Harvey Weinstein's scandal. Hollywood's hypocrisy and casting couch.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion & War Issues' started by marylander1940, Oct 6, 2017.

  1. nynakedtop

    nynakedtop Count

    Maybe it's just the earliness of the hour, but not sure I understand this!
     
  2. WilliamM

    WilliamM Regent

    Just my opinion, nothing more. Think about it. Why would you write so much about teaching, a job you love, if you were not a teacher?
     
    quoththeraven likes this.
  3. Oaktown

    Oaktown Count

  4. nynakedtop

    nynakedtop Count

    got it... and thanks for both the clarification and the nature of the posting
     
  5. Kenny

    Kenny Duke

    What a great interview. Helps to explain Weinstein, Trump, Bozo, etc.
     
    quoththeraven and nynakedtop like this.
  6. Kenny

    Kenny Duke

    Typical conservative false equivalence.

    Cosby, rapist; Weinstein, rapist; Clinton, not-rapist.

    Humor only works when based in truth, not in this cartoon-lie.
     
    mike carey likes this.
  7. Kenny

    Kenny Duke

    Agreed. Ridicule is a much more powerful political tool than violence.
     
  8. bigjoey

    bigjoey Duke

    There were claims that Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick and groped Kathleen Willey. Back in his governor days, he was well known for unwanted sexual advances; I have met one woman who told me that Governor Clinton gave her a pat on her rear while at a reception in Little Rock and she had friends with similar experiences.

    Certainly, Clinton's actions are far less numerous than the Weinstein and Cosby claims and most of his sexual relations have been "consenting." However, his general view of women falls in the same category as Weinstein and Cosby: they exist for his pleasure.
     
    Corporate Shill likes this.
  9. nynakedtop

    nynakedtop Count

    [​IMG]

    "There is no hierarchy of oppression"

    -- Audre Lorde
     
    quoththeraven and bigjoey like this.
  10. bigjoey

    bigjoey Duke

    marylander1940 likes this.
  11. I really didn't want to go in this direction but I have to, given your response:

    Would that be an okay thing for a student of yours to write in an essay? If so, why and if not, why?

    I assume you would discourage your students from acting on that impulse. Call me old-fashioned, but I expect grown adults to keep those kind of thoughts to themselves.

    I have been known to write that something makes me angry enough to want to slap people who say it or do it, but that's me expressing my feelings rather than acting on them, not saying I'd be glad if the individual I have a beef with was hurt by someone else. You may think that's splitting hairs. To me, it's a meaningful difference.

    I would have less problem with your expressing yourself the way you do if you weren't a teacher, though I'd still disagree with it as an approach. At that rate, what's the difference between you and a Nazi other than whom it is you want to hurt?
     
    marylander1940, bigjoey and WilliamM like this.
  12. Also petty.
     
    mike carey likes this.
  13. Or getting beyond the election. Just like his object of worship.

    By the way, Trump is as false an idol as the golden calf.
     
  14. You beat me to it... :p
     
    marylander1940 and LoveNDino like this.
  15. In what way did she enable him other than by remaining married to him?

    Also, haven't you realized that "worst pigs in America" describes a substantial percentage of politicians from both major parties? (Donald Trump, Denny Hastert, that congressman from Florida who resigned after the texts he sent an underage page surfaced, Newt "I Must Find Me Another Female Employee to Have an Affair With" Gingrich, etc. for the Republicans - it's not just Democrats.) So what you're saying is women can't get involved in politics because it's dirty.

    Huh.
     
    marylander1940 and WilliamM like this.
  16. For some of us, that interview is just rehashing what we already know even if we haven't experienced it personally.
     
    marylander1940 and WilliamM like this.
  17. I haven't seen yet @BOZO T CLOWN ID

    [​IMG]
     
    Oaktown likes this.
  18. That may be his view of individual women he interacts with and is sexually attracted to. However, it's clear he doesn't have a problem with female ambition, political independence or gender equity. He supports those.

    So he doesn't always exhibit in his personal life the respect he exhibits politically. That's a problem with him personally, not politically.

    Personally, I believe Juanita Broaddrick because friends have confirmed that she confided in them at the time (and she had no obvious reason to say what she said if it hadn't happened), but don't know what to make of Willey's allegations. Other than Broaddrick, I would categorize him as someone who engaged in periodic sexual harassment of female underlings (Lewinsky wasn't one of them, though) in such a way as to allow himself to think that those relationships were consensual rather than coerced because of who he was.
     
    marylander1940 and WilliamM like this.
  19. bigjoey

    bigjoey Duke

    The point of the post was not to confirm Clinton's political views of women. The post was to counter the claim that Clinton was not a rapist along with Cosby and Weinstein that Kenny posted.

    It does not matter that because of his position he felt his physical sexual actions were consensual; it matters from the female's point of view they were not. "No" means "no." To argue otherwise would let a rapist claim: "She really wanted me despite what she said."