples of men, but did not name the men. Terry Crews, a male actor, says he was a victim. Said his wife was a witness. He won’t name the abuser. Don’t the abusers need to be called out by name? If not, where does the change come?
2
While I often agree with Stephen's observations, this is not one of those times. The presence of "enablers" is hardly a new phenomenon, nor is such depredation a new thing. This has to do with a horrible person behaving horribly because he has the power and the inclination. The "casting couch" goes back to 1910 and the rise of the studio system, and according to Suetonius, the Emperor Tiberius had "bevies of girls and young men." Not confronting the powerful is not a "sixties" thing. Elvis Costello got is right, "There's no such thing as an original sin."
1
If you want to examine a culture of enablers, look at your own neighborhood.
Because most of the men harass and commit sexual assault are not powerful, rich, and able to make huge payouts; yet they're protected and enabled by the privilege of being men. And yes, usually it's an open secret that they abuse and harass.
If you get a group of women together talking on the topic, it's rare that a woman hasn't experienced sexual harassment and sexual assault. Virtually every woman you will ever meet has been violated at some time in their lives.
And the men who harassed and assaulted them, like Weinstein, were enabled and protected by the social networks around them. It seems like there's some unspoken compact that some men's 'uncontrollable sexual urges' are natural, normal, and manly; and that the women must be slovenly instead of victims of criminal behavior.
1
This is the clearest example I've seen yet of the truth that sexual abuse is not really about sex. Weinstein was powerful and rich enough to obtain sexual favors without coercion but if you read the stories of the women the coercion, domination, control, subjugation and humiliation of these women was clearly the driving motivation behind the behavior. Most of us would not be tempted by the prospect of chasing a woman around our office or forcing her to touch us inappropriately. That is not normal sexual energy. It's something else altogether.
10
Rod Snyder - That's a great observation and I'd take it a step further by suggesting that it's the men with the most profound and deep-seated sense of inadequacy who would need to act out the coercion, domination, control, subjugation and humiliation of others, in a perverse attempt to deny what they see as the essential truth about themselves. It follows then that such men would create private enclaves (Miramax and the Trump Company being two examples) where they can wield the necessary power while remaining relatively insulated from scrutiny and reprimand.
2
Let's not become anti-sex and lose the focus on power.
While it would be impossible to imagine seeing me now, I often faced unwanted grabbings, gropings, and had to repel sexual contact attempts when younger.
As long as "no means no" it is understandable that someone "makes a first move, as long as (a) they stop when asked to stop, and (b) do not have power over you or your career.
(b) is the big issue, and (b) is why there is "silencing" of victims.
I am surprised at Mr. Stephen's assertions. When it came to Hollywood abuses, he believes the data but, when the abuses were reported at college campuses, his reaction was to question the data and even raise the question "If the problem is so prevelant, why would intelligent women expose themselves to such abuses by going to colleges in such high proportions?"
5
In our celebrity and wealth obsessed culture, to paraphrase Kurt Vonnegut, " Rich people don't commit crimes, only amusing pecadilloes". And also to paraphrase Sinclair Lewis "It is difficult to get a man to know something, when his salary depends upon his not knowing it". The real underlying issue here is capitalism and the opportunism that accompanies it. Weinstein signed the checks, period.
1
Predators in nature are a necessary part of the balance of nature and should not be judged as good or bad. Predators in Hollywood, on the other hand, well, the only way Hollywood was ever going to change was for the culture to change around it. Social media has given marginalized groups a powerful voice. It is sometimes scary to watch the hive swarm and attack. Sometimes it seem unwarranted. But the millennial generation, or the "woke" generation or whatever you call them simply won't stand for the Weinstein behavioral model. It's their influence, and the support thousands have given them, that has helped to undo a cultural norm.
As someone who works in the Oscar industry going on 20 years now I know that in my business there is a food chain and a gravy train and no one really can afford to interrupt it. But even still, though I personally knew reporters who were chasing the story I had no idea of the extent of predatory behavior by Weinstein. I grew up in the era of Bill Clinton where his infidelities were forgiven. But there is a difference between Bill Clinton and Harvey Weinstein - Weinstein did what Bill Clinton was accused of doing - though it seems clear that history will put the two in the same pile anyway. I think it's dangerous and self-serving to blur those lines, just as it is dangerous to compare a hyena to Weinstein - one does what what it has to do to survive, the other does what he wants to do and designs a life where no one can or will stop him.
Younger generations are learning. The hope here is that when these instances of intimidation and assault ultimately happen to them (and, unfortunately, they will), today's headlines will have educated that they themselves did nothing wrong and that they are not alone. Those assaulted will be emboldened to call out their attacker as well as those who cover for the criminal.
1
Nothing will change until there is real accountability for our actions (or inaction) and concrete consequences to poor or abhorrent behaviors towards others.
Mr. Stephens’s heart is in the right place, but it’s just wrong to suggest that the behavior of Mr. Weinstein, et al, can be attributed to a change in male behavior from some Golden Age.
There has never been such an age. Men have always acted as predators toward women. The difference today is that they’re called out for it, sometimes even punished and humiliated for it. The kind of behavior Mr. Weinstein seems to have engaged in for the last 30 years has been the cultural norm: men using their positions of power for sexual gratification. It didn’t start with the cultural revolution of the 1960s.
I have been in the workforce for the last 40 years and have witnessed firsthand the immense, positive changes in attitudes toward women. We’re still moving forward, with the Harvey Weinsteins and Donald Trumps of the world just reminding us how much further we have to go.
4
The fact that Hollywood held this open secret for so long only confirms just how devastating it is to be a whistle blower. And not just in Hollywood. We all chase dreams - large and small. We all want to keep or advance our careers. Think of the wall street banker who is supporting his or her family or the young college grad who just signed a one year rental lease or the high school student who needs a good letter of recommendation. It takes great courage to report corruption and abuse of any kind.
87
Think of Anita Hill.
I almost wish I believed the Harvey Weinstein scandal reflected the mindset of a particular era or business, but I'm afraid those particulars may magnify the problem of sexual harassment by means of entitlement but are not the genesis of mindset that is hardly new or exclusive to one industry.
I believe these scandals are made juicier and newsworthy by the presence of celebrities, the modern day version of Greek Gods and Goddesses, but in fact reflect attitudes and issues that are pervasive throughout society. True, the larger the profile, the more access the perpetrator has to victims or the prettiest at least, but the root of the issue lies in the power dynamics that exist in myriad situations involving male bosses and authority figures and the women who work or sometimes live with them. Nor is the exploitation new even if during certain eras licentiousness is more openly embraced and later put back inside its container accompanied by cries of self righteous indignation.
Further, like every other form of exploitation, there are always enablers, some of them victims and others opportunists. It's not easy to take down or stand up to a powerful, often popular or talented creep. Witness congress in lieu of our mad president.
1
pixilated - Yes, it appears that the same forces that motivated Donald Trump in beauty pageant dressing rooms and isolated vestibules and such are still at play in the dynamic between him and Congress/the Cabinet.
Growing wealth inequality is stagnating our economy, creating more uncertainty and anxiety, while undermining democratic (civic) institutions. Along with the glorification of monetary and dominant "success" (and conspicuous consumption) this makes it hard for communities and their members to curb authoritarian and predatory "titans".
