Gretchen Mol wrote a op-ed about that Harvey Weinstein-related blind item

54th New York Film Festival

As I was reading the latest New York Times’ Harvey Weinstein story, I did begin to wonder – as I saw many of you wondering in the comments this week – about the narratives around certain actresses. Whether it’s the spoiled princess narrative given to Gwyneth Paltrow or the wild-child goth-girl narrative given to Angelina Jolie around the same time, how many of those narratives were laid down by Harvey Weinstein and men like Weinstein? As in, if Angelina ever wanted to make her Weinstein story public, Weinstein had already painted her, behind-the-scenes, as a wild child and likely a fantasist to boot. It’s not a perfect theory, and obviously, Jolie and Gwyneth definitely did a lot in the ‘90s to perpetuate their own narratives, both good and bad. But God, sometimes conspiracies are facts.

What has become clear – as if we didn’t already know – was that for more than two decades, Harvey’s power was unchecked, and he wielded his power indiscriminately, to make or break careers with one phone call, to ensure that certain women never got another good script ever again, to destroy lives and livelihoods. Even if a woman rejected his advances, all he would have to say is that she threw herself at him for a good script and he rejected her, and her reputation would be ruined.

Well, by now, I think everybody has read Lainey’s years-old blind item. The BI was widely believed to be about Gretchen Mol and Harvey Weinstein, although Lainey has never confirmed. It’s especially rough to re-read the blind after hearing all of these stories in the past week. But here’s the thing – Gretchen says none of it ever happened. Mol wrote a guest column for The Hollywood Reporter – you can read it here. Here’s a portion of it:

I am angry and disgusted about Harvey Weinstein’s abuse of power and his shameless assaults against women. This kind of abuse of women is grossly familiar, and for many of us, it’s hard to muster up surprise. I feel deeply for the women who had to deal with and navigate his incredibly entitled, bullying, revolting and inexcusable behavior. I am grateful to them and applaud their bravery in speaking out.

For 10 years or so, I’ve been aware of rumors that I had some kind of transactional relationship with Harvey Weinstein. They seemed to start on a gossip website that made money by peddling ‘blind’ items. A few facts had been taken from my Wikipedia page, were combined with stories about a movie mogul who was known for harassing women, quotes from “reliable sources” were added and a malicious, viral rumor was born. Over the years, it was gleefully embroidered, becoming increasingly bizarre and baroque — but the salacious, slut-shaming and misogynist message to the fable remained the same: In Hollywood, a young woman must build her career by humiliating herself and sleeping with powerful men.

Since Jodi Kantor’s New York Times piece about Harvey Weinstein was published, I’ve watched how these rumors about me have become “well-known facts” in some comment sections, shoddy blogs, and on Twitter. I’ve been challenged, as one of the silent victims, to summon the courage to speak out. People will believe what they want to believe, but I now feel compelled to answer publicly:

No. I did not exchange sexual favors with Harvey Weinstein, or anyone, for advancement in my career. I was never paid any settlement. The truth is that I have never been alone in a room with Harvey Weinstein. The extent of my interactions with him has been a handful of polite hellos at various premieres and award shows. This is in no way a defense of this person, it is merely a statement of fact.

I had heard similar rumors about other actresses and Harvey Weinstein for years, even before I heard them about myself. I knew that it was not true in my case, so I naively assumed it was equally false in general. The consistent implication was that actresses were eager for the bargain, that we wanted fame and fortune so desperately that we would make this kind of nauseating concession. This is another kind of misogyny, and blame-shifting. It makes the victim complicit. The facts that are known are much simpler, and there is only one person to blame — a perverse, power-drunk man who sexually assaulted women. The rapist classically claims the victim wanted it, or was asking for it. Gossip bloggers sold that same garbage, and it was heart-breaking how many people were ready to believe it.

[From The Hollywood Reporter]

To be fair to Lainey, she never said it was Gretchen and she never said it was Harvey. But we all knew it was Harvey. Here’s the thing though: how much of this kind of gossip was actually started and perpetuated BY Harvey? It’s quite clear he had deep connections to many media outlets and by all accounts, he planned and micromanaged his predations like a serial killer. The media campaigns were part of that – punishments and rewards for women who acquiesced or rejected him. Anyway, I feel sorry for Gretchen. It wasn’t enough that she was the subject of that degrading BI, but then she was basically forced to make a public statement denying the whole thing.

"Nocturnal Animals" New York Premiere

Photos courtesy of WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

266 Responses to “Gretchen Mol wrote a op-ed about that Harvey Weinstein-related blind item”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. QueenB says:

    Lainey also makes up stuff. Lets not pretend she is the flawless teller of truth. Sure Gretchen could deny those blinds because she does not want the attention or anyone to think it happened and thats perfectly in her right. And I believe her over Lainey.

    • cr says:

      Lainey’s always been problematic. I understand her appeal, but I never understood the ‘she’s always right!’ segment of her fandom.

      • Red Snapper says:

        I first read about Gretchen Mol on a blog called Crazy Days and Nights. Back in the day it was a blind item site written by an anonymous blogger calling himself Enty, who said he was an entertainment lawyer in LA. CDaN is still around, but the original Enty sold it (?) or something? I liked it because most of the commenters seemed to be insiders or insider-adjacent. Comments were prefaced with remarks like ‘I worked on that movie’ or ‘I sat beside (x) at a restaurant’. Gretchen came up a lot. And always sympathetically, as in poor Gretchen, she let Harvey pass her around at parties then he reneged on his promises. When I read her statement just now, my first thought was -Stockholm Syndrome-.

      • cr says:

        CDAN/Enty was outed a long time ago as someone who wasn’t an entertainment lawyer. And a lot his blinds contradicted themselves. And anonymous people on the internet can claim whatever they want: I worked on that film! I saw so and so in a club and this is what happened. I understand why people like blind items, but they also need to be taken with a ocean sized grain of salt, even if said item ends up be supposedly true:

      • Id says:

        @Red Snapper

        How about believing her when she says she wasn’t assaulted or harassed? Or not caring at all? She doesn’t owe us anything! Harvey should be scrutinized. Not her.

      • Brittney B says:

        Yeah, I’m almost positive Gretchen is talking about CDAN, not Lainey.

      • dlc says:

        There are some things Lainey gets weird on for sure. Remember how she would insist kristen Stewart and rob Pattinson were not dating like she has a personal stake in the matter? (Obviously proven wrong). She also got weirdly insistent that Reese Witherspoon and jake Gyllenhaal were a real deal couple and REALLY tries to promote that jake is a straight hard throb. (I dont know or care if he’s straight, her insistence was just odd).

    • Des says:

      The thing is, the details of the blind are exactly aligned with the revelations that have come out. The hotel rooms, the threesomes, the pay for play, everything. And let’s not pretend like most of us didn’t first learn of this behavior through this blind.

    • annaloo. says:

      At the end of the day, they are all gossip, whether in a blog or in the supermarket aisle, and we are all complicit because no one truly knows the whole story, or the players, but we speak as if we do. We are, fellow readers, part of the machine too in our consumption of salacious stories, and bad dresses.

      But are you going to stop reading gossip? Of course not!

    • Ziki Fly says:

      Lainey takes a more feminist position now but her articles have had a sexist (against women) for years. She should never have published that blind, it completely smeared a woman for a man’s wrongdoing. And her writing did nothing to correct that. Gretchen Mol’s reputation was smeared and her career probably suffered greatly due to blinds like that. Bloggers like Lainey should acknowledge the harm they can do and be sorry for it. I’m glad she’s more aware now, but until she actually apologizes for blatantly sexist writing, I’m giving her no credit.

      • Ktgreat says:

        Lainey needs to DO BETTER, as she lectures others.

