firehawk12
Subete no aware
I guess that implies these people think his children are lying, and then they have to see in their own minds whether or not they're victim blaming.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Rose McGowan: Ben Affleck is Lying, he knew about Weinstein raping me and other women
- Thread starter Shadowhelper
- Start date
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Many people don't think the children are lying. Many people believe that since the investigators and doctors who gave testimonies at court who believed that Farrow's kid had been coached, that the kids believe it absolutely since it's the only truth they've ever had drummed into them.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
So far 4 women has come forward.
Curious Puppy
Banned
Polanskis crime was committed over 40 years ago. Trump does bad things every day. Women like Argento who signed that presumably think hes a changed man now, and that prison would be a pointless punishment rather than rehabilitation.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Oh man. This is going to turn into that same thread about the SS officer that people felt should be pardoned from jail because he evaded justice for decades.
Curious Puppy
Banned
No, Im establishing the obvious difference between him and Donald Trump. Saying Asia Argento is the same as a Trump voter is fucking stupid on its face.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
She signed that petition back when Polanski was arrested in Switzerland when he deliberately and knowingly flew there to escape his trials for underage rape. By signing that petition, she clearly stated that she disagreed with his arrest and that he should be released, that underage rape be damned.
Besides, you don't get to claim "rehabilitation" when that person tried his darnest to escape repercussions of what he's done. Say that after he answered to his crimes.
theignoramus
Member
Sure he is above the law cos any other ordinary person will have to go to jail. And yet so if you fuck up you just have to evade it for 40 yrs means it's ok? I don't know what you are trying to say. Are you Polanski that you know that he is not fking little kids right now?
Puck Beaverton
Banned
what are you implying?
hodayathink
Member
Because this thread has stopped being about Rose McGowan or Ben Affleck or even Harvey Weinstein, and is now about Roman Polanski.
broncobuster
Banned
I imagine part of their reasoning is seeing Polanski as a fellow artist, whereas Harvey Weinstein is (was) on the business and production side of Hollywood. Its hypocritical but not surprising.
Use your head.
Puck Beaverton
Banned
i refuse
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
It's about Hollywood people claiming sexual predator like Weinstein to be abhorrent and yet at the same breath they clapped their hands for an underage sexual predator like Polanski.
Fuck, even George Clooney said that people should stop pursuing Polanski because he's an old man now.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I think if you're going to call people hypocrites for alleged inconsistencies in how they treat rapists, you should probably clarify whether you're trying to make the argument that rapists are bad (in which case, it's a bit bizarre you're yelling at people for trying to sanction one) or the argument that rapists are good (in which case, it totally makes sense that you don't understand why good guy Harvey Weinstein is being punished while other good guys like Roman Polanski aren't, but I would strongly advice you against committing to that line of argument. Calling someone a hypocrite is a boring process argument that says absolutely nothing about what you want to see happen or what kinds of changes you'd make in society.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
My line of questioning is trying to find out what makes this case different from the others and what lines these people, or at least the amorphous entity known as "Hollywood", seem to have.
The question of hypocrisy is also raised by the actors themselves, since the reason why Affleck was outed was in part due to women calling him out for his own hypocrisy in this situation.
Here's the problem, he escaped when the judge in the case let slip that he was going to throw out the plea agreement and sentence him to 50 years in prison. His victim didn't even agree with what happened, going so far as to say that the fallout from what the judge did was worse than anything Polanski had ever done. This was after he had satisfied the terms of the plea agreement.
So it's with that, and that it seems to be an isolated incident that even his victim is finished dealing with, that people have worked with him. It's not unreasonable for someone to come to the conclusion that the further pursuit of justice would do more harm than good.
So far, it seems he has legit learned his lesson. His victim believes that as well, what is to be gained by tossing him in prison? Weinstein would have still been a bag of shit.
Personally, after 40 years with seemingly no other victims, I have a hard time buying he's a predator like Weinstein.
Oh good, Polanski learned that drugging and raping a child is wrong and something he should not do. That's wonderful.
We'll isn't that the fucking point.