It's too easy for anyone to point fingers at a celebrity and say they should have or blown the whistle. It's more self-righteous than noble-sounding and not necessarily realistic. Few of us are altruistic enough to risk our careers by crossing someone who was clearly one of the most powerful men in entertainment. An Affleck would do better by admitting, "I'm ashamed of myself for putting my career ahead of my responsibility to my fellow man and not speaking up." Reprehensible, but also comprehensible.
Oh god if I hear another conservative moaning about the good old days when our culture supposedly was too strict and disciplined to abuse women I think I will vomit. In fact, women were abused just as much. They were simply not permitted to say so.
The very concept of date rape was not even thought of until the "libidinous society took over" because women having the right to freely have sex was not a permitted thing (and still isn't within most conservative movements). One of the ways Weistein successfully silenced a victim was tarring the victim reputation sexually, a tried and true method of all conservative societies.
And if you think there is anything unique about Hollywood re sexual abuse, except perhaps for more women in the workforce for a longer period of time, your part of the problem. You too are turning a blind eye to some abusive cad.
The problem isn't a "libidenous socity" the problem is men thinking they get to do this. Again and again and again.
35
Yep. I notice that nobody on the rightish side is even willing to mention, oh, Roger Ailes and Strom Thurmond, let alone rake that culture over the coals.
1
I found myself most shocked by the assistants who abetted this behavior. To know you are leading a young woman to such a fate is just... so upsetting. Yes Weinstein is the main villain here, but seriously, how could you do that and live,with yourself? I suppose the answer is again that if you wouldn't do it you were replaced by someone who would.
However also I want to say that I grew up in the 60s and 70s and did not experience this kind of debauched culture. I thought of it as a time of great idealism, promoting women's rights and civil rights, questioning the slaughter in Vietnam, etc. I don't think it's valid to equate liberalism with being libertine, not at all.
42
I agree! For Harvey to say that the culture was different then is ridiculous. A predator was a predator. That said, I had a therapist in ny in the 70s who said to me, "Don't go to a man's apartment unless you're prepared to have sex with him." That was one of the better pieces of advice I received in my life. Too bad I hadn't figured it out on my own. But I did figure out that it made good sense.
Related I think: Lately with the start of HBOs "The Deuce," David Simon the writer, etc. of the show has been talking about the rise of porn's in the
70s, how it has contributed to misogyny, especially on the internet - not that the Weinstein/Trumps weren't around before, but sexualizing (objectifying) women of all ages (well, under 50) probably has a complicated part in our times.
10
Stories of the "Casting Couch" predate the 70's by quite a few decades.
And the internet didn't show up until a couple of decades after the 70's.
And I suspect porn magazines (or some variation there of) have been around since women started to wear clothes.
But maybe it has something to do with the famous phrase, "Greed is good".
Or maybe not.
In a society that inundates men from childhood with images of women as objects should we be shocked by men like Weinstein? After spending some time in the world of music I can assure everyone there are many Weinsteins out there and they are not only targeting women! We've not even touched upon what goes on in the modeling industry which if investigated would rival the Church in the abuse of minors. Just last week when Hefner died there was an outpouring of praise and even crediting him with somehow being responsible for the women's liberation movement. The disease is how women are portrayed in movies, tv commercials, billboard ads, magazines, etc and how all that influences young men. Weinstein is but a symptom of the illness. Are we prepared as a society to deal with the real problem creating monsters like Weinstein?
32
trump in the white house has given us a opportunity to look at ourselves and I for one do not like what I see.
America has looked the other way on a lot of issues such as racism, abusive of not only women but also children, gun violence, favoritism in colleges and Universities for the children of the big donors (even when they do not have the skill or intelligence to make it on their own), discrimination in the work place, church and any other organization at we are involved.
The real sin is we hold ourselves up to be better than the other countries. Money has become our god and we all put up with it. How will we survive if we keep this up? Will our country become a country that most of us do not want to live in? The great experiment of Jefferson and the other founding fathers is in trouble.
As you alluded to with the famous quote by Clause Rains in "Casablanca"...our "shock" is one and the same as "crocodile tears". The time in which we live is no different than any other time in human history. Powerful people have always utilized that power to their own ends, whatever it might be. I wish I could say that this episode involving Weinstein would be a wake-up call that would put an end to misogyny and mistreatment of people, particularly women, but I'm afraid it won't. After the media has wrung all the gory details it can out of this dismal event it will move on to the next "big story" and the public will to. It is human nature. Unless it directly affects you, it is quickly forgotten. We are islands in the "stream of life" and most of us are hard put to keep our own island clean.
18
first column i've seen that mentions weinstein's physical appearance.
what he's done is revolting. however, i wonder if his looks made people respond even more strongly.
finally, it seems to be a fine example of money and power talking. not only that he got away with this for so long, but i don't think there's much chance he would've been able to marry his now estranged wife if he had neither.
11
'Of all of the dismaying and disgusting details of the Trump saga, none is more depressing than this: It has so few heroes...There is a storybook villain, Mr. Trump...But mostly there are enablers, both those who facilitated his rise to power and those who found it expedient to look the other way. The enablers were of all sorts...family members, assistants, reporters...and then there was the rest of the Republican party. Mr. Trump's recklessness and the danger he posed to the nation and the world were an open political secret, the subject of talk and jokes in Washington...'
I'm not just being cute. If we concede Mr. Stephens point that those around Mr. Weinstein should also hold themselves accountable, and I happen to agree (at least somewhat), it does make me wonder why we hold some more accountable than others. Why is the nature and timing Ms. Clinton's comments on Weinstein splashed across CNN, even though she is certainly in one of the outer rings of those who could plausibly be held to account?
Meanwhile, who is demanding that Republicans in Congress comment, on the record, about Trump's comments about Puerto Rico, North Korea, and the NFL? Or his basic mental/psychological capacity and fitness for office? Why is our impulse to protect and shield Trump voters from the implications of their vote?
The problem is not that we don't hold anyone accountable, it's that we hold people accountable unevenly and with prejudice. When does that stop?
51
I don't know what planet you are living on? Trump has been called out on all of the above, and rightly so. It has been on the 24 hr news channels ad nauseam. This is a separate issue completely and by going back to Trump, you dilute the severity of the accusations against Mr. Weinstein. If we are to be honest with ourselves, we need to look at this objectively. By bringing Mr. Trump into the discussion we only look petty and will not be taken seriously.
Trump as a phenomena would never have happened if this society produced men confident of themselves as people rather than *masculine* people. The women that have become victims of the Weinsteins of the world are just like all the rest of us that are hoping to work our way around male identities wracked with confusion about their role in relation to women. I love my husband and we are great friends, but from time to time I have to lay it out on the table: you are putting me down so you can feel better, and it is always about things that I love to do like landscape projects and building - tasks and skills that are a man's domain. I find it tempting to make peace by stepping aside because I value our relationship so much. Occasionally I do because I see he struggles with his masculine self worth although it is rare. But we are able to talk and laugh about the subject. Weinstein's victims intuitively know they are making a deal with the devil, all women know this. We are in a huge cultural war with ourselves and each other and the racial issues are really just scapegoat results of our gender war. White men, Weinstein, Trump and those that voted for either the movies or the president need to talk about male self image and learn to laugh at how hilarious it is.
1
I totally agree with this analogy. Thank you. Holding Clinton and Obama accountable is laughable.