      • Moon Beam says:

        I stopped reading her a few years ago. I like Sarah and Kathleen, but I will not give Lainey any clicks. She is a pretentious snob who thinks she is better than most, when she has a role in all of this. I also firmly believe she doesn’t have comments, not for lack of moderators or because of trolls, but because she could not deal with being publicly contradicted. I think Gretchen is talking about Lainey Gossip and not CDAN.

      • Umyeah says:

        Sadly i dont think she is more aware, she is on an entertainment tv show and i believe they told her to tone it down.

      • Peeking in says:

        Umyeah- where are you getting that they asked Lainey to “tone it down”?I doubt that to be true. The Social has 4 distinctive voices, Lainey has played her role the same way from the start. I’ve seen no change in the way she is on the show now, from its inception.

      • CMiddy says:

        Lainey absolutely needs to do better – she is incredibly sanctimonious but her posts have a nasty underlying bias against women. Also, since she got TV position, the “blinds” are not challenging or even particularly interesting. I have a lot less problem with someone being a bitchy columnist than I do with one being a hypocrite – was longtime reader but now much prefer this site and Dlisted. I agree the Gretchen comment was about her, it was a highly specific blind and I believe she has implicitly confirmed it on a number of occasions.

      • Umyeah says:

        @peeking i was referring to Etalk and i think they asked her to tone it done before she was a regular on the show. Her blog actually used to be far more aggressive (i.e refering to Cameron Diaz as a hermaphrodite). Since she joined etalk, a role in which she speaks directly to celebrities her language has softened considerably.

      • Peeking in says:

        Umyeah – I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Lainey has been on eTalk since 2006. She has had many vicious posts about celebrities since then.

    • detritus says:

      Plus, even if it were true, it’s Gretchen’s story to tell. Not Lainey’s.

  2. rachel says:

    I hope it’s lesson for those who treat blind items as facts. And Lainey should apologize.

    • QueenB says:

      She should but then she could open herself up for a lawsuit. Thats why its a blind item. She can always say it was about different people.

    • Torontoe says:

      This blind item, whoever it’s about, also made the victim complicit: “She allowed herself to be taken”….She is so desperate, it’s been so meagre, she submitted to the humiliation although gamely seems to have enjoyed it.” She allowed it. She enjoyed it. And now she has the temerity to say act like others weren’t asking th right questions? Whomever it’s about, she 100% should apologize.

      • H says:

        It was slut shaming at it’s lowest form. It’s why I stopped reading Lainey and started reading here.

      • vauvert says:

        I stopped reading Lainey too. Can’t stand the smug, know it all persona, and the irrational way in which she fawns over unseemly couples (her “obsession” Aaron and his wife is sick and disgusting to say the least) while bashing others for much less. She should be one that os held responsible for smearing Gretchen and sharing dirt that was not even true. I believe Gretchen and I think it’s disgusting that she has to go and say she was not abused. It puts her in a ridiculous position – half won’t believe her and the other half will say “see, all those rumours about HW abusing her were not true, maybe the others aren’t either but these women are making false claims for revenge, bitterness etc.”.
        I am so full of rage – not just at Hollywood, but at the entire patriarchy system that has been complicit for millennia and has allowed women to be treated as chattel. And to is still going on.

      • noway says:

        We are still blaming victims and creating more victims. I actually heard on the morning shows this morning how they were applauding Rose Mcgowan and Ashley Judd because they came out first, and deriding Gwyneth and others for not coming out sooner. Nothing against Rose or Ashley, but their accusations are decades old too, and we shouldn’t care about that. Thank God they feel like they can speak now. Yes they spoke first, but maybe they finally felt like they could put a name to it now, and the others did not. Why should we keep bashing any victim or in Gretchen’s case making her a victim of something that didn’t occur. It’s just disgusting how we keep doing this.

      • third ginger says:

        Adding to this discussion, the reasons mentioned above are why CB is my only gossip site.

      • Merritt says:


        I disagree, we should care about accusations that are decades old because it is important to listen to victims and it establishes that there was a long history of sexual misconduct.

    • Carol says:

      Thank you. And also gossip pieces as fact. I sometimes like to read gossip sites just to get out of my world for a few minutes but I take what I read with a grain of salt. It really bugs me when readers say they “know” something is true or they “know” a particular celeb based on what they read by “sources”. I feel for Gretchen for having to tackle with these rumors about her but appreciate her very well thought out statement.

    • I Choose Me says:

      I think blinds are disgusting, always have. Sadly even though she’s now come out to tell her truth, some people will still insist she was one of Harvey’s victims and that she’s in denial. SMH.

  3. Nikki says:

    I feel sorry for her to have to be dragged into the whole thing too, but I do think her statement is very intelligent and forthright. Guess we’ll never know who started the smear in the first place, which is hardly closure for her…

    • poppy says:

      ITA it is shame for her regardless of whether the rumor is fact or not.
      THIS is why we must support her regardless -she is a victim if it was patently false or worse, she is being revicitimized repeatedly and having to deal with it on the world’s terms as opposed to her own if any bit was true. we listen now and will listen again if she has anything to add or subtract.

      as ladies we have to listen and support.
      as older ladies with real life experiences we must SPEAK to these things that are unfortunately part and parcel to all women in this world so the younger women can have the information and make the best choices for themselves. so they know they have our support.
      younger women are THE prime target for sexual attention, harassment and abuse (am in no way saying young men aren’t objectified and worse as well) and they need good information to stay safe and flourish. they are the mothers of our future. they raise the next generation of men. we have to do right be being there for them now by being open and vocal.

      i do feel for gretchen because this supposed secret has been “known” to me for decades and as she said, was loudly whispered in the industry.
      to me it never mattered what actress was being spoken about it was ALWAYS about what pigs these assholes in control are and that they should not be in a position to be abusive. i am no fan of goop and had heard plenty about her as well and NEVER in the context that she was complicit or had the agency to not submit. always in context of the abuse, which NOBODY deserves, goop or any person. not to drag the victims but to pass information about abusers.
      i think a lot of those kinds of loud whispers from people in the industry are sometimes the only way to warn others without having to face legal repercussions.

      ultimately we just have to stop letting people get away with being abusive and teach people what to do about it.

      there is already so much damage happening to innocent people with just this story. we now have an entire roster of women actors that are being “looked at” differently. it hasn’t even completely unraveled.


    • LittlefishMom says:

      Agree Nikki. What she wrote was intelligent and forthright.

  4. Who ARE these people? says:

    I never knew of her or this but I hope she gets an Oscar-winning part in a woman-helmed movie and gets all the glory.

  5. Amide says:

    I can’t even begin to imagine those kinds of whispers following you your life.
    Talk about virulent, emotional abuse.😞😩😱

  6. Vex says:

    that BI always really stuck in my mind…. but i always thought it might be jessica alba.

    • H says:

      Yeah, I didn’t see it as Gretchen either. The replacement in the BI to me always was Blake Lively. I wonder if she’ll speak out now that she’s married and has that ‘protection’.

      I never bought all of Lainey’s BIs. It’s like Ted Casablanca. He talked about Toothy Tile all the time. Everyone assumed it was Jake Gyllenhaal and his bf, Grey Goose. Apparently they have a baby hidden somewhere? I don’t buy it. While Eva and Ryan hide their baby for a bit, how can you hid a kid for YEARS?

      • kibbles says:

        I never believed the rumors about Jake Gyllenhaal or Hugh Jackman. Jake is a unique actor and it shows in his many different portrayals and artistic films. I see him to be just a normal 30-something guy who dates around and isn’t ready to settle. He’s serious about his art and doesn’t attract attention.

        As for Hugh Jackman, I would love to see some news on him as a palate cleanser from all of the slime in Hollywood. Jackman is a class act who might be one of the few men left in Hollywood who hasn’t harassed women, played the field for half his life, and has been faithful to his wife.