If you can work for a famous child rapist, you are devoid of any morals.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
The simple, uncontested fact is this: in 1976, Roman Polanski fed a 13-year-old girl champagne and quaaludes. Then he raped and sodomized her.
Now, whether that was something that should be handwaved away because apparently he has "learned his lesson", I guess all of us have a different idea about that. Also, is raping an underage kid something that can also be handwaved away because the victim is "okay with it"?
Oh, and just for kicks, relatively recently former German actress Renate Langer also has said that Polanski assaulted her when she's 15. That makes her the 4th women to accuse Polanski of abuse after Samantha Geimer, Charlotte Lewis, and a woman identified only as Robin M. The fucked up thing is, he offered Langer an "apology" by offering her a role in his movie "Che?" which she accepted but then he continued to try raping her again the 2nd time after her work in the movie was completed.
http://www.indiewire.com/2017/10/renate-langer-roman-polanki-rape-accusation-details-1201883302/
Definitely not a case of a sexual predator, yeah? But I guess it's okay, because "he has learned his lesson." And maybe it's "just 4 women" after all.
faceless007
Member
I honestly do not understand what possible purpose anyone could have for wanting to bring up the hypocrisy angle like some sort of gotcha game except if it's to ultimately make the argument (even if only implicitly) that some rape and sexual assault victims are not deserving of sympathy or protection because they don't pass your test.
And let me tell you, in 20-fucking-17 if you want to claim to be an ally for progressive causes that's literally the polar opposite direction you should want to be going in. Lke, you could not do a worse job if you tried. So maybe if your first inclination when hearing a woman come forward about being raped is to publicly question whether she's "deserving" of your sympathy you might want to consider what you're actually arguing in favor of and what social ideology also tends to view women through the prism of whether women pass "purity" tests.
And let me tell you, in 20-fucking-17 if you want to claim to be an ally for progressive causes that's literally the polar opposite direction you should want to be going in. Lke, you could not do a worse job if you tried. So maybe if your first inclination when hearing a woman come forward about being raped is to publicly question whether she's "deserving" of your sympathy you might want to consider what you're actually arguing in favor of and what social ideology also tends to view women through the prism of whether women pass "purity" tests.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
Can we not feel sorry about a woman being assaulted by Weinstein while at the same time regretting her giving support to a person like Polanski? Especially considering that she should understand the best just how predatory people such as Weinstein and similar men like him (like Polanski) are?
I mean, by the same token, if we say that it's ok to support people like Polanski, isn't that basically the same as saying that the victims of Polanski does not deserve any sympathy at all?
Curious Puppy
Banned
Grow the fuck up. You are not serving any progressive or liberal cause with this shit. It's disgusting, and I double dare you to tell sexual assault victims like Eva Green or Asia Argento that they are devoid of any morals because they didn't meet your own god damn purity test.
DR2K
Banned
Being raped is being raped. If you actually feel any real sympathy for rape victims there wouldnt be a set of standards that must be met for the rape not to be rape. Youre trying to find sympathy for the rapists and/or ways you can justify or rationalize their behavior so you can continue to watch your movies or play your games without any guilt.
We can both feel sympathy for Eva on the one side and condemn her decision to work with Polanski. One did not lead to the other. No choices she made then or now led her to be assaulted. She did not choose to be a victim. She did choose to work with Polanski. If you're choosing to let Asia or Eva's choice define something about their assaults or vice versa... Stop that now. They have nothing to do with each other.
Curious Puppy
Banned
If they have nothing to do with eachother, why are you actively trying to diminish them by harping on their "support" of Polanski (which in itself is a dubious claim at best)? Your first instinct after reading Eva Green's story was "oh that's too bad, but she's still on my shit list".
No. I stated quite clearly that she has my sympathy for her assault. You seem to be under some assumption that because someone is a victim they are immune to criticism. That's not the way the world works.
Why are you"quoting" support? She is supporting Roman Polanski. She isn't supporting his assault. But she is supporting him as a filmmaker and person.