1
We could blame this on a libertine and (presumably) liberal culture which has dispensed with notions of personal restraint and gentlemanly behavior. But if we do that what do we make of conservative acceptance of our President after recordings came out of him boasting of the exact type of behavior which has now brought the downfall of Weinstein? Sexism and abuse are not left right issues. They are issues that all men must address regardless of politics and simply writing this off as a product of nature is not how you address this issue.
23
Yeah, Victorian men never raped or assaulted or harassed anyone, I'm sure.
1
Spoken like a member of the church of the status quo and worshiper at the alter of power. The problem is not the lack of will by people to pointlessly destroy their lives in a noble cause but a societal structure that equates wealth and power with virtue. Weinstein, Trump, Ailes, etc are wealthy and powerful and that makes them better than the rest of us. When that is the structure of the game to expect any one of the peasants to step forward and challenge the king is preposterous.
24
The punch line is that Trump supporters will tell you they voted for him because he was not one of the "elite," but a "regular guy." It would be hilarious if it wasn't frightening.
This behavior is not new. When I was a hopeful actress in 1950-51, my college department held an assembly to let us know what we faced. We were told that we would be challenged by the theater culture, would probably have to sleep with the producers, cave to the demands of Broadway and Hollywood. That did it for me and was the end of my acting career!
20
Exactly. Who would trade their bodies not to mention their souls for fame and fortune must hold themselves accountable as well.
1
I suppose this is what the market in morality will bear, eh? Also, I doubt that "morally sentient" societies can live by Darwinian metaphors. But it seems our betters remain committed to both faiths. All of this would be more bearable if I enjoyed the movies!
1
What about the victimized women who were paid off with a large cash settlement on the condition to remain silent? Should they get a pass or be called out for also being enablers? For the public good, shouldn’t there be laws making it illegal to pay off victims of a crime so that they remain silent? Civil settlements are one thing but payoffs to silence victims of crimes should be prohibited. How many times have we seen the powerful and wealthy pay families or victims of criminal acts to silence them so and the perpetrator continues their criminal acts?
44
There is something quite insidious about how our society deals with things like this. You, Henry, are right. It should be illegal to pay off a victim of a crime so that it is not prosecuted. But this little "get around" is reflected elsewhere when dealing with sexual assault. Why, why should colleges and universities have anything to do with investigating sexual assault just because it occurs on their turf (or even off-campus, but among their students). It's a crime and therefore a police matter. Why are the rules for sexual assault any different from ordinary assault and battery? Why? Because men are making these rules and they are protecting themselves.
1
You cannot blame the victims for their fear. I got no payoff, but kept my mouth shut in my own situation for 29 years. I was terrorized, only I didn't even know it. It's an extremely complex combination of Stockholm Syndrome, PTSD, and many other issues.
2
No law says the victim has to accept the money. Just sayin'....
We are hearing more instances where celebrities and powerful people act in horrible ways. We also get castigated for keeping silent. I witnessed horrible behavior like Mr. Weinstein's on a much smaller scale, but nevertheless, I needed the job. If I quit in protest or even spoke up (and would assuredly be fired) the manager would replace me and go on as before. I, on the other hand, still had to pay a mortgage, car loan and college expenses for my son. Don't be so hard on us if we have to put our needs ahead of principal.
18
I agree 100 percent with your comment. But the people that have their money and power did nothing. There appear to be many of those in this story.
While I applaud most of the points made in this article, I do take issue with the comment "hyenas cannot help their own nature". This implies that some men by their very natures behave badly and that they can't help it. It's just "who they are". Wrong! No evidence suggests that Mr. Weinstein isn't capable of regulating his own behavior. He has full responsibility for his actions, societal indulgences aside.
91
Deb has got it wrong. Narcissistic personality disorder cannot be "cured". You should not entertain any hopeful illusions on that score. That only sets you up for further betrayal. It can only be "contained". These type of people need to be treated accordingly.
@Deb - Agree. What none of us can help is our looks; the columnist was wrong to write about Weinstein's "repulsive face." That's a cheap shot and irrelevant. What is at issue is his behavior, as you say.
1
Politics is up for sale, like entertainment and reality TV.
Ross says no surprise that its concept of ethics is every bit as ersatz and inconstant as most everything else in Tinseltown. Or Washington.
Since our politicians depend on unlimited millions from big donors to subsidize their careers, it’s not a surprise that politics is an industry, like Hollywood that's ' built around pretend characters and scenarios.’ Precisely.
Both parties and candidates must kowtow to big donors, while trying to market themselves to us voters, as if to actually represent the majority interests. This is schizophrenic politics.
Statistics show most laws ignore the wishes of we the people, and cater to preferences of elite donors.
That’s political show biz. Both parties compete for increasing millions each each election and can’t afford to care where it comes from, or the morality of the donors. This gives our political megadonors enormous power.
Big money calls the shots in politics and ethics, personal and political. This is how are norms get corrupted and for many, anything goes.
So easy to be morally outraged by this predatory Weinstein, but ignore the real warped distortion of political ethics that big money politics causes. Can Ross get offended by that?
This should be the target of Douthat's moral outrage against predators, personal and political.
7
Er, this article is by Bret Stephens.
Meredith, although they may sound alike, this column is by Brett Stephens not Ross Dothat.
Funny, you're confusing Stephens with Douthat. Easy to do?
I can't help wondering if there are any current senators or congresssman who "everybody knows about" but whose behavior hasn't yet been made public. The odds are, there are some.
59
shrieking out loud with laughter... of course there are.
Dennis Hastert comes to mind, but I think he's in prison now.
1
And "in the closet" ones, as well.
You forgot sports. The same thing goes on, where college and professional sports “stars” can seemingly do as they please and the college or team management looks the other way.
27
except peacefully protest an unfair criminal justice system while the anthem is playing
Mr Stephens hits the nail on the head when he describes Mr Weinstein's looks. I wonder how this story would be playing out if he (Mr Weinstein) was a dashing matinee idol.
11
my guess is that his troll-like looks make it easier for people to believe the advances were unwanted and the behavior was not consensual. Appearances make a difference when it comes to public perception.
It's not in the face, it's in the habitat.
I think we should teach our children about predators and their habitat. We have seen so many of them over the years, we can identify the qualities a habitat must have to support a predator: predators must have power over others, be in a solitary position with lack of peers, supervision or quality control. They must have enablers who profit by affliliation and they must have the power to silence criticsm and discourage those who see and can tell. Predators rule over long periods of time by causing ambiguity. Predators thrive because of the conflicts they cause in those who see them for what they are and want to expose and stop them: Predators make themselves indispensable, they do good, they serve a cause, they serve people. They make others feel that the cost of exposing them would be too high. It would hurt the cause, the business, the school, the church, the party..
This is what makes a successful predator: he makes himself indispensable and causes ambiguity in those who see him for what he is.
Analyze the structure of a given system, a school, a business, an administration, and you can identify a habitat. Then look for the predator in this habitat. 9 times out of ten, you will find one. Habitats make predators, and predators make habitats.
31
Ms Fuchs -- I appreciate your ecological view of the predator.
Well put. I can add only that, if one wishes to understand why "elites" have lost their influence in American society--and why the Trumps of the world have proven so successful--one need look no further than this story. As the latter might put it, very sad.
6
But Trump has boasted of exactly the same behavior, and it has been just as much an "open secret" throughout the country; therefore, Trump's election is not a reaction to Weinstein's behavior--it's just more of the same.
22
It isn't just those who work with the Weinsteins of the world. There are enablers everywhere, at every level of our culture.