        These guys are targeted because they come across as gentler than the average slimeball sleeping his way through Hollywood like DiCaprio, Affleck, Clooney, etc.

      • Katie says:

        hmm, not sure I agree with you about Hugh Jackman. Though I agree he’s a class act and a very nice man, the rumors about his sexuality are pretty strong and I’ve heard things from people who have worked with or met him that sound suspicious – like the way he has a male friend who accompanies him everywhere. But then again, the rumors about Gretchen were pretty strong too!

        I was interested in the comments above about how Lainey has toned things down. I notice some time back she stopped referring to Tom Cruise as the GMD.

    • Jules343 says:

      I suspect this blind was just a creative writing exercise, or as suggested, a lie spread by Harvey himself, but let’s say it’s true. Jessica Alba doesn’t make sense.

      The blind said the actress in question never had any notable work to justify the attention she got. Alba might never have reached grand heights as an actress, but she did ok for herself. Dark Angel was well-known, and the Fantastic 4 films weren’t exactly Marvel level, but they did fine and got her plenty of attention, as did Sin City. She was legitimately very famous for quite a few years, and kept working consistently in decent enough projects til she started the Honest Company in 2011. That doesn’t fit with the blinds narrative of an actress who was labelled the next big thing but never really became anything.

    • Jellybean says:

      I am actually pretty disgusted that after reading this story people are still speculating on the blind item. It is something I have been thinking about for the last couple of days, why would a celeb who reads or hears lies about themselves take any notice of gossip about someone else? I have no doubt they didn’t all know and some of the responsibility for that lies with the gossip sites that make up stories or publish incorrect stories and then don’t clear things up afterwards.

  7. dre says:

    This is really awful because everyone believed it was Gretchen Mol, Lainey never said it wasn’t (she listed many girls as not being the one so she could have done that for Mol) and she even alluded to it being Mol in other posts. If it really wasn’t about her and Lainey made it appear to be about her and it really harmed Mol I think Lainey owes a huge apology. Now, it may be that Lainey is stuck because Harvey clearly threatened her (she mentioned that many times) and perhaps she’s not even allowed to say who it isn’t about, but this leaves a really bad taste in my mouth about a site I read religiously and thought was so smart and above the usual gossip shlock. If it is true and Mol STILL has to lie about it, I feel so badly for her. Basically I feel horrible for her in any scenario.

  8. lightpurple says:

    “I had heard similar rumors about other actresses and Harvey Weinstein for years, even before I heard them about myself. I knew that it was not true in my case, so I naively assumed it was equally false in general. The consistent implication was that actresses were eager for the bargain, that we wanted fame and fortune so desperately that we would make this kind of nauseating concession. This is another kind of misogyny, and blame-shifting. It makes the victim complicit.”

    Beautifully stated, Gretchen.

    • Otaku Fairy says:

      And that, right there, is one of the reasons why I don’t think we should rush to “cancel” or condemn all these famous women just because they’ve worked with Harvey Weinstein as if they “must have known” the truth about what he was. The “Everybody Knew. They just willfully kept it a secret or didn’t care because money & fame. We Have-nots are more virtuous than the (female) Haves. Stone all these lying faux-feminist whores immediately!” crowd is only seeing things in very black-and-white terms about these women and ignoring other facts. (They’re ignoring the active role they’re playing in rape culture themselves too).

      The truth is that famous women are all too used to hearing rumors of famous women being accused of sleeping with powerful older men for money and fame. They’re used to it being used as a tool to destroy women and having to worry about being targets of that kind of misogyny themselves, and as celebrities, and rumors of cheating are a dime-a-dozen. So just hearing whispers of “Did you know that a whole bunch of thirsty women are sleeping with this dirty old married man for money and fame?” would not be enough to make every woman in Hollywood leap to the conclusion of “Rapist! I must refuse to work with him and will publicly condemn him.”
      If any of these starlets witnessed the sexual abuses or silently ignored victims (or loved ones of victims) who confided in them, then yes, they’re complicit. But they’re not complicit just because people from Kentucky or Canada or wherever else are able to read blind items about starlets sleeping with him for a come up.

    • K says:

      And that comment is why I could believe Clooney and others, he said he heard rumors of women sleeping with Harvey for roles but thought it was a smear campaign against the women. You have to wonder how many Gretchens are there? If that was part of Harvey’s power move too.

      If they came forward runined if they didn’t ruined. I mean look how many people believe there is no way JLaw wasn’t a Harvey girl?

      I can see him using this sort of thing to get away with it, I can see him and his creepy cronies that are doing it to and haven’t been caught doing this exact thing.

      I think people in Hollywood knew something wasn’t right but to the degree it happened I’m not sure. At least I hope not.

    • Moon Beam says:

      That is how I feel about the whole thing. I can believe people heard rumors about Harvey using his position to get women to sleep with him or trading sex for favors and either thought the women must have done it willingly or thought it was a way to smear women (as in, she slept her way to that role and is undeserving). Both of those things would be gross and wrong but maybe the ones who knew women were going to his hotel room decided to keep their heads in the sand and look at it as a willing trade (which is repulsive to even consider).

      • moon says:

        Weren’t the rumours started by Harvey about girls sleeping with him for favours? Lea Seydoux has an op-ed on the guardian where she talks about him bragging about famous hollywood actresses he has slept with and how he helped their careers.

    • Carrie1 says:

      Yep. It’s healing somewhat to read everyone’s comments and understanding the harm this does to lives.

      I don’t read Lainey anymore either. I’m actually hoping her blog folds as a result of this.

  9. stephka says:

    Yes, it will be very interesting to see what Lainey has to say.

  10. Singtress says:

    I remember thinking WTF when that cover came out years ago. I reeked of unusual favoritism. I knew her name from her Broadway work, otherwise I wouldn’t even remember.
    But then…nothing. She had some good roles, but nothing that could possibly qualify her as “Hollywood’s next IT girl.”

    As for her statement. If she made choices…then whatever…she made (or didn’t make) choices.

    But her super-lengthy denial makes me think “she is going on a little too long about this..”

    • Id says:

      This sounds like victim blaming. The only people who should answer for what happened are the scumbag power players who take advantage of powerless young women. Whether or not the latter are “willing” is irrelevant.

    • Lindsay89 says:

      Are you kidding me with this comment?

      This woman has had these terrible rumors chasing her reputation for a decade. A DECADE. She now had an opportunity to speak up at length about that harrowing experience, and you continue to victimize her by insinuating that she is lying? Because she wanted to stand up for herself? Because she wanted to weigh in on a situation that she has been dragged into (without her consent) for years?

      Get out of here with that garbage. Look in the mirror. You are part of the problem.

    • KB says:

      Comments on this site yesterday talked about how degrading he was to Gretchen and how terribly she was treated. These stories have been around for a long time. Her career has been ruined and she’s even said people on movie sets treated her differently (badly) because of this rumor. It has affected her life and career in terrible ways. It’s completely understandable that she’d want to speak out, IMO.

    • PPP says:

      Oh, “I believe her” is only for when women admit to being assaulted then? Good to know.

    • Otaku Fairy says:

      And you are part of the problem.

    • Wren says:

      It’s…. difficult. I remember when the rumor first came out thinking “oh that makes sense”. She seemed to come out of nowhere and disappear just as quickly, but for a brief moment she was everywhere. It was strange and felt extremely contrived, even for manufactured PR. And then poof, she vanished.