Yeah, these kinds of arguments are really disturbing. The thing is, there's no drawing a line. Either all women deserve empathy following a sexual assault or no one does. Because whatever standards you make and whatever lines you try to draw, there are people on the other side of any idea and any belief, drawing the exact opposite lines. So, the end result is that every woman is that person to someone - the woman who doesn't deserve sympathy (and impliedly the woman it's OK to attack). There are good reasons for having a bright line rule that victims of sexual assault deserve sympathy and empathy.
Curious Puppy
Banned
She is acting in his film. That's what she's doing. You're using that in direct response to her coming forward about Weinstein to undercut how much empathy we should all have towards her. This "we can do both at the same time" bullshit is just a backpedal. We even have some people here who've gone further and said her and others like her have no morals whatsoever, which is another statement trying to strip empathy from her and Argento.
Eva Green deserves empathy. Asia Argento deserves empathy. End of story.
Motherfuck. I'm not gonna play this game of yours. Victims do deserve every bit of empathy and sympathy. But I'm not gonna sit here and pretend Eva Green and Asia Argento didn't decide to work with a child rapist. Because the art is good. Or because they needed the work. Both Asia and Eva could have done any number of movies. But because the culture in Hollywood diminishes the sympathy of the victims in favor of the art a person like Polanski can still get funding and name stars. This is the sort of mental gymnastics that leads to the endemic nature of abuse. Weinstein can be in thr damn Academy until now because of the art. I have sympathy for them. I can condemn their choice. End of story.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
And the older son, who says that Allen and Dylan were never alone on the day in question, that the toy train she claims to have watched while the molestation happened was never in the attic where the incident is said to have happened, and that the Farrow house was an anti-Woody indoctrination camp for decades?
Point is, using cases of unclear guilt to shame people is kinda crummy.
faceless007
Member
My question is why you would be inclined to bring it up in the wake of this story of all stories. Unless you intend to have the exact same indignant Pavlovian response every single time you see Asia Argento's name brought up for any reason for the rest of your life -- and if that's the case I would suggest you're looking at the issue a bit too simplistically and misdirecting your ire -- then bringing it up as a response to her coming forward to being sexually assaulted suggests you think there's a connection to draw between the events where one shapes your opinion of the other. And if that's the case, again, you might want to reconsider what you're actually accomplishing and what message you're sending to other women who are unsure of coming forward with their accounts of being assaulted.
FWIW, I think that for some of the people that signed the Polanski support list at the time of his arrest, the influence of the documentary of the trial that was out at the time (and being promoted heavily by The Weinstein Company, as it so happened) is hard to miss, as the big takeaway from it was that while Polanski did commit the crime, the judge was as big an asshole for trying to turn it into a media circus and didn't play fair with the sentencing. It wasn't until a little while after that when the official court documents came out that refuted at least one of those major points (Polanski was aware that the psychological screening period was not his actual sentence to be carried out) that we got a much better idea of what took place, but the damage had already been done.
That being said, failing and actor or an actress on a purity test in the face of their own abuse because they worked with someone like Polanski strikes me as being quite disturbing.
That being said, failing and actor or an actress on a purity test in the face of their own abuse because they worked with someone like Polanski strikes me as being quite disturbing.
The connection is they are actively complicit in the system that is in turn abusing, exploiting, or assaulting them and others. They are the ones who are saying there are good rapists and bad ones, because there are ones that are apparently wrong to work for (Weinstein) and fine to work for (Polanski, Salva.) That doesn't mean they're deserving of being sexually assaulted for their hypocrisy, but it does mean they're part of the problem too. And if you want to figure out how you're going to address these problems in Hollywood, they have work to do as well.
CopperPuppy
Member
..........
Wow.
I was reading through the portions of this thread I've missed the last day or so and holy fuck. Might be one of the most mindblowing posts I've read on here.
This post legit stuns me. I think that's my cue to get the fuck outta this thread - no clue how this thinking is alive and well on GAF of all places.
For what it's worth? It ain't worth shit. I'll make it as simple as it needs to be: they knew he drugged and raped a child and still signed.
And gaffers defending people who support him in a thread about sexual assault. Smdh
Fancyarcher
Member
You see that all the time in these threads, really. People let their viewpoints "known". It's not surprising.