These people follow the age-old advice to simply "keep their heads down." They aren't independently wealthy; they have mouths to feed and mortgages to pay. Acting upon morals simply isn't in the cards for them.
There are those who enable unethical business practices...for example, they look the other way at Wells Fargo when opening sham accounts.
There are those who enable unethical judicial practices...for example, they look the other way when their fellow police officers go to far and abuse the populace.
The enabling ranges from the menial to the unforgivable, but let's all be perfectly honest with each other: At some point, nearly every one of us has done it. And every little bit of contributes to the broader problem.
26
All of Trump's voters 'looked the other way' when they installed him, despite certain knowledge and evidence. Enablers all .
83
Perhaps if we had been given a better alternative than the greatest enabler of all (Hillary Clinton)...
Tut-tutting the bystanders to the Weinstein phenomenon is beside the point.
All women, vulnerable or not, need to protection of laws that they can rely upon to be enforced, with commensurate punishments, both criminal and civil.
Mr. Affleck for example (who as the Guardian newspaper reported today, with video, is himself not above grabbing a woman's breast on the job) may look ridiculous and it would be a much better world if people intervened to stop the cycle of assault and blackmail. But women cannot and should not be required to rely on someone else's intervention. What can Ben Affleck do anyway? What is some bystander's remedy for another's sexual assault?
Women need to be able to rely on statutes to be enforced, need courts and police to believe them and prosecute. If an HR department looks the other way, it should have to do so at its shareholders' or principals' peril. Hats off the the NYPD for coming up with the sting operation to get Weinstein on tape, but it likely only happened because the victim happened coincidentally to receive the please-don't-tell call from the predator WHILE she was standing in front of the police themselves. Reliable enforcement and appropriate penalties are the real thing to complain about.
Standing against bad behavior is really the only decent thing for people who witness it. But legal remedies that are reliably enforced are the only real cure for it.
21
Weinstein's behavior is disgusting, but not shocking. The shocking part lies with his brother and business associates who somehow walk around pure as the wind driven snow, blissfully ignorant of anything that might reduce profits. It is also shocking that more women did not come out sooner. If not for themselves, then to prevent other women from suffering the humiliation they felt. They knowingly let him continue on for decades, some because of a paralyzing fear, but others because they were saving their career and/or saw an opportunity to settle. Mr. Weinstein is definitely the culprit- but he had help. It appears the district attorney might have helped him as well.
While this may evoke anger from some, I am concerned with the amount of coverage this story is receiving. It IS a major and important story. But it has pushed out of the other news: Puerto Rico, more coverage of the wildfires in California, the 4 soldiers killed by ISIS, that little thing with North Korea involving possibly World War III, Donald Trump generating more and more concern about his fitness for office, etc. These stories are still covered but for the last 2 days on CNN they have paled in the presence of Mr. Weinstein.
We accuse Trump rightly so of running a reality TV show in the White House. When the flash and glitter of Hollywood elbows out other important world events to the extent that it has, CNN and others become reality TV shows or at best an extension of Entertainment Tonight.
22
I just can't help but wonder, as a side issue to the boorish behavior of Mr. Weinstein, if the actors he promoted were promoted on the grounds of their compliance with his casting couch antics, or if he was objective with casting. In other words, is there an excellent actress out there who is teaching kindergarten now instead of attending the Oscars because she was virtuous enough to tell Mr. Weinstein to go jump in the Los Angeles River...during a drought?
18
"Mr. Weinstein donated lavishly to Democratic politicians, backed progressive causes and distributed films such as “The Hunting Ground,” a documentary about campus sexual assault"
This isn't hypocrisy, it is the creation of a deliberate smokescreen to distract from his abuse and to make it more difficult to put a stop to it.
This is not unique to American culture or Tinseltown. Jimmy Savile, the BBC tv children's show and pop show host, raised millions of pounds for hospitals and charities while at the same time abusing their patients as well as children attending his shows, among others. The full extent of his predatory sexual activity only came out after his death, although it was an open secret among his colleagues. He built up a reputation as a philanthropist and even received a knighthood.
These predators, who include people like Bill Cosby and Roman Polanski, are ruthless and calculating, and the charity work and "progressive" causes are part of the calculation.
36
The enablers are those who believe ordinary people don't understand their duplicity. Unfortunately, we understand it all too well because sexual harassment exists throughout our culture -- in politics, the military, sports, business. We've all seen men get away with criminal behavior without consequences. Donald Trump is no different. American men, en masse, have never stood up against women's mistreatment. As long as that message stands in our (still) patriarchal culture, only the names in this story will change.
17
Too many women, too, have enabled, stayed quiet, or are complicit in the abusive treatment of women.
"In movies as in politics, hypocrisy isn’t just an accepted fact of life but also an essential part of the job."
Funny, if I had written this article, I would have began that sentence with the words "In Fox News as in politics", and would then have gone on to describe the sick culture prevailing at what is essentially a GOP propaganda machine.
Fox News is, after all, the self-proclaimed defender of conservative Christian morality in the U.S. Is the fact that they allowed Bill O'Reily and Roger Ailes to engage in their own sordid acts of sexual misconduct, all the while preaching to America for decades how we (led by the Democrats) have lost our moral compass, any less of a hypocrisy than the one that Brett Stephens decries in this piece?
One critical difference between the liberal "libertine culture" that Brett spotlights here, and the one over at the conservative world of Fox News and the GOP, is that at least Democrats are responding to this story by returning campaign donations from Weinstein. How many people want to place bets on whether the GOP is going to pay for all the free campaign advertising that Fox has given them over the years, now that they now the truth about what Ailes was doing behind closed doors?
11
The problem of powerful men taking advantage of women is not a new problem. It's not a problem limited to the movie industry. Remember Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly?
The uproar over Weinstein is justified, but the same kind of hollering should have been done when the Access Hollywood tape was released.
11
The real problem is that many of these kinds of men think that easy access to women is what they are entitled to, what they have earned even. They justify it to themselves as a business transaction--she gets what she needs, I get what I want, so what's the big deal? Other powerful men don't call them out because either because they have skeletons in their own closets or they are afraid of business retaliation from the Weinstein's of the world. No wonder women feel alone.
13
The "libertine" culture of the 1970's, or of today, differs from the traditional culture of the 1950's, or of the 1850's, largely in that we talk about the issue and that the miscreants are sometimes punished. Mr. Stephens is relatively principled, as conservatives go, in his characterization of Mr. Weinstein's behavior as a nominally liberal man's hypocrisy, rather than his ideology. But it's worth insisting on the point that, without modern feminism's direct assault on tradition, challenging, or even mentioning, Mr. Weinstein's behavior would have encountered more resistance than the behavior itself.
2
The way this situation is playing out seems to reflect, at the broadest level at least, the forces of an enlightened attitude. The company is under siege and board members are jumping off. Given that Harvey Weinstein's kind of behavior is one of the things that Donald Trump stands for, it's heartening that our society's moral superstructure seems to be in place even though one of the ogres managed to get inside the White House. It's from that superstructure that we have to work inward, to change local cultures within individual organizations and groups.
3
The real question is, who else is preying but still being protected now?
8
Almost 20 years ago a friend who had worked there told me she and everyone else knew too much about Weinstein. I live in the country and am very distant from Weinstein's world and even I knew he was dangerous. Yet people with power over my life and who purport to be morally uncompromised knowingly interacted with evil, they maintained relationships with him.