      I can see it both ways. It might not have been her at all and now she finally has the opportunity to speak out about something that has dogged her and poisoned her life for nearly a decade. That would certainly warrant a lengthy and vehement response. On the other hand, even if it was true, if it were you would you really want to have to relive it all again to satisfy people’s appetite for scandal? Because that’s what this is. Concern trolling all over again. Nobody really cares about the actress involved, they just want to KNOW. If it were me I’d want to distance myself as much as possible. It wouldn’t help her career or image or health in the slightest to come forward, so why should she? And if it’s complete garbage and lies, OF COURSE she’d deny it like she did. This has been haunting her for a long time. I’d be pissed too.

      So I’m going to choose to believe her, because it’s really none of my business either way and because it doesn’t actually matter. I’m tired of disbelieving women for the sole reason that someone’s barely informed opinion differs from their statements.

    • stinky says:

      Singstress: Are you referring to the Vanity Fair cover? If so, I agree with you, I very much remembered being puzzled about that gushing cover story, then ::poof:: like Kaizer Soze she was gone … where did she go? .. the next ‘big thing’ … here she comes, where’d she go? Of course I realize she didn’t completely disappear but I mean – even I (who know nothing) was wondering what-the-heck happened to THAT shooting star.

  11. Mia4s says:

    I don’t know, after hearing about the threatening cease and desist letter Lainey got I’m thinking we have the right asshole, wrong actress.

    Strange to send a cease and desist for utter fiction. Some element there is truth I’m thinking. Maybe about the actress he was going after? We all know who that apparently was and we can certainly find pictures of said actress with him and in Marchesa. I’m sorry Gretchen was caught up in this. I heard the story before that Lainey blind to be honest. Now I’m worried to know who was spreading that story. Hmmmm.

    • Div says:

      I think most blinds are false and I think Lainey, who used to be really problematic like Dlisted, is still semi-problematic even if she got woke.

      I’m having a hard time buying that Harvey would spread a fake blind that made him sound like the monster that he is instead of the type of gossip that he spread about Mira (that she was difficult and druggy). I also wrote more below but I have trouble believing he didn’t attack Mol even if I believe the blind is false and I feel awful for doubting her statement about him not victimizing her…but I do.

      • Mia4s says:

        @DIV I agree it does not seem like one Harvey would spread so again the question is, who? The minute I read that blind on Lainey’s site I knew what it eluded to as I had read rumours somewhere else, much earlier. Something is very odd about all this.

        @Steph I’m on my phone so I can’t get the link but in Lainey’s first story about the Weinstein stuff she admits she received a legal threat.

      • Otaku Fairy says:

        Oh yes, the misogyny of D-listed is well known and discussed by feminists on jezebel and elsewhere. Members of the D-listed crowd have been complicit, anti-woman sacks of shit for years.

      • Josie says:

        Hmmm I’ve been to d-listed and it doesn’t seem that way to me. There tends to be a majority hate or love certain celebs over there regardless of gender (and except for the odd troll).

      • Persistent Cat says:

        I had to stop reading d-Listed because the commenters were so over-the-top hateful. I rarely rarely rarely read Lainey but I used to read d-Listed and Crazy Days and Nights a lot and that’s where I heard the Gretchen Mol rumours. CDaN commenters could be reasonable but d-Listed just called all women whores.

    • Steph says:

      What cease and desist letter?

      • Vex says:

        i remember lainey wrote about a time she and sasha met weinstein at a party and he treated them like subservient asian maids, i wondered if maybe that’s what the cease and desist was about? she actually used his name and called him out. i can’t find the link though, so maybe she did take it down?

  12. Molly says:

    Before the woke-ness racket, back in the aughts, Lainey used to write really gross things about certain women. Remember when she kept saying Nicole’s marriage was fake? Or say in malicious terms that Keira Knightley had a drug and eating problem. #neverforget

  13. Div says:

    Alright, I’m prepared to be flamed for this but here it goes. Victims have the right to speak out, not speak out, or even deny their own assault. No one can take that away from them; it’s up to them how much to share or not to share. The Lainey Blind/Ted Blind (it came from a couple of sources) was degrading and I can believe it was mostly wrong or flat out wrong and that it would be extremely difficult to deal with those false rumors. Most blinds are false, after all. I can also believe that Harvey didn’t molest/rape/harass every young woman.

    And here’s the part where I think I’ll get flamed and this is separate from the blind…..I have a hard time believing that Harvey, who harassed the well connected Gwyneth and Mira, never preyed and abused the physically similar much less powerful Gretchen especially since he pushed her so hard in the media. That seemed to be his m.o., his blackmail of sorts, that he would make or break a career. And I have hard time believing Harvey would spread a fake blind item that made him sound like a monster and correctly called him a predator instead of the gossip he spread about Mira (that Mira was difficult, druggy, etc.). Last by not least, I honestly thought the bit about “never being alone in a room with him” sounded like it was victim blaming.

    • tracking says:

      Div, I don’t know about your very last point, but yeah that’s where I am on the others. He preyed on every other young nubile powerless actress or model who crossed his path, but left her alone? And she really never witnessed a single instance of his bad behavior? Given the length of their working relationship, it just doesn’t ring true to me. She has real incentive to deny anything untoward. I of course hope she’s speaking the truth, but am just not sure.

    • littlemissnaughty says:

      I think the point about never being alone with him means she didn’t even have THAT close of a working relationship with him. He seems to have made it a point to “vet” basically every young actress that way. Whether that always involved harrassment etc. or not is another issue.

      If she says he didn’t then I believe her. And frankly, it would make sense. Her career really did not take off.

    • PPP says:

      The importance of “I believe her” extends beyond assault. Even IF you are right, Mol is entirely within her rights to deny the story in order to avoid the “desperate famewhore” narrative.

      • tracking says:

        I completely agree there, PPP. Whatever the truth, it is horrible all the way around and Weinstein, not any woman, is fully responsible.

      • Div says:

        I know it is within her rights to deny the story even if Harvey did abuse her and I feel awful for doubting her story…especially as I believe JLaw, Meryl, etc. 100% and I always believe victims. I just don’t believe some doubt around Gretchen’s denial, even if I think the Blind Item is false, is equivalent to doubting victims and honestly the part about not being alone in a room with really sat wrong with me as victim blaming. Again, I have to acknowledge this might be my own hang up as when I reported a boy who tried to sexually assault me in college..the first words out of the douchebag campus policeman’s mouth was “why were you alone with him at 3:00 am in the morning?”

        At the end of the day the focus does need to shift off women, as some victims are undoubtedly uncomfortable being scrutinized and others are being speculated about, and onto the executives and powerful producers and directors who enabled Harvey.

      • Leah K. says:

        This is such an ironic take. Basically, it reads as if you want Lainey’s word to be gospel, so you are going to make the Mol story fit. It’s the absolute definition of “she couldn’t have gotten to where she was unless she was sleeping with him (by choice or not.” The woman denies it vehemently, and thus I believe her. Also Lainey’s so-called authentic sources are primarily made up of publicists, and as she herself loves to go on and on about, publicists craft stories all the time. All it takes is one to call a few gossip bloggers and the story is now “so repeated that it must bear some truth.” Lainey is a pawn to the very system she rails against, and her following is always vociferous in defending how accurate she must be because she was “right” on the Will Arnett/Amy Poehler divorce. Please.

      • detritus says:

        Yes, thank you PPP. It’s her story to tell.

    • PPP says:

      @ Div, of all the reasons you can think of her saying she was never alone in a room with him, it’s victim blaming? WTF? How about she’s explaining a reason it might not have happened to her while it happened to other women? You should feel horrible for doubting her word. I mean, leave her the fuck alone, the damage this blind item has done to her is serious and thinking her private life is any of our business is what gives fangs to rumors like this.

