STASI: Men are clueless for blaming ‘willing’ women for Weinstein
Suddenly the powerful men who knew Harvey was a monster are sorry they didn’t say anything? Now they’re beginning to admit that they regret they didn’t stand up, stand out, stand apart and scream out loud that Harvey Weinstein, a disgusting slug of a Hollywood ogre, was rampaging like an out-of-control California wild fire?
Is it because Harvey wasn’t rampaging through THEIR lives that they shut up, shut down, didn’t stand up to the beast within their midst earlier?
Yes. But now that they’re beginning to crawl out of the devastation with their too-late male mea culpas, we’re beginning to see — at least with one man — women-blaming and victim-shaming.
Take screenwriter Scott Rosenberg, who penned two Miramax movies, “Beautiful Girls” in 1996 and “Things to Do in Denver When You’re Dead” in 1995.
He’s being lauded for standing up on Facebook and apologizing for having stayed silent, admitting, “Let’s be perfectly clear about one thing: Everybody f—king knew.” He then goes on that they didn’t know about rape, but, “We knew about the man’s hunger; his fervor; his appetite. There was nothing secret about this voracious rapacity; like a gluttonous ogre out of the Brothers Grimm. All couched in vague promises of potential movie roles.”
Very well-written, and compelling as you’d expect from a screenwriter — right?
Well, then, why did he have to add: “(And, it should be noted: there were many who actually succumbed to his bulky charms. Willingly. Which surely must have only impelled him to cast his fetid net even wider).”
Dear God. He didn’t really write that, did he? He admitted he knew Weinstein was an ogre, yet he still blames the victims for allowing Harvey’s “fetid net” to blanket the industry? That’s not a net — that’s a cover.
Screenwriter Scott Rosenberg penned two Miramax moves, “Beautiful Girls” in 1996 and “Things to Do in Denver When You’re Dead” in 1995.
(Kevin Winter/Getty Images)
Rosenberg is saying, in essence, that “willing” women allowed Harvey to grow into a giant movie monster.
I can promise you, even though Harvey never harassed me — but then again, I wasn’t a beautiful, young model —no woman who was harassed by this beast ever succumbed to his bulky charms. Willingly.
Only a clueless man who’s had the privilege of being on top in the movie game would believe that any woman willingly “succumbed” to, as Melissa Sagemiller called Harvey, Jabba the Hutt.
Even if some actresses somehow ended up having consensual sex with him, we mustn’t confuse “succumb” with “harass.”
Fact: if a man — especially a married man — with power over a woman’s career hits on her and makes sexual demands, that is harassment, no matter how it ends up.
It’s nearly impossible to imagine that any woman, with the exception of his wife, would succumb willingly to the bulky charms of the obese monster that is Harvey Weinstein. Does Rosenberg really believe even one of these beautiful, young, vulnerable woman looked at that this pervert exposing himself like a subway degenerate, and thought, “Yeah, that’s for me!”
Women who have accused Harvey Weinstein of sexual harassment and assault
Does he think they willingly succumbed to Harvey’s bulky charms after he demanded a naked massage, or masturbated while holding them at bay?
Implying such a scenario is a second assault. Yes, it’s true Harvey did behave like an ogre out of a Brothers Grimm fairytale, but blaming them for allowing his net to be cast even wider is a male fantasy out of another fairytale: Beauty and the Beast.
This is the 21st century, not the 18th or the 19th. Women don’t willingly fall for the beast who holds them captive. That’s not a fairytale, that’s Stockholm Syndrome.