6
Putting the focus on men like Weinstein, or even adding in "libidinous cads" like Clinton and Trump, misses the essential element that their behavior reflects a basic contempt for women. That contempt has been characteristic of our society and many others forever.
Sometimes, it seems as if we are on the road to change, but then "conservatives" jump up to proclaim that women are "different" from men and somehow deserve to be subjugated and misused. They prevented passage of the Equal Rights Amendment with their arguments and emotion. The current birth control brouhaha has roots in the idea that women are dangerous if we have too much power over our own biology. And, yes, one of the many factors that worked against Hillary Clinton was the deep-seated prejudice that a woman is somehow unfit to lead.
Weinstein's downfall will not be scaring anyone "straight." Not when Donald Trump was elected president and other wealthy and powerful men continue to prey upon the vulnerable. We are all accomplices in this injustice and will continue to be enablers until we recognize the basic humanity of all women.
11
Civil non-disclosure agreements in the framework of covering up criminal actions, rape, and/or sexual harassment can no longer be tolerated. We need a federal law or all fifty states have to adopt a clear, inarguable law that makes non-disclosure agreements of criminal acts in return for the payment of money ---- unenforceable.
The only reason money should be paid in civil complaints, such as the past accusations against Weinstein that "settled", is when the accused believes they will lose the case and the jury will give the accuser even more money. Confidentiality or buying silence should play no role. Had this hypothetical law been in effect during Weinstein's lifetime, he would have been forced to behave differently by the exposure of his bad behavior, instead of throwing his gold coins from his carriage as he runs people over.
The public has a right to know. Future victims have a right to know. There should never be an incentive or a thought by a rich person, when deciding to attack, rape or harass a poor person, that they can likely pay off the victim and forever seal the truth from the community.
This has to end now. The community needs legal protection, not the lawbreakers.
8
As long as the money paid is forfeited to the state, I'm cool with that. No reason why the alleged victim should benefit, either.
I grew up in the 60's and 70's and while it was a culture that encouraged letting go of inhibitions - sexual, and otherwise - it was also characterized by a powerful women's liberation movement demanding equality and respect for women, including the right to control their own bodies.
"Free love" was meant to be consensual, not forced on women. It was a time when women took exception to unwanted advances and fought to free themselves from the memes of "male chauvinist pigs" that assumed that a man had a right to impose their will on women out of a mistaken assumption of their own superiority.
Coming of age in the sixties and seventies is no excuse whatsoever for Mr. Weinstein's behavior.
Given the fact that the current cultures of rape, sexual assault, and sexual harrassment in the military, Silicon Valley, and Hollywood, have all been exposed as notorious, it is clear that a new women's liberation movement is needed, and not just in these segments of society.
There can be no doubt that despite how far we've come as a nation, women still need to demand equality, and the basic right to be free from sexual assault and harrassment.
11
"An industry based on pretended characters and scenarios"? Really, Mr. Stephens? That is a factor? How do you account for all the other powerful predators and those who fear them--accountants, priests, widget execs, politicians, etc.? Even journalists and other newspaper writers and editors? It seems to me that actors are the most likely to know what's real and what's not. It's their profession, and it's a respectable one.
6
The Weinstein situation is a microcosm of American society and its power imbalances. Objectification and abuse of women is one of the ultimate forms of such power imbalance. Abusers and those enablers who look the other way keep it going, all benefiting to some degree. The triangle of victim, abuser and enabler applies here as it does to overarching dynamics in American society. Sadly our current president is the king of abusers and personifies how our culture glorifies such behavior which ultimately victimizes us, even those who enable him.
I still have hope that imbalances of power can change because despite how ingrained these patterns are in America we still have people who fight back, laws that address such imbalances and a press willing to expose them as they occur.
7
Much of the restraint in calling out this "hyena" is due to the pervasive attitude that Mr Weinstein's behavior was not all that serious. After all it was not torture.
1
But, we have a president who the American public and the GOP enable. When Trump spoke of sexual misdeeds, a range of voters and politicians asked "if these are true, why are they coming out now?" We know sexual attacks occur to the those that have few ways to report. We know that attackers take advantage of the weak. It takes investigative reporting to finally change the scenery and that allows more to come out and talk. Weinstein is out, but we still have a sexual predator-in-chief leading our nation. His election to office gives cover to racism, sexism and sexual predators. Not only that, but he is trying to bring back the Cold War ideals of nuclear build-up. When will the GOP wake up and force Trump from office?
7
While Weinstein had money and power, he had a coterie of enablers despite his actions being despicable. Americans worship money and power. But as his star dimmed, he became vulnerable and the wolves are circling. He will be held accountable for his crimes against women.
The same should be true for Donald Trump.
9
“In movies as in politics, hypocrisy isn’t just an accepted fact of life but also an essential part of the job.”
If our society truly believes this, we are doomed.
5
Any and all abusers of anybody ( especially women ) need to face justice.
I would point out that the current President of the United States boasted ON CAMERA of abusing\assaulting\committing a crime against multiple women and the public turned around and voted him into office.
If we are to hold ''enablers'' to one standard, then let's be consistent.
14
The knee jerk condemnation of Brett Stephen's column on has begun, leaving me to wonder if anyone actually reads clicks through to his columns and reads them.
He does not excuse Weinstein or condemn Weinstein's victims.
He does ask hard questions about the culture that breeds, tolerates and rewards this kind of monster. Hollywood and Washington DC are infamous breeding grounds, and it is time we asked ourselves why.
We are not doing a good job of patrolling the savanna. Stephens asks us to hold up a mirror. Is that the reason for the impulse to kill the messenger?
To understand the problem, we need to understand the cultural and historical context. That does not excuse Weinstein, but it does acknowledge the problem is larger than than one individual.
4
The last pretense that our society is either moral or sentient ended on November 8, 2016 when 63 million Americans knowingly elected a President who bragged about sexual assault.
Hyenas like Weinstein and Trump and Cosby and Ailes and O'Reilly run freely because too many people are willing to look away until someone they know and care about is hurt.
The general lack of empathy for the victims of sexual assault is astounding.
11
I doubt there are many women who listened to the NYPD recording of Weinstein’s encounter with model Ambra Battilana Gutierrez who did not recognize at least some elements of something they themselves have experienced at some time in their lives- either professionally or socially or both. Weinstein’s attempt to get this young woman into his hotel room by alternating between wheedling and bullying and horrifyingly promising to do no harm by “swearing on his children” is excruciating to listen to because parts of it are so familiar to so many women. Any man who doesn’t feel a shiver of revulsion and a surge of anger that women are routinely subjected to this behavior should be ashamed.
11
I was a labor and employment lawyer for going on 40 years, in private practice with a large national firm and as chief labor/employment counsel for a large publicly traded company. I was also sexually harassed.
As a lawyer I can tell you while other employment claims I saw were typically dismissed, virtually every sexual harassment claim I ever saw had merit, often arising from a consensual relationship gone sour, but also from the behavior of pigs, many more charming and better groomed than Harvey Weinstein, but all with some level of power.
As someone on the receiving end of such behavior, I can tell you it is a shockingly lonely place to find oneself, regardless one's personal strength. From my own experience and discussions with other women in the many years since, I know victims typically feel they alone were singled out for such treatment and they almost invariably feel some measure of guilt, questioning what they did to bring such awfulness upon themselves. Rather than risk being seen as at fault--especially up against a popular and/or powerful man--they retreat into silence. It is only months or years later, when the experiences of others start seeping out, that someone finally steps forward in the safety of numbers.