    • Plantpal says:

      Oh, I know I’m going to get crap for this….I encouraged the young people in my life to date within a group and to try hard to have an open door (ie: not be alone behind closed doors). When the Bakkers were being discovered as charletans, someone, somewhere pointed out that another very famous pastor, Billy Graham, had never been accused of untoward behaviour towards women. In an interview, he said he made it a point to not ever be behind a closed door with any vulnerable person. This made a big impact on me (I have valid reasons) and I encouraged the young people in my life to consider it a solid guideline. I said this somewhere, and was thoroughly dissed: oh, yes keep your boy from the JEzebels, and stuff and stuff. In this story, it is said he had someone in the room with them, but would dismiss them and leave him alone with his target. I taught my young women and men that this is when you leave, also. Be as gross as you need to: gotta pee, or poop, or pretend to choke, or whatever. I learned it comes out of nowhere, and can happen at work or by a trusted friend….and you may not recognize the abuse for what it is, immediately. Especially as a young person. with limited experience. So encouraging an open door policy seemed like a wise idea. The young men and women in my life have come back to me over the years to say my words DID make an impact, and one teenaged woman believes it prevented her being assaulted. Please note I made the statements to ALL our kids, the hims, the hers and the thems, because I truly wish I had been given some sort of guidance when I was first out and about in the world. There have always been, and likely will always be, predators. We need to have a few options in our toolkits on how to handle them…and ourselves when suddenly confronted with a situation in which we feel uncomfortable, or threatened. Which is sad. I also use cross body bags, so no one can easily snatch my handbag from me, and I wear lights and bright colours when walking or cycling at night. It’s just something I do to try and stay on the ‘safe’ side. Of course there are no guarantees. I am gutted that after all the work we women did in the 80′s and 90′s hasn’t made as much of an impact on the world as we hoped. I pray this generation of men and women can somehow reach a level of mutual respect and admiration and dare I say it…trust.

      • poppy says:

        plantpal there is nothing to be dragged about maybe people weren’t hearing your message because of the initial subject matter (billy graham religious abuses).
        i ‘m glad for all the toolboxes you added to. solid advice coming from the heart keep on keepin on!

      • Ladidah says:

        @plantpal I know you mean well, but what jobs do your kids do? Did they go to college? if I had never been alone with someone of the opposite sex behind closed doors, I never would have received tutoring I needed for a course or finished important school and work projects. I would not have been able to receive rides to or from school, or ask questions of any professor. How would any of that been a good thing?

        In fact – the times when I was assaulted, it was in broad daylight with lots of strangers – on a train, in a bus station – where men tried to grab my face or butt and kiss me.

        Does your rule extend to in-laws? To doctors? Lawyers, accountants, bankers?

        As I said, I know you mean well, but the point should really be to teach what is respect, consent, bodily autonomy AND point out that sometimes no matter how careful we are, things happpen and that is no one’s fault.

        Hypervigilance – whether being hypervigilant about trying to protect from mugging, assault, rape – also has its costs, where you never feel you can trust anyone, and ignores the role that privilege and chance ( both of which are out of our control) play in events happening. Sometimes you just get lucky to live in a nice part of town, not that you kept your purse a certain way.

        But let’s not ignore that the behavior you are prescribing for male and female kids ends up hurting women more, and causing them to miss more opportunities, if they want to work in male dominated professions (espn reporter, mba, doctor, engineer, to name a few)

        Yes, there is the way the world is, and there is also working towards a better world.

        Just some thoughts.

    • noway says:

      Even if you are right, as you stated she has a right to say, not say or deny, and which ever way we all should move on and let her be. If true or false I feel sorry for her as she obviously has had issue dealing with it. As far as having trouble believing Weinstein didn’t go after her as he went after everyone her type, that is seriously crazy. He is no less a creep, monster whatever adjective you wish to use, but I can guarantee you he did not go after every woman even every woman he saw who looked his type. Why he picked some and not others, is hard to say, but most likely it is just a bit of luck to the women who weren’t harassed.

    • Moon Beam says:

      There could have been other mitigating factors that kept Weinstein from doing that to Lawrence and Mol. People in the industry could have said something like “Weinstein could be great for your career, just don’t go up to his hotel room or be caught alone in a room with him, he’s kind of a dog.” Maybe Lawrence had her dad or brother with her. At this point Harvey is done and can’t intimidate his victims anymore. The only reason any actress has for not coming out with her story is because she thinks people will question the merit of her work and that just proves how awful he was. It’s exactly what he wanted, compliance to protect their reputations. Harvey is the sicko here, and anyone who helped enable him, not the actresses or women he assaulted.

  14. Cassie 231 says:

    People on the thread about Jennifer Lawrence citing blind items to support their theory she must have slept with Weinstein, or claiming that she had to have known all about his behaviour, should read what Gretchen has to say very carefully.

    My heart breaks for every woman caught up in Weinstein’s behaviour – but it is particularly horrible that Gretchen had to issue this statement.

    • mia girl says:

      My jaw dropped reading some of the comments on yesterday’s Jennifer Lawrence post. I love this community so much, but wow, there was such terrible things said about her bc she stated she was not victimized by Weinstein. It made me sad.

      If as a community we agree to believe his victims, then we should also agree to believe those who say they were not. In my opinion shaming any of the women caught in this horrible situation is not right.

      • Kitten says:

        Some of my faves are no longer my faves because of that thread. It was actually painful to read some of the comments from people that I (used to) respect.

      • paranormalgirl says:

        But on the plus side, reading some of the non-horrible comments made me appreciate, respect, and like some people even more (kitten, otaku, lightpurple to name 3 off the top of my head).

      • mia girl says:

        @kitten & @paranormalgirl
        The three of us have been in this community for a long time and know we won’t always agree with each other, but yesterday and in some of the Weinstein posts today- including this one, there are things being commented that I feel just go beyond.

        I know this may sound overly dramatic, but that JLaw post really broke some of my spirit. I came in late in the day and couldn’t even bring myself to comment. I was slack jawed. For the first time ever in the 10 years of daily visits, I seriously contemplated taking a break from CB for a while. 💔

        But @paranormalgirl, yes I was heartened by those you mentioned and others, who were expressing my feelings for me.

        I am not up for shaming, blaming or doubting any of these women embroiled in the awfulness Weinstein brought to them.

      • noway says:

        I kind of believed Kaiser that Jennifer Lawrence has a high level of tolerance for sexist behavior. Not all of these stories are jerking off in a plant, groping or rape stories. Some are just plain ole yuck harassment!!! Answers the door in his bathrobe and we talk about movies, a bit worse asks for massages and exposes himself, even worse asks for sexual favors a lot but lets them leave. In fact the vast majority of the stories are those kind above. Still sick, but she might not have seen it as what it was, sexual harassment. First it is possible he never came on to her. Second even if he did it’s possible she somehow shut it down and didn’t see it as that bad. Either way this constant side eye to other women who were probably trying to do the best they could is really disheartening.

      • Moon Beam says:

        None of us know the mitigating factors that may or may not have led to Harvey harassing/assaulting Jen or not harassing/assaulting Jen. Plus, he already won if we are questioning whether Jen “slept her way” to an Oscar or took naked pictures for him. That’s exactly what Harvey wanted, to have these actresses reputation’s in his pocket so that they would comply. Harvey is the monster here, not Jennifer Lawrence!

      • Alexandria says:

        Oh my. It’s a good (?) thing that I did not peruse the comments in that thread. I’ve also never followed Lainey and with this, I don’t intend to start.

  15. Really? says:

    Lainey really lost my vote with this one. She’s out. I really respect Rachel Mol for her well written op-ed. I hope her career will benefit from her setting the record straight so to speak.

  16. Talie says:

    The only hiccup for me in her story is when she says she never met with him…she was an actress he pushed heavily onto the cover of Vanity Fair to promote Rounders, and somehow there were no meetings?

    • Sitka says:

      She says never met with him alone.

