We do forget it. Half of Alabama voted for a Weinstein as a Senator the other day.

So did half a country https://m.imgur.com/gallery/5kcWk

What larger societal problem is that?

I think if you took 10 random people, they'd give you 10 different answers.

The societal problem that men with power feel that it's acceptable to use that power to pressure women to give them what they want sexually.

(And the related problem of bystanders witnessing this behavior and failing to push back hard against it.)

Alright. Another person comes to you and says, the larger societal problem is that ambitious people will ignore or put up with a world of shit as long as they get what they are after.

Who's right?

To elaborate - Salma's ambition was to make the movie, she could've quit 100 times, but instead she put up with 100 cases of sexual harassment (100 being an artbirary large number here)

Harvey's ambition was to have sexual relations with every woman that needed him to do something for her, that he found attractive. He ignored everyone else's needs but his own in the process of fulfilling his ambition.

Seeing it from the angle of ambition, both people could've done things differently but didn't, because they were preoccupied with achieving their goals, more than achieving let's say... harmony in themselves and the world... Is that the larger societal problem? That our ambitions are small and selfish?

Equating Salma's ambition here (make a movie about an important minority historical figure) with Harvey's and then calling it small and selfish? Seriously?

You're trying to make it A vs B issue, black and white. This worldview causes outrage, which's incredibly unhelpful and destructive.

The whole point is to see the greys.

Salma was after breaking out of the Mexican soap opera market, into Hollywood. That was her ambition and she was willing to put up with what she describes as an incredible amount of sexual harassment. Once she had reached fame, she didnt' lead this movement to help other women who are trying to do the same.

When you don't have a lot, you don't know any better - I will look the other way.

When you're already successful, you want MORE success, put up with a mountain of shit along the way - I can safely say you're very driven to accomplish very trivial things, because integrity and mental health are not chips you play with for more fame unless you're incredibly confused.

That's the subtle point that folks who want to paint the world black and white and get outraged by anyone who sees greys keep missing - Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, the list goes on and on, get to be creeps, because people are willing to put up with emotional abuse to 'make it'.

OK, let's get into the grays then. Did you read the article? She didn't put up with Weinstein to get to the point she was at before making Frida. She wasn't looking for fame with this particular film. She wanted to tell an important story. It was something beyond herself. "I did not care about the money," she says.

That aside, you do have a point. If people like Hayek would "just say no," and give up on their crazy ambitions this wouldn't ever happen. It's really that simple. That's what you are saying, right?

What is missing from your equation is “power” - Weinstein had all the power.

Same goes for dictators - Saddam Hussein had all the power, until the equation changed.

But a random iraqi soldier in the mid-80s can’t be blamed for having an ambition to not die.

Would you encourage every women to complain about sexual harassment before they get the benefits they're looking for? Sexual services are considered crime for a reason, but it's not really enforced.

It can only be enforced if it is reported to the police and they gather evidence in a timely manner. Like any other crime.

If there is no proof or evidence, the trial won't go the way you think it will.

Your initial counter-argument relies on the existence of the first.

So logically the first is right

Weinstein's course of action is a personal choice and responsibility. It is absurd to infer or assert collective guilt, or to ascribe some sort of original/social sin to "society." What he did is his individual vice; it is simply not a "larger social problem." Any other man who raped or otherwise assaulted women is similarly responsible for his own actions, and should be punished accordingly.

His abuse was a personal decision, but it wasn't made in isolation. The behavior that Hayek described doesn't fit into the traditional model of sexual misconduct. He didn't physically force himself on her, instead he used his power to emotionally degrade and control her. And that's the point- the traditional model of abuse utterly fails to protect victims. There's a reason the word "complicit" is so popular right now; abusers rely on a support network to minimize and cover up their actions. This network begins with knowledgable persons who turn a blind eye (like Tarantino) but extends all the way out to those who victim-shame on social media. And the fact that so many women suffer sexual abuse and so few abusers are held accountable shows that it is absolutely a larger social problem. "Isolated incidents" that affect 1/6 of a population must be viewed systemically.

https://www.rainn.org/sites/default/files/Out_Of_1000_Rapes%... http://www.11thprincipleconsent.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/...

Yes, absolutely Weinstein made that choice.

That he was comfortable making that choice, that it was seen as normal or just something that happened, that women felt their careers would be in jeopardy if they spoke up, that demanding additional sex scenes at the last minute wasn’t laughed off the lot...

... these are all symptoms of the broader social normalization of his abuse of power.

This year has been a turning point for pointing out it exists and some consequences for the individuals who do it... but it’s barely scratched the surface