That is why it is so critical that cases like Weinstein's and Ailes' get publicized--not just to show how the mighty have fallen, but to show victims they are likely not alone, not at fault. Pigs usually spread it around. That's what pigs do.
14
I wonder how much Weinstein benefited from our cultures emphasis on celebrity, whereby his victims were unwilling to surrender their dreams of becoming Hollywood movie stars by going public with their complaints.
While this type of male behavior is not limited to Hollywood, it would seem the wanna-be-starlets would be particularly vulnerable to this type of exploitation- Weinstein had the power not only to affect the employment of his victims, he had the power to crush their dreams. This is a unique level of power that is bound to be uniquely corrupting. If our culture didn't put such emphasis on celebrity, I doubt the dynamic would be the same.
68
It's in every industry.
Can we stop using the dismissive and condescending term "starlet" to describe young female actors? Is there a similar term for male actors? (Spoiler alert: No, there is not.) Can we stop using "wanna-be" as some kind of code for "no talent, no brains, but nice (fill in the blank)"? Can we also clarify that the women abused by Weinstein were not solely actors but journalists, office assistants, and female producers? And finally, can we dispense with the notion that women in Hollywood "are particularly vulnerable" to sexual harassment and abuse? Why would that be? Because only they have big career plans and stars in their eyes? Because only in the film industry do powerful men have the power to crush dreams, and the license to do so with a variety of means, sexual, financial, legal, and otherwise? Hahaha. I'm laughing so hard, I feel sick.
The term "wanna-be-starlets" is pejorative and loaded. These victims were "aspiring actors," and the victims of sexual predation
"The culture of enablers" is money. People gave Weinstein license because they wanted the money that they thought, probably correctly, he controlled. This includes all the people who covered up for him, all of those he abused who remained silent.
Many of those he abused faced the universal whistle-blowers problem: even if you are believed, you probably won't ever work again in the industry.
You see similar stories in many venues other that movie-making; anywhere that has a tight power structure with limited competition, and high barriers to entry. The fact that movie actresses are pretty public figures makes this much more exciting to the tabloids, but generically this happens all over, down to the waitstaff in restaurants that generate good tips.
136
I have a real problem with labeling victims "enablers". That just is not fair. You can go on and empathize with their plight if that makes you feel better. You are still blaming the victims.
The public reaction to Mr. Weinstein's abuse is amusing. The papers are filled with articles like these acting as if sexual harassment and abuse are unique to "hollywood" and now that Mr. Weinstein has been caught - the misogyny and abuse is over. It's laughable. There are Harvey Weinsteins in every single industry - from law to finance to retail. I can't think of an industry in which I've worked where there has not been a Harvey Weinstein. We have just come off an election cycle where the most vile sexist, abusive assaults were directed at Ms. Clinton and her female supporters. These attacks came from men on the left and right - and were so vicious that women had to form secret pro-Clinton groups. Female journalists who supported her were attacked via social media. The assault on women, for being women, comes from far too many men who either participate in, look the other way from or simply don't mind the constant harassment of their female friends, coworkers and loved ones. Harvey Weinstein was one high profile guy. Every woman reading this knows that guy at her workplace.
481
No argument. Nonetheless, highlighting the hypocrisy rampant in the liberal spheres of influence - be it this sort of thing, the enormous carbon footprints, the gated communities and ultra-private schools - is even more important to shine light onto. Every woman and the vast majority of decent men know of, knew of and heard of this sort of outrage in the workplace, on campus, in government. The fact of it's prevalence certainly does not in any way suggest tolerance, but claiming moral high ground when the filth has breached your thresholds is not only as repugnant as the crime but a very real reason for November's result. More wisdom is to be found through introspection than externalization.
1
"There are Harvey Weinstein in every single industry - from law to finance to retail." Don't leave out the military . The military particularly the Army top brass circles the wagons whenever one of their General officers are caught red handed. The latest was the despicable Major General who was caught sexting a young enlisted soldier's wife over a thousand times at a Army installation in Vicenza Italy . The Army suspended the General in place since Sept 1, 2017. So the Army Chief of Staff General Milley is allowing this two star General to collect his salary for house sitting while somebody decides what to do with this predator. Sad state of affairs in civilian and military circles of authority in that no one seems to protect women or men from predators.
6
The worst of it is that there are too many women apologists for this behavior, including women who disparaged Hillary Clinton as much as men did. Remember the women who characterized Trump’s behavior as locker-room behavior?
4
Stephens would like to blame 'libertine culture' and misses the mark, just like Brother Douthat did a few days ago.
As Lord Acton wrote in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887:
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."
That's the heart and soul of Harvey Weinstein, perverted with power, the greatest intoxicant of human civilization.
The Roman emperors showed us this thousands of years ago as Nero had his favorite sexual boy castrated and attempted to turn him into a woman, Caligula converted the palace into a brothel and pimped out his sisters; while Elagabalus spent more time cruising Rome’s red light district dressed in drag than anything else.
Humans need to do a better job speaking truth to corrupt, wealthy psychopathic power, but this is not a new or a liberal phenomenon.
This is an old human problem that covers the entire political spectrum.
Grand Old Power corrupts.
127
The only way to be free is not to want anything, and I mean anything, money, job, recognition, social acceptance, etc. The moment you seek something that does not come to you from your own efforts, you are giving up your freedom and/or dignity.
8
No man is an island,
Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
John Donne
Now you tell me!
We live in an evil and corrupt world. Not exactly news. Stephens is largely correct about the silence of the industry particularly a lot of players from Paltrow and Affleck to studio systems and artist management agencies who really didn't have much to fear from Weinstein whose generally bullying behavior has been a staple of the tabloids for years.
However, all the pearl clutching from someone who worked for Rupert Murdoch for years, whose media empire has an appalling record and has paid out scores of millions in settlements to victims in the US and the UK, and whose studio system has collaborated with the Weinstein corporation on various projects is monumental hypocrisy. Mr Stephens "Shocked, shocked "
routine is about as credible as the rest of them.
38
In his defense, I think Mr. Stephens began at the Wall Street Journal long before Murdoch took it over - and, it's possible that's maybe why he ultimately left.
Just speculating.
1
@Pete
West Hartford
He was there for at least 5 years after Murdoch acquired the title.
1
If all of Trump's victims came forward, I'm sure, the list would rival--if not exceed--Mr. Weinstein's. To someone on the receiving end of this behavior at a fairly young age, the telltale sleeze-and-ick factor is pretty obvious; privilege and power not withstanding. Let the outing continue and just desserts come quickly.
145
Stay focused Ann. It's not about Trump, though the NYT will try to make that the case, and you will enable THAT meme. It's about power and its' enablers in general, as Luettegan suggests, and often me's power on top of that. He's right too. Plenty of women out there still would be silent had this story not broken now, or ever. Lots of dirty hands along with Weinstein's.
Time too for the media, the liberal press, people like Stephens, to haul out their mea culpas, write stories about their own silence, ask for forgiveness. But that won't happen. Like with the myriad of media and corporate enablers, they will stay silent on their own stuff and pile onto the story as if they weren't part of the problem for all these years.
1
But why use the word "liberal" press ... when we already know how much corruption and gross behavior came from the right wing press (ie Fox)? Silence, aka fear, is a universal problem: "the press" is also corporate America.