    • Lindsay89 says:

      She said she was aware of the reputation, and that she never met with him alone. Maybe THAT is why he grew cold on her. He couldn’t abuse her and he couldn’t rationalize it because she didn’t have the same clout as some of the others.

    • MostlyMegan says:

      She said she never was alone with him. Let’s start believing women

      • Really? says:


        Why are we doubting her and tearing her story to pieces. She said she never was alone with him!!!

      • Bridget says:

        But that’s not what she said. She said she’s never exchanged more than polite hellos. Not that she worked with him and made sure not to be alone in a room, but that literally never worked with the man.

      • Really? says:

        @Bridget – Her quote “The truth is I have never been alone in a room with Harvey Weinstein.” Go back and re read.

      • Bridget says:

        “The extent of my interactions with him have been a handful of polite hello’s”

        She’s not saying that she made sure to never be alone in a room with him, she saying that he never even so much as approached her. That’s a very different thing.Weinstein was it notorious for “nurturing” Young actresses careers. So what she is saying is not just that she was not the subject of this infamous blind item, but she is somehow one of the only young women that he never so much as even took an interest in. And that somehow the major publicity push behind her early career must’ve come from another end of Miramax.

      • PPP says:

        @ Bridget, stop it. You are disempowering a woman and openly doubting her word on a public forum. You’re not a Hollywood player, so you know nothing about what is or isn’t plausible about this story. Why do you even need to direct your skepticism here, of all places? Why aren’t you ANYWHERE in the comments of the Matt Damon piece, ripping his flimsy excuses to shred? I guess because you need to feel better than Gretchen Mol. Find a therapist to help you address your deep insecurity.

      • Bridget says:

        Because there’s literally nothing about Matt Damon that hasn’t already been said, going all the way back to the Project Greenlight debacle (you must be new around here). But I notice that you have no direct response to of my points, only emotional arguments.

        I think Gretchen Mol was victimized by Harvey Weinstein. I do not agree with Lainey’s choice to put another woman’s humiliation into a Blind Item. There is no true consent when there is such an imbalance of power as there is in any of these instances with Harvey Weinstein, and yet the undercurrent with all of the “I heard stories but had no idea” is that it wasn’t a big deal when people deluded themselves into thinking that these women were really saying “yes”.

      • PPP says:

        First, there’s a lot to say about Matt Damon. Second, if someone else is making similar points to you somewhere else, by your own reasoning, you have no reason to keep at this.

        “I notice that you have no direct response to of my points, only emotional arguments.”

        You’ve learned so much from the patriarchy. I am angry, therefore I must be wrong. Stupid, feminine emotions, betraying the force of my argument again. If only I listened to the calm, soothing rationality of the person doing her damnedest to keep the strength of these rumors up.

        I haven’t addressed your arguments because they’re stupid as hell. You can’t fathom why Mol got certain magazine covers and press coverage without doing pay for play or without being assaulted. Listen, it’s plausible to me that she got hyped, that this rumor started going around, and her career stalled because of that. Or maybe she didn’t want to be a starlet– she comes from a stage background, and she’s talked about turning down parts in big blockbusters in interviews (her Random Roles with AVClub). I don’t know what happened because I’m not a Hollywood player, so it makes more sense to believe Mol. And having gossip enshrined in one of the most famous blind items of all time and following you around is pretty believable.

        But this isn’t just about what you’re saying, which is that you doubt her story. It’s about the fact that doubting her story on public forums is exactly what is going to keep this rumor following her around. Gretchen Mol saw an opportunity to try to get these chains off her, and you are trying to put them back on. It’s not just what you say that’s important. It’s the effect your words have.

      • Lindsay89 says:

        @PPP “Gretchen saw an opportunity to try to get these chains off her, and you are trying to put them back on.” That sums it up, perfectly.

      • Really? says:

        @PPP @Lindsay89 – sisters.👊🏻

      • noway says:

        @Bridget he didn’t “nurture” every young actress. Since most young actresses have careers most people never hear about I am making an educated guess he didn’t even have incidents with half of the young actresses who auditioned for him. Probably less than half who were in his movies. Look at his IMBD page not all of his movies are Pulp Fiction some are much lesser known fare. This is what makes harassers so hard to stop. To some they do nothing, others they say sexist things, others they are just lewd, and others they may grope and others they may rape. The articles in the New Yorker and the the NYT run the gamut of this.

        To give you an analogy, I feel like some people are still complaining about Hillary’s pant suits while ignoring Donald has no idea about how many nukes we have or why we shouldn’t use them. Yes maybe these women didn’t do everything perfectly, but why are we focusing on their actions at all. This creep harassed a ton of people, and even the ones who tried to stop it really had no good way to succeed. The latter part worries me the most, because it does seem like it escalated with time and awareness that he could get away with it, and I’m not sure what could be done now to make sure the first lewd comment, bathrobe attired, and begging for sex is where it would stop. We need a better system.

    • Jules343 says:

      Do we actually know that he pushed hard for her to get that VF cover?

      I think some people forget how VF used to be. These days you have to be thoroughly A-list or securely on your way to get a cover, but they used to think of themselves more as star makers, not just star profilers. In the 90′s the Hollywood issues featured up and coming actors, some who became big stars and many who really really didn’t. People like Claire Forlani, Skeet Ulrich and Johnathon Schaech made it into those cover shots.

      The magazine has also always been absolutely obsessed with the whole Old Hollywood blondes thing, particularly Marilyn. And that’s what Gretchen was billed at as the time, a throwback in a sea of grunge. It makes perfect sense to me that between their interest in predicting the next big thing, and their interest in Old Hollywood glamour, that she would get a solo cover.

  17. Miles says:

    I’m sorry but that blind has always been gross and I don’t even know why it’s still up. Lainey owes Gretchen an apology. Regardless of whether it was true or not or if she didn’t say anything. Her clues within the blind made it clear who that actress was about. And that very blind pretty much helped ruin Gretchen’s reputation.

    Let’s also not forget the other actress in that blind, who everyone assumed was Blake Lively and who everyone slut shamed as well. Not to the extent of Gretchen Mol but I don’t know how many times id read about Blake doing so and so with Harvey just to get roles.
    I think we all forget how the culture regarding the casting couch also enabled Weinstein. How women were demeaned, called desperate, slut shamed etc instead of people understanding the power dynamic that was at stake.

    • Dana says:

      In the blind, Lainey claims that Blake does not want to submit his demands and Weinstein’s reaction was to interfere with her attempts to get work with other studios so she’d get desperate and run back to him. In other words, she’s presented as a victim who did not have sex with him and was punished for it.

      Yet, as you say, she was still slut-shamed. Which is unsurprising since I’d have to say that about 85% of the time I see someone refer to this blind, it’s something like, “according to that blind, Blake Lively was also one of Harvey’s casting couch girls” In other words, the complete opposite of what Lainey claimed.

      It’s very telling which parts of this blind people chose to remember & repeat correctly and which parts ended up getting totally reinterpreted in a way that allowed them to crap all over another woman and attach more sordid rumors to her name.

  18. M says:

    I feel so sorry for her and find her statement is very articulate and to the point. I think her wider point is especially important about how people gossiped what they thought they knew and it got repeated as fact. I think this applied to rumours about Harvey as well. We now KNOW, but before we only “knew”, the same way people “knew” all about Gretchen or how people “know” that JLaw is lying in her statement. The majority of people didn’t KNOW, the heard rumours and considering the amount of rumours circulating in Hollywood I think most handled it like George Clooney. Clearly there needs to be a wider conversation about the misogyny, but with the groper-in-Chief in power I’m not holding out much hope that there will be lasting change. The only people I hold accountable are Harvey himself and the people who actually had to know and continued to enable him, like his board of directors for example because they had to sign of on the payments to the victims.
    I should add that I don’t count the victims who remained silent or worked with him again after as enabling Harvey. Being put in a position like that can do horrible things to ones psyche and ones understanding of self it’s bad enough for private people but add the court of public opinion and I understand every woman who remained silent.