That's fine, and I'll admit that I may be too optimistic on this particular point of the matter, but I think when the only readily available resource at the time had a clear agenda to drag someone else through the mud while Polanski was wallowing in it himself, there is at least a small space for some doubt that it had some influence, especially when its distributor crowed loud about the film's importance and even dared to suggest that Polanski's crime was merely an "alleged" one.
CopperPuppy
Member
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
Just because I felt sorry about her situation regarding the sexual assault done by Weinstein, doesn't mean that I can't criticize her supporting Polanski because in my view, that act is her acting complicit to a system that hurting her and women like her, and I find it really unfortunate that she's doing it because being a woman and especially being a person that has the unfortunate experience of being sexually assaulted, she should understand the best that supporting a person like Polanski is a major no no,and yet she does it anyways.
I don't understand why it is seemingly so hard to understand.
Basically. It is unfortunate.
llien
Banned
Even if so, I don't see how it is Affleck's business to "do something" as opposed to McGowan's to go to police and file complaint .
As far as I understand, this is how the whole story broke out in the end, by one of the victims doing it.
metalslimer
Member
I do think the Polanski thing is relevant to bring up not to try and point out victims possibly hypocrisy but to show how seedy the entire system has been in Hollywood and that even some of the victims of abuse have participated in the abusive system. Basically the whole thing is unfortunate. I don't think shaming the people who went along with Polanski does much but I do think it's relevant because if we ignore it it leaves out a chunk of the story.
Am I missing something? I'm only professing a glimmer of a hope for why someone would have supported him regardless of the major point of contention, not that they should have. Because they shouldn't have.
faceless007
Member
Therefore what? If she's "complicit," however you wish to define it, what should that mean about her coming forward? What should it mean about the way we as a society treat what happened to her? Be specific. Does it mean she shouldn't have come forward at all? Does it mean she should only have come forward sometime later at a point you deem more appropriate? Does it mean she should have come forward but couched her story in a denunciation of Polanski as well even though that would only serve to distract from the focus of her story? Explain exactly how her complicity affects the way we should respond to her story and how that differs from the way we should respond to those who are not complicit in your view. (Or, put another way, have a go at the question Stump put forth about this line of questioning.) Because if you're not able to detail exactly why you're bringing it up and what you think it will accomplish, all I see is exactly the same purity tests people in power love to use to deflect away from endemic sexual assault.
What work? What does that even mean? She bravely chose to come forward against one of the most powerful men in Hollywood in a society that tends to pillory women who make such claims (case in point: what you're doing) and yet that's not enough work for you? It's rather easy to stake out a position from on high of blithely telling women when they should or shouldn't do with regard to fighting back against sexual assault, but if you're actually going to be so craven as to draw a spectrum of victimhood and declare, from your convenient position, that her account is actually less credible/noteworthy/important/sympathetic/whatever the fuck you're arguing makes her account different in some fashion, it might be helpful if you spelled out in detail what you expect of her in order to meet your standard of having a worthy claim.
Of course, here's something that would be even more helpful: Don't do that at all and instead think about someone who might be weighing whether they want to come forward with their own story of being assaulted and watching the way society and the media reacts to Argento and others coming forward, and ask yourself whether the things you're saying and the way you're bringing up her past statements unprompted are more likely to help or hinder them.
Can one even argue that Asia is hypocritical? She worked with Polanski... and she also continued to work with Harvey and even had consensual sex with him on multiple occasions. That's consistent not hypocritical behavior. That still does not erase or excuse that Asia was raped by Harvey. It doesn't matter if Asia or Eva have no morals; that's not relevant to their accusations of rape and sexual harassment.Thinking Polanski is somehow pertinent is part of Rape Culture. To put in the starkest terms: it is the same type of thinking that enables people to tolerate Prison Rape and laugh at jokes about it because the victims might be bad people. I'd expect GAF to be more enlightened than that
Curious Puppy
Banned
Youre flippantly questioning if Eva Green and Argento have morality, as if you know them personally and have been anointed the judge of all human behavior, and then you place yourself as being more enlightened than the rest of this forum. Unbelievable. Who even are you? How do people like you actually go out in the world and interact with people if youre this judgmental?