Talk:Weinstein effect/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Blowback

There is talk that hiring of a woman is becoming a liability. Mabne your article could do a section of it. Wall Street seems to have been a starting point. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-03/a-wall-street-rule-for-the-metoo-era-avoid-women-at-all-cost

Innocent until proven gulity and all that. Seems women just had it harder for themselves. The glass ceiling just got infinitly thicker... thats if they even fet to see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.200.250.26 (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Gender-biased content and deliberately ignoring to write sharp, accurate and to-the-point words for criminal females when they already rightfully deserve it

Hereby officially pointing-out if not reporting, that editors like Flyer22 Reborn, Canton etc. are deliberately suppressing any sharp, somewhat brutal but true comments and words to be written for any criminal females(eg. Asia Argento) proven-involved in sexual harassment. Now if I know correctly, Wikipedia is supposed and bound to be Gender-Unbiased or Gender-Neutral, Community-Neutral, Non-Hurting to anyone, even if it takes to unrelentingly block or remove any Editor posting Gender-biased content on any page of this platform. Then why these types of Gender-biased content is even allowed to be posted in the first place ???? IT IS BETTER TO NOT WRITE ANYTHING ABOUT HARVEY WEINSTEIN UNDER Weinstein Effect, THAN TO WRITE THE CONTENT LIKE BELOW WHICH IS DEFINITELY HURTING AND TARGETING THE "GENTLEMEN" COMMUNITY:

" ..... Weinstein was immediately dismissed from The Weinstein Company. Weinstein had suppressed these cases through confidential financial settlements and nondisclosure agreements, as was common for celebrity sexual harassment cases, before journalists aired the story. Over eighty accusers came forward against Weinstein, including many well-known actresses. ..... ..... On August 19, 2018, an article published in The New York Times detailed allegations that Asia Argento sexually assaulted Jimmy Bennett, a then 17-year-old actor and musician, in a California hotel in 2013, and arranged to pay $380,000 to her accuser. Bennett was under the California age of consent, which is 18 years of age, and says he was given alcohol under the age of 21. Argento was a leading Weinstein accuser and prominent #MeToo movement leader. .... .... "

HOPE JUST LIKE ME, NOBODY IS BLIND HERE TO SEE THE CLEAR USAGE OF FLOWERY(AS POSSIBLE) WORDS FOR ASIA ARGENTO WHEN SHE IS DEFINITELY A CRIMINAL. WHY CAN'T THE WORD SUPPRESSED BE USED FOR HER ACTION OF CURBING THE CASES WITH DIRTY MONEY, WHEN WE ARE USING THE SAME SUPPRESSED WORD FOR WEINSTEIN. NOT TO FORGET THAT HARVEY WAS A VERY REPUTED AND SUCCESSFUL PRODUCER AND ASIA WAS JUST A PETTY, NOT-SO-POPULAR, ONE-MOVIE-WONDER ACTRESS BEFORE ALL THIS HAPPENED...REGARDLESS OF, IF ASIA WAS ACTIVE OR NOT IN ACCUSING AND ASSISTING IN OTHER FEMALES IN CALLING OUT HARASSMENT EVENTS, SHE SHOUDN'T GET ANY BENEFITS ON THIS PAGE, AS SHE HAS HERSELF HARASSED INNOCENT JIMMY BENNETT... SO THE PAGE CONTENT MENTIONED ABOVE SHOULD BE RE-WRITTEN AS BELOW:

" .... .... On August 19, 2018, an article published in The New York Times detailed allegations that Asia Argento sexually assaulted Jimmy Bennett, a then 17-year-old actor and musician, in a California hotel in 2013, and suppressed the case by arranging to pay $380,000 to Jimmy.[18][19][20] Bennett was under the California age of consent, which is 18 years of age, and says he was given alcohol under the age of 21.[20][21][22] Argento was veiling & posing as a leading Weinstein accuser and prominent #MeToo movement leader.[20][21][22] .... .... "

THERE ARE MANY REFERENCE LINKS TO PROVE THE ABOVE CONTENT AND IT'S INTENT: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/10/asia-argento-jimmy-bennett-italian-interview https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/asia-argento-sexual-assault-what-to-know.html https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/asia-argento-jimmy-bennett-we-dont-believe-male-survivors-728986

ALSO IN MANY ARTICLES I'VE SEEN THE USAGE OF SO-CALLED EUPHEMISM OR FLOWERY WORDS(AS I WOULD RIGHTLY POINT-OUT) LIKE `passed away` INSTEAD OF `died` (SO-CALLED ACCURATE AND NEUTRAL, BUT SOMETIMES BRUTAL AND DISRESPECTFUL, CONSIDERING THE AGE, REPUTATION & GOOD-WORKS OF THE PERSON DIED). AND IT'S NOT MY DUTY TO READ EACH AND EVERY ARTICLE AND MENTION TO IT'S EDITOR WHETHER HE IS WATCHING CORRECTLY OR NOT, AS I AM NOT A REGULAR EDITOR, BUT Flyer22 Reborn and other editors like him should know better TO HAVE CONSISTENCY IN CHOOSING WORDS WHICH SHOULD BE MAINTAINED THROUGH-OUT WIKIPEDIA REGARDLESS OF WHICH ARTICLE IT IS OR WHO IT'S EDITOR IS....

HOPE THIS MESSAGE IS CLEAR, JUST TO SUMMARIZE: "WE SHOULD BE ALERT, ACTIVE, MORALLY AWAKENED ENOUGH TO NOT MAKE OR LET WIKIPEDIA BECOME, A GENDER-BIASED, DIS-RESPECTING, WRONGLY-AUDACIOUS, DIS-REGARDING PLATFORM, EVEN FOR A SPLIT SECOND. OR THE TIME ISN'T FAR WHEN PEOPLE WILL UNTRUST WIKIPEDIA AND TRUST MORE AGGRESSIVE SOCIAL-PLATFORMS LIKE FACEBOOK, TWITTER etc. FOR NEWS AND INSIDER INFORMATION...."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylark8973 (talk • contribs)

Analysis

The analysis section appears to have room for more content regarding reactions to the accusations and what happened to some of those who were accused. For example, some of those who had lost their initial jobs after the accusations have been getting hired again. More analysis about how the accused/accusers have been affected could make the information in this article more up to date. --Ixz (talk) 23:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Might need to add into that section that NPR talked about this effect 1 month prior to one of their major show hosts being accused and dismissed for misconduct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Ashbrook 192.250.85.196 (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)