Do you really think that someone like Trump, who is despised by literally millions of people in the U.S. and abroad, has sexual victims who are reluctant to come forward? Unlike Weinstein, Trump lacks power over anyone's career prospects. For all his faults, Trump is a crude and bumbling character, but most assuredly not a rapist or a sinister cad. If there were any of these skeletons in his closet, they certainly would have come out last year prior to the election.
America's rape culture is deep and widespread going all the way back to before its founding. Everything about the way we are structured as a society enables rape culture; less in times when our nation isn't quite so given to corruption, more in recent times up until now, as we've reached peak corruption at all levels.
It is a strange day when you read Ronan Farrow's reporting, followed by a throng of artists who testify about decades old abuse by a man they went on to work for many times since, reminders of actions two male actors undertook to publicly defend Weinstein (Ben Affleck and Matt Damon), to revelations that news organizations, for years, suppressed attempts by journalists to expose Weinstein's sexual crimes. That last item was reported on today by HuffPo's Yashar Ali and, in it, we learn about virtually everyone at the top of NBC's corporate structure effectively stopping Farrow for almost a year, to the point where he paid out of his own pocket to film interviews and had to finesse permission to publish his work elsewhere (The New Yorker).
Silence, above all, though, is what gives these monsters the power they have over us. Selfishness, though, is what contributes to the enablement of people like Weinstein and all the other sickos in his and other industries to carry on for decades and support others like them. The lack of corporate accountability to the public and a binding obligation to follow a modicum of ethics enables NBC and others to suppress.
1of2
88
Legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin, shortly before his death, wrote a book called Justice for Hedgehogs, in which he laid out some of the underlying problems he identified that are now, clearly, tied to the systemic rot we are seeing on a daily basis. In a clip, he talks about the need to get young people involved in philosophical and political discussions in public school. I highly recommend watching:
https://www.rimaregas.com/2015/07/08/ronald-dworkin-on-mistakes-the-tea-...
What he proposes should be part of a sea-change that radically changes what we teach our children through a school system we all pay for, that radically transforms our citizens from complacent to no longer willing to accept a state of affairs that has been ongoing. Patriarchy, rape culture, racism - all are inexorably tied to each other in our power structure. How they are resolved is controlled by that structure.
The NFL protests and the NFL plantation owners who are now trying to figure out how to force players not to kneel is emblematic of the society we are. Who is in charge? Not women. Not people of color. Not people who think they live in a democracy. If we are to become a true democracy in the future, there are foundational issues, deep ones, that we need to learn, understand, and resolve.
Rape, sexual harassment, racism - crimes of control, have been in use in this nation from its inception, one way or another. We need fundamental change.
138
Sadly, that's true throughout the world.
Wasn't surprised by Ben Affleck, but shocked by Matt Damon. I always thought better of him. Both knew and were silent. And for all those actresses coming forward after the fact, we see right through you. You allowed countless women to be abused for the sake of your own success. That's unforgivable!! And to those men and women who attained success where empowerd, you marched side by side with these victims and championed their cause. Sorry, but that doesn't cleanse your soul!!
65
I'm sorry but given the culture of widespread acceptance of the Harvey Weinsteins of the world, and they are legion, it is not the fault of his victims that he wasn't stopped. Everyone should read Ronan Farrow's article. His fellow board members knew; others who worked for him knew. Many women complained and experienced negative consequences in their careers. Some were paid off. Well, that's what the legal system allows and the American way of life condones - here's a check for your pain and trouble, now go away and be quiet. All completely legal. Then there's the example of what happens when you are brave, brave as Anita Hill, for example. The man in question walks right into a lifetime tenure on the Supreme Court. Thanks, Anita, for your bravery. It is not the fault of the victims that Harvey Weinstein was not stopped sooner, all, all of our institutions of the great and good, played their roles in protecting the wealthy and powerful film mogul from victimiziing women, our legal system, the media, his company, and the culture that does not care.
10
How is it that the women that were abused are being blamed for this going on for so long? Harvey Weinstein alone is accountable for his behaviour- and spreading that responsibility to those who were abused just reinforces the idea that he isn't to blame. Instead of blaming the abused women that didn't come forward, let's ask why they didn't come forward and fix that. We don't achieve anything by putting blame on anyone but the abuser.
9
My comment included not just the victims but people who knew--people from BOTH genders. Many very famous and powerful people. Not all of his victims had a voice or were in a position of power. I don't put any blame on them. They were not famous or wealthy. But those who became superstars, actors, directors, writers, etc. had the power to pick their own projects and make mega millions could have come forward. Or at least forewarned others. But they didn't. Nor did the powerful men, some who actively got newspapers to drop stories --shame of those editors as well! And a DA!!!!
Weinstein was the monster, but he had minions. Members of his own Board and other powerful men in Hollywood protected him as well. A few months ago the NYTimes ran an op-ed written by TV star Amber Tamblyn about the existence of the casting couch even today. She didn't name names, but she came forward. She is not someone of power. But I wouldn't be surprised if her op ed gave the NY Times something to investigate and find the real heroes. Those who were not superstars. Those victims who became powerful could have paid back their settlement 10X over. This monster is now allowed to walk free and leave the country!!
2
My daughter was a graduate student at a major university. Her adviser was sexually harassing her for a good long while. When she got fed up, she went to the Title IX adviser, hoping that she would mediate a solution. But Title IX officials don't mediate. They require an adversary hearing. My daughter went that route and her adviser was soon gone.
In the workplace, the EEOC takes the place of Title IX and likewise requires adversary hearings. Half measures, like mediation, are not provided for. My daughter was angry and her adversary did not have Weinstein type power. So when she found out mediation was not in the cards, she went forward. Sitll, I think her first instinct was right. Negotiating a solution with the help of of an advocate is far less adversarial and is likely to encourage far more women to come forward.
If you want suitable remedies for women, I think you allow for mediation. If you want the offender to be on the front page, then require his victims to charge him or do nothing.
62
Your daughter was lucky: the Title IX adviser was on her side and the man she accused was relatively powerless. Not all Title IX advisers are there for students, especially if the accused is extremely powerful. Too often the Title IX officer functions like the HR department in many companies: they exist to intimidate and silence the student.
44
My daughter went in seeking a mediation. When she couldn't get what she wanted, she cried. She was clearly not vindictive. I do believe that matters. In fact, the Title IX adviser started her report with an account of her first meeting with my daughter and stated that it was clear that she was not vindictive. Your comment and the Title IX adviser's report suggests to me, even more, that mediation is better than an all-out fight.
4
Maybe there should be a public list somewhere of all of the men who own casting couches, the producers, the directors, the agents, whoever. Information on them should include exactly what they do that is shady. And if that won't pass legal muster, then maybe there should be a list of men who don't prey upon the innocent, the gullible, the young and the hopeful. That list would probably be a lot shorter, but at least the young, the innocent, the gullible and the hopeful would know who was on the list, and more importantly, who wasn't.
13
i completely agree
Rose McGowan and Ashley Judd are the only true heroes here. And to be quite frank, I still don't think we are getting the full story from many of these women coming forward.
75
Rose McGowan accepted hush money. She could’ve prevent subsequent transgressions by Harvey by speaking out at the time.
1
Heroes. Both tells their unverifiable tales, and both came forward YEARS after the fact.
Heroic is not the word I would use.