  19. Bridget says:

    So Gretchen Mol, who was on the receiving end of a big push as a “next best thing”from Miramax to the point of getting a vanity fair cover for the thankless role as the spouse in rounders, has barely met Harvey Weinstein who specialized in using just this kind of leverage specifically to pray on pretty young actresses. He hit on Angelina Jolie and Gwyneth Paltrow who had high profile connections. But never so much as looked Mol’s way.

    • FHMom says:

      It’s possible if Lainey made the whole thing up. Maybe she just threaded bits of gossip into one blind item because it was so salacious and would get attention.

      • Bridget says:

        I’m not even referencing the Blind, just going off of Mol’s own words and what is out in the public realm. Basically, Harvey Weinstein preyed on EVERY young woman he met, regardless of her station in life or who she knew that should have theoretically shielded her, except for Gretchen Mol and Jennifer Lawrence. Gretchen is saying that despite being on the receiving end of a huge push from Miramax, she never so much as spoke alone with the notoriously controlling Harvey who literally specialized in making young actresses careers at Miramax.

    • H says:

      @Bridget So, you are saying she’s lying? If she is, that’s her business. I certainly wouldn’t want to be re-victimized in the press who constantly slut shames women and be dragged all over social media. Personally I believe Gretchen if she says she wasn’t harassed personally. Now Harvey could have dropped those blinds to ruin her…who knows.

      Ronan Farrow was on MSNBC last night and said one actress dropped out of his article because Harvey’s legal team came after her. So there’s another victim out there whose being silenced. Weinstein is a pig and a predator. I hope he burns in a pit. Gretchen is the victim.

      • Bridget says:

        We’re missing an entire subset of women: the one’s who were coerced into saying “yes” to Harvey. We have women who were raped, women who said “no” and ran, and yet no one willing to come forward to say they were pressured into a relationship and gave in. It’s their right not to, indeed, but here’s the thing – that’s STILL illegal. It’s still a crime, it’s still sexual harassment, and yet people are treating it as though “I thought Harvey was just a dog”.

      • Moon Beam says:

        That’s because if they come out and say that they did sleep with him in exchange for a publicity push or an Oscar campaign etc, then their career and merit and values will come in to question. Look at how people treat Jennifer Lawrence on these stories even though it is all just rumor. Imagine what would happen if Lawrence were to ever come out and say she did exchange favors for Harvey (even though I believe her when she says she didn’t). People would have a field day, saying I knew it, she isn’t talented, she doesn’t deserve any accolades she has received.

    • tracking says:

      It’s definitely possible Lainey made the whole thing up, or that Mol was not the subject of that particular blind. But Mol stands out as a starlet who benefitted from a tremendous Miramax push–the only reason I know who Mol is is because of that PR push back in the day. It doesn’t seem to fit HW’s MO to do anything remotely altruistic, and, unlike Lawrence, she didn’t seem to have the big roles or talent to back it up. Also, we’re willing to drag the guys who claim not to have seem anything, but have no problem believing she didn’t either? Let’s at least be consistent –either be skeptical of everyone or give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

      • Jules343 says:

        It’s not altruistic. It was his job.

        Weinstein has run massive PR campaigns for Affleck, Damon, Firth, Kidman, Winslet, Adams, Dench, Hathaway, Roberts, Cumberbatch, Cooper, Bale, Wahlberg…I could list dozens more. That was his job. However he presented it to certain young actresses, that was simply his job, not a special favour he did for people.

        Do people really think he made a move on every young actress who came through his production companies? Between the actresses who were considered, the actresses who were tested and the actresses who actually got roles, that would be hundreds and hundreds, before we even get to employees and the women who weren’t actually up for any particular roles.

        Sexual predators don’t just go around assaulting every potential target who crosses their path. They choose their victims carefully. Some of the women he tried it with had connections, but those actresses also had some issues. Rosanna Arquette and Asia Argento werent especially stable at the time. Angelina had some drug problems back then, and the dysfunction in her relationship with her father was well known. Ashley Judd had family issues too and yes, even Gwyneth was kind of fragile in the 90′s.

        You can see how he sized up his victims through their accounts. With some he ‘merely’ hinted at what he wanted and made no attempt to stop them leaving. With others he blatantly demanded things and tried to intimidate them. With some he went very far trying to force the issue, and finally with some he did in fact rape them. If he was capable of selecting and treating victims differently like this, he was capable of recognising which women might cause his problems if he did anything and leaving them alone.

      • Bridget says:

        But one of those things is not like the others. Almost all of those actors and actresses you named were already established, awards season hopefuls. Gretchen Mol was an unknown actress chosen for a big push, and not on the strength of her work, by a company that was notorious for what has become known as “Harvey’s Girls”. We’re ignoring the fact that likely countless women said “yes”. Harvey Weinstein treated the women he came into contact professionally and who worked for his as his own personal dating pool, and people are behaving as though a boss pressuring women to say “yes” to his sexual advances is just him being a dog and not a crime. But what we do know is that it was systemic. It was so pervasive that the young women who worked for him were suggested to wear parkas when they met with him. He consistently leveraged career advancement in exchange for sexual favors, and didn’t care who he victimized.

    • rocknrust says:

      Why must women always go after women. Lay blame on the guilty, the predator.

  20. CharlotteCharlotte says:

    So, to anyone saying ‘why would he do it to such and such and not to such and such’ I just want to put out there that…that’s how it happens some of the time. Sometimes, abusers will prey on someone not so obvious, and NOT prey on the ‘obvious’ or ‘easy’ victim. Because for whatever other reason, but also because they then have people who can truthfully state that it didn’t happen to them. And then it can cast doubt on the victims. And then it can tear lives apart.
    Like when a parent abuses one kid out of a family of 10 kids. And none of their family believes them.

    Just saying. Gretchen, Jennifer etc, could be telling the absolute truth. They are ‘obvious’ Harvey girls. Except they aren’t. And after everything that Gretchen has endured, let’s just give her what she wants, and believe her.

    • TQB says:

      Yah, who knows, maybe on those certain days he managed to have a little shame and self control. Or, grosser, maybe they didn’t do it for him like the others. Ew, I need a shower just thinking about this.

    • PPP says:

      Thank you for this. It’s such a great point.

    • Otaku Fairy says:

      I don’t understand how some of the same people who can be outraged by starlets for not believing a man is an abuser just because he didn’t do it to them have no problems using the “He did it to other women, so any woman who says he didn’t do it to her is lying” argument. Do people not realize that it’s the same thing? It’s dangerous to perpetuate this myth that a man has to have done the same thing to every woman he’s come across in order for other women’s abuse allegations to be true. People like Weinstein, Depp, etc. and their apologists bank on this kind of thinking.

      • Sophia's Side eye says:

        I have loved your comments on this subject across so many different threads. And this:
        “some of the same people who can be outraged by starlets for not believing a man is an abuser just because he didn’t do it to them have no problems using the “He did it to other women, so any woman who says he didn’t do it to her is lying” argument.”
        Is so much TRUTH. Thank you, Otaku.

      • I Choose Me says:

        It’s dangerous to perpetuate this myth that a man has to have done the same thing to every woman he’s come across in order for other women’s abuse allegations to be true.

        Yes! I want to print this out and laminate it. Write it on placards.

