Is Ronan Farrow Too Good to Be True?(nytimes.com) |
Is Ronan Farrow Too Good to Be True?(nytimes.com) |
Farrow's reporting would have been better if he had managed to get some of the other side into the articles. It's kind of sad we had to wait until the trials to get a fuller picture.
> Didn’t want to believe it. At first, I didn’t believe it. I said, “These people are obviously trying to destroy Dr. Cosby’s rich legacy.” Even 34 allegations into it, I was still like, “Man… he probably only raped ten or 11 of those people.”
The "other side" is that maybe there's a flimsy pretext for a few of the sexual assaults. Not all of them. Not even most. Just in some cases that women whose careers and reputations Weinstein had the power to destroy chose instead to pretend to be interested in him rather than repulsed when he threatened their livelihoods.
If these women didn't like what Weinstein did, they could have endured much less of it if they went to the police right away. They would have saved themselves quite a bit of hardship-- and they would have saved many other women at the same time.
You make it seem like they had to go along with it all to keep getting Hollywood roles. Ordinarily, it sounds pretty sleezy when people say they were forced to do something bad to keep their job. The ethical thing is to quit your job because no job is worth compromising your ethics. How many other women were targeted so these women could keep their starring roles?
The ethical thing to do is not to rape your subordinates. If they choose to persist in their chosen profession despite rape or sexual harassment, that in no way diminishes the severity of the rape and sexual harassment.
Let's put it a different way: would you work for a rapist or a sexual harrasser? Would you condone it? That's what these women chose to do. And they were more certain of this fact than anyone else.
I wouldn't work for a rapist or sexual harasser, but I know plenty of people who care more about their careers and they probably would. That doesn't justify raping or sexually harassing them. And even if they tried to mitigate the damage to their careers by playing along with the abuse, that would still not justify or mitigate the abuse.
1) Lying to a lover. 2) Lying to a boss. 3) Covering up a boss's misbehavior. 4) Doing all of this for money.
Somehow you seem to think that Weinstein's behavior makes it all acceptable to do these things. Really?
And if it was known throughout Hollywood that he was terrible, well, why did they women take the job in the first place? They certainly should have known, right?
Harvey Weinstein has no agency in your version. He's not a sex addict narcissist who uses his power to make or break movie careers to manipulate and abuse and rape women. He's just a "lover" and "boss" whose greedy, ambitious, slutty employees are out to seduce him.