It’s frustrating! I mean, shit, I’m a woman and I’ve probably made other women uncomfortable. I’d put money on it. In high school, I was still in the closet, and I was living with then-undiagnosed asperger’s. For most of my senior year, I was completely smitten with a girl with whom I shared most of my classes (and…

When men say they are worried they can’t “speak to women” anymore it’s a cover for a backlash. They know perfectly well what is sexual assault and harassment - they could recognize it in a second if their daughter or sister or wife were subjected to it. They prefer to imply that women are over-reacting or just plain…

People REALLY don’t get this. Spacey, CK, Weinstein, et al assaulted these people. And yes, in most states, that is considered sexual assault, and in every state it is sexual harassment. And it is not. fucking. okay. So, please stop minimizing it.

Groping people, like masturbating in front of them, is not “flirty”, it’s assault. Those who are worried that they “can’t speak to women” anymore without getting accused of assault, laminate this and carry this in your wallet.  

To be fair, he did categorically deny it by saying “the events he describes back in the 1980s simply did not occur, and I do not know why he has claimed them now,” and by thereafter referring to it as an “alleged” event.

Huh? Are you under some misguided notion that every woman in the film industry is a millionaire? The women most likely to be abused are women in low status positions like day players and PAs, who make pretty shitty money.

Everyone I know in the industry has 2 or even 3 other jobs because 99.9% aren’t rich and famous

Seriously? In the 90s worked as an assistant at a major talent agency and was sexually harassed more days than not. For that privilege I made $375/wk-before taxes. For every actress pulling in a few million per film are hundreds of support people who make little. Pro bono legal aid is for them.

Not every woman in film is a famous actor. In fact, the vast majority of them are not.

Uhh he says he is regretful for his actions and lists them. Even indirect ones. He then says something that could be a weasly way of dodging responsibility and that he regrets things in general, but then specifically addresses the hurt cause to them that he is regretful for.

That’s a fair argument. I don’t agree, particularly given that he’s not apologizing to us. “I’m sorry” is something you tell the person you wronged. Telling a bunch of onlookers that you’re sorry is just theater.

Maybe you should open an apology writing business to ensure that people express themselves to your satisfaction.

Not to bring it all back to Trump, but I think there was an anger and a galvanizing effect from his election. I think that Trump was the last push to hold powerful men accountable. I think that Weinstein broke the floodgates.

It’s no wonder the accusers who don’t feel safe coming forward against CK went with the NYT. The Gawker/Gizmodo brand’s reputation as “news” is totally damaged goods. It’s inferred in the article above...

Aside from Fatty Arbuckle almost 100 years ago, I can’t think of a thing.

And even that was contextually different because it wasn’t about someone making up rumors out of thin air, it was about a girl who died a few days after attending a party with Arbuckle.

I felt pretty traumatised after catching a man looking over the curtain of my changing room when I was 16-ish. He walked into the women’s changing room with his wife btw. I didn’t say anything because I was too shocked, but the lady working there asked him to leave shortly after.

Bullshit. He didn’t know there were accusers. Nor did anyone else. The one accuser people were aware of went on record saying it wasn’t CK. There was no reason to just blindly assume that what was at the time no more than a rumor (to most everyone’s knowledge) must obviously be true.

When Jen Kirkman reneged on her story and specifically said it was not Louis, I believed her. Since she was someone named on record, that was tho only real information any of us had. Then Jez was writing posts that were just like, “Email us if you have heard anything about Louis C.K. being sexually inappropriate,” and…

I’ll speak for myself. I said all along that men are likely enough to commit sexual violence that I could believe it of anyone. I also thought rumours increased the likelihood. However, I also thought, and still think, that journalists should follow those leads to ground and then publish. NYT did that, and Jezebel is…

Yeah. This is the part that doesn’t sit well with me about this article. I never assume a victim is lying, but I need a victim before I can make any assumptions. I feel like this article paints the commentariat as sexual assault apologists which is mostly disingenuous.