1
I agree, but then again they've always stood up for female human beings and taken a lot of flack for it over the years.
What an indictment, moral laxity (if any), widespread and deep all across the universe of glitter and fame and make-belief. A bacchanal of sorts, where enablers and viewers 'tolerated' a climate of inaction at best, and a wink wink for our macho society pecadilloes as a matter of course. Those free of guilt, please, throw the first, or second, stone...as too many among us do live in a house with a glass roof, highly breakable and incriminating. Weinberg knew what he was doing was just 'business as usual'. Until he didn't.
6
When personal restraint and gentlemanly behavior were part of the norm, another part of the norm was that such things were not talked about or publicized. Since it was unthinkable that the leaders of society could have dark undersides, their dark undersides were safe and we have no idea and no way of finding out what really went on. That is why priests were able to molest young boys for decades, generations, centuries, millennia. Gentlemen were aristocrats who had the droit de seigneur. Those who wanted to be perverts and libertines were safe; who knows what the Saudi princes do in the privacy of their harems. Talking about it would get you busted for obscene language.
The way to end sexual abuse is not to return to a time when it could not be talked about. The way to end it is a culture of openness that we are still groping towards. Perhaps it involves getting what is happening on a phone videocamera and posting it, so that undeniable evidence will make hypocrisy impossible rather than public standards making it inevitable and successful, as in the human past.
192
Great point!
Exactly. The ONLY reason this topic is now in the press is because if the press didn't cover it, it would "go viral" all by itself. The only reason we are now dealing with sexual harassment and assault is the advent of the Internet. Two words that encapsulate what it was like before the Internet: Anita Hill.
1
What Harvey Weinstein did had nothing to do with liberal culture, liberal politics, or any kind kind of politics for that matter. His is a criminal. He assaulted women. He is a pig. A disgusting pig. No liberal endorses or practices such behavior as a part of any political philosophy. This is the realm of the sick and criminal.
Harvey Weinstein is a powerful figure in the movie industry. But he is not an elected official. His terrible behavior is not a reflection of, or upon, any political party. He is just a pig.
Harvey Weinstein, as bad as he is, did not invade Iraq, give lavish tax giveaways to the filthy rich, turn his back on our intelligence community, attack solid sound science, give more tax cuts to the filthy rich, lie for 40 years that said tax cuts would line the pockets of the middle class, do everything possible to take healthcare away from the poor, and attack the press for revealing the truth such actions.
I guess we could call these things conservatine practices, because they have been the policy of the conservative Republican party. I left out the bigotry and hatred for the LGBT community because that is not their official stated policy. They just are that way.
418
No, unfortunately, you are not alone in that. When faced with groups of people who have been misused, abused, harassed, and assaulted, the civilized thing to do is to respond with concern and sympathy, and, if you can, empathy. It's a rather self-involved act to respond by saying, "Well, you think YOU have it bad!" After all, there are children starving in impoverished countries all around the globe, why should we care about impoverished children in our country. After all, there are starving children all around the glove who have it as bad or even worse. Right? Sure.
2
A true statement, especially in Mediterranean cultures such as France or Italy. Despite French pretenses of sophistication in these affairs, seduction is still the mainstay of the enterprising male who is the only one allowed to take the initiative in France. It would be utterly unthinkable for an adult female to make the first move, men are expected to do all of the heavy lifting when it comes to making overtures. This 'white begins first à la chess' mindset is unfortunately what sets into motion the sordid mechanism of men with poor social skills lapsing into harassment and even worse.
5
It is a reflection on any political candidate who knew about his behavior yet accepted his money (and did nothing to stop the behavior, which was illegal, since the candidate certainly can't plead powerlessness). If that candidate happens to be a Democrat, a defining figure in the Democratic Party, then, yes, Mr. Weinstein's behavior reflects badly on the Party itself. It becomes, like the Republican Party's scorn for the LGBT community, not policy, but a tacet endorsement of the exploitation of women in the workplace and his "contributions" become a form of hush money.
A passionate and well-written piece, Mr. Stephens.
I witnessed this same sort of predatory behavior during my time as a researcher in the physical sciences in the U.S., where women are relatively few and are very much dependent on men for career opportunities and advancement.
In graduate school one day, I informed my attractive female officemate that the department chair for the graduate program had just made a salacious comment about her during the Friday after-work drinking event in the Institute courtyard. She responded with recognition that this type of behavior was not new on his part, but basically shrugged it off and said to forget about it, even though I explained that I would gladly serve as a witness. It was another case of a harassed woman not wanting to have to deal with it, especially since she was close to graduating and would be moving on soon anyway. After all, why rock the boat with a potentially losing battle after spending all those years working to get her degree? She was sick and tired and simply wanted to leave.
There are those of us who obviously still have a long way to go in overcoming our basic animal instincts. We are intelligent creatures and dominant on this planet, but we are animals nonetheless.
Most victims of sexual violence are hurt by someone they know and trust. We need to be careful and eternally vigilant.
And we should consider the advice of Abraham Lincoln: “Teach the children so it will not be necessary to teach the adults.”
181
"Most victims of sexual violence are hurt by someone they know and trust. We need to be careful and eternally vigilant."
The best comment so far, imo.
Having experienced unwanted advances by people I desparately needed to help me, like a family law attorney, the trauma and subsequent distrust of authority has been the most difficult thing I've had to overcome.
2
By the way, Annie, not trusting authority isn’t something you need to overcome. It just means you are healthy.
None other than Albert Einstein had at least a couple of things to say about this topic:
“Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”
and
“To punish me for my contempt of authority, Fate has made me an authority myself.”
This latest episode after Clinton, Trump, Cosby et al. can only strengthen women who are taken advantage of by powerful men in the workplace to Speak Out Loudly when it happens to them. More and more men and women will support them, it is to be hoped. Trump got away with it, at least for now, when over a dozen women and a child have come forward with allegations of sexual misconduct by him. Gloria Allred has one case pending before the court but Trump's attorney says he can't be bothered because he's the president now. Will the court let Trump off until his term or terms of office expire? Stay tuned.
61
Well put. Thank you.
17
Few heroes indeed. I guess we can add another caveat to the price of fame. I don't look at the celebs coming forward now - the most beautiful powerful and wealthy among us - in the same way. It shouldn't take this much or this long to put one single predator in his place. I keep thinking how he could have hired prostitutes to suit his purpose, but this was truly about corrupting, preying on innocence.
39
He can never been forgiven for the lives he inexorably changed and the careers he ended. I sincerely hope I never seen this man and his cohorts(and there were many) in public again.
1
Don't kid yourself; I'd bet a million dollars he hired prostitutes, too...just another form of male violence against women, whether the victim is "innocent" or not.
5
His purpose was to humiliate and dehumanize them.
2
Just when I started to like Bret Stephens....
"Hollywood" is not different from any other U.S. industry: it grinds out consumer products for the global marketplace. While many of its management and workers happen to be progressive, left wing, liberal, what have you, it's not exempt from the same gender power dynamics, same cover-ups, same enablers, as every other industry. Sadly, powerful men of all political stripes have a penchant for abusing vulnerable women.
What's sad about Weinstein is that, despite his personal crimes, appeared to be such a strong supporter of women's rights. (and probably still is)
50
There's no reason to like Bret Stephens.
1
Sexual predators are not strong supporters of women's rights, as one of women's rights is to not be sexually preyed on.
4
Your comment made tears come to my eyes in despair.
1