    • Anonymous says:

      Yes…this. Abusers don’t abuse every single person they meet. A family friend’s son raped all his sisters, repeatedly for years. My brothers were great friends with him as kids and had NO idea(and continue to be heartbroken that they didn’t see that he was a monster and stop it) My little sister was best friends with one of the girls. She spent the night there often. So naturally when this came out we were horrified and thought he may have hurt my sister as well. No. He never touched her and she had no clue the abuse was happening. Even monsters can be selective in who they target. Thankfully he is now in prison for a very long time. But the damage is done. HW has left a trail of damage in his wake. I hope he suffers for it

    • J.Mo says:

      I used to be very pretty, enough so I was scouted at 12 by Elite and didn’t have to shell out any money for test shots (but I’m NOT photogenic at all). In the field of social services I’ve worked with male teens and men because I have a natural rapport with them. They don’t seem to see me as available at all. I’ve had people surprised that known pervs treat me fine and don’t hit on me or worse. I DON’T have a high tolerance for flirting and don’t feel obliged to smile or be polite if I think someone has an interest. I’m not masculine either, I’m just casual and formal at the same time, an arms length kind of person. They just don’t like some of us or how we may respond.

  21. Lindsay89 says:

    There are a lot of comments on this thread proving her point. Wow. I didn’t realize I could be more disgusted than I was yesterday, but I am. And, sadly, it’s a whole bunch of women picking her story apart, like they were there with her and have access to some kind of truth.

    Ugh. So gross.

    • Id says:

      I agree. Even if it did happen, she’s under no obligation to tell the truth!

      Also, those rumours about her likely made Harvey’s victims too afraid to speak up. Lest they, too, be labelled as “whores,” or “asking for it.”

      • Lindsay89 says:

        In my view, the women here picking everything apart and re-casting blame on someone who has clearly been victimized, are just as bad as the men who stood by and did nothing, the women who stood by and did nothing and almost as bad as the predator himself. They are all swimming in the same filthy cesspool.

        It’s disgusting, it’s destructive and it’s demonstrative of the larger issue at play.

      • Asiyah says:

        My thoughts exactly, Id. Suppose those rumors were true and Gretchen’s denial wasn’t…SO. WHAT?! I’m not here to police her, judge her, or play morality police. It is HER life, HER choice, and I’m going to respect it and believe what she’s saying now. More importantly, I’m going to focus on her GENERAL POINT about how these rumors and blind items are part of the problem. I’m not going to dissect every little thing she wrote in this piece to suit a narrative I’ve heard for years. I’m going to stand by her 100% because she made a powerful, important statement.

    • PPP says:

      We need to call out the commenters casting doubt on her and call them out hard. This kind of insidious behavior does no less than undermine women and underline the abuses they are subject to, whether it be sexual assault or character assassination.

    • tracking says:

      Actually, the larger issue is that women who were coerced into pay for play feel they can’t come forward because they will be roundly slut-shamed. It’s the whole “perfect victim” thing, which is a product of pure misogyny. Those of us who feel Mol’s story is inconsistent with HW’s disgusting MO (can you at least understand that the issue is with *him* not with her here) hope she’s speaking the truth, but do not blame her if it happened and she does not want to disclose the full story, for this very reason.

      • PPP says:

        I agree the pay for players feel they can’t come forward, but I think it’s trashy as hell to disbelieve Mol, and it’s upsetting to know that this rumor will continue to follow her and make her life shitty because of people who feel like they have a right to speculate about a person’s private life like it doesn’t have egregious effects.

      • Lindsay89 says:

        The larger issue here is the fact that people are weighing in at all on her truth, despite the fact that she very clearly told the truth she wanted to tell. The people here picking her apart are not only the product of a misogynistic environment, but also the harbingers of it.

        The larger issue here is that women are damned if they do, damned if they don’t, and, sadly, it’s other women who are bringing on the damning. THAT is the larger issue here, THAT is the point the Gretchen is trying to make and THAT is why everyone on here insisting they know something about HER truth is complicit.

      • PPP says:

        @Lindsey89- I agree COMPLETELY, and agree with everything else you’ve said on this thread.

      • Moon Beam says:

        While that is true, many actresses who have just been suspected of trading “favors” (shudder) with Weinstein have had their reputations ruined or been slut shamed based on rumors. So it’s a lose lose either way, isn’t it. I tend to believe them. Harvey may have had a method in choosing his victims, the point is we don’t know because none of us were there. So while I will not say “they all knew” I tend to believe Rose McGowan when she says many of them did since she was there and lived it.

      • Lindsay89 says:

        @PPP Thank you! And, likewise. Your posts today have been refreshing, even with such dark material to consider.

  22. Anna says:

    I thought about Clooney’s comments when I read this – how he dismissed so many rumors because they were degrading to the young actresses. When stories spread about Weinstein, what tone did they take? Oh, he’s an old pervert and abuser? Or, can you believe this actress slept with him for a role/oscar/magazine cover? Look at old gossip about Weinstein. It is as much about chasing down names and shaming women as it is about shaming Weinstein’s predatory behavior. Even the name, Weinstein girls, suggests women desperate to sell their bodies and souls for a bit of fame, and not women systematically used and abused.
    Lainey should be ashamed. And people who perpetuated these types of victim-shaming rumors should be, too.
    It’s suddenly a lot more clear to me why and how such rumors could remain in circulation – without much thought or credence – for 2 decades.
    Sadly, this happens everywhere. How many girls are afraid to come forward in any setting because they will be labeled a desperate slut?

  23. Wren33 says:

    I don’t know what George Clooney did or did not know, but this is why I had sympathy for his statement. In the past, the tone of these gossip items was always about how marginally talented actresses managed to get roles they didn’t deserve because they slept with Weinstein. Let’s be honest, the point was always more to degrade them than to condemn him.

  24. kibbles says:

    It is natural to have wondered who these women were over the years. It takes one blogger to take that curiosity and spread a heinous rumor about an unknown actress who fell off the map, and attribute it to Weinstein. Honestly, the blind item probably did happen to someone even if it wasn’t Mol, but it isn’t Lainey’s place to expose those actresses. We know that Weinstein crushed or attempted to crush the careers of actresses who refused his advances. Another question that I really don’t need the answer for is, if Weinstein harassed and was rejected by the many actresses and models who have recently come forward, how many are there out there who are either currently A-list or have faded away, have either accepted, or gave into his advances, and are hoping that the public never finds out? It makes you think of the actresses he did rape who have come forward with their stories, like Asia Argento and Rose McGowan, and realize how brave they have been through all of this. I’m willing to bet there are dozens of women who were raped or agreed to sex in exchange for looking at a script, and have to live with that pain and regret everyday in secret.

    • tracking says:

      kibbles, that’s right and no woman should have to come forward to tell her story. I do hope this empowers the ones who want to, but have felt too powerless and afraid in the past. Imagine how dragged the women will be who admit to any kind of pay-for-play, however. They’re out there–how could they not be–but they have tremendous incentive to either deny or not come forward at all.

  25. NotSoSocialButterfly says:

    I need a shower (after these last couple days of Weinstein grossness).

  26. Darla says:

    I am reading these comments and thinking about 9-5 and just how great of a film it was, and still so relevant.

    Remember how Dolly Parton’s character suffered because the whole office believed she was sleeping with the boss, because that’s what the boss wanted them to think?

    Maybe we should all rewatch it this weekend.

  27. Dana says:

    It’s startling how easy it is for someone to plant a BS blind and have it spread online – and by “someone”, I don’t just mean someone in the industry, I also mean a total nobody sitting in their basement in the middle of Nebraska who has an ax to grind and too much free time.

    A recent example – take Benedict Cumberbatch/Sophie Hunter and Michael Fassbender/Alicia Vikander, who are examples of an unfortunate trend (i.e. an actor with a devoted female fanbase starts dating a woman, his fans start multiple blogs & discussion boards dedicated to trashing and smearing this woman – “she’s a hooker/extortionist/druggie/”Harvey girl”,etc. – which then leads to a sudden barrage of thinly veiled blinds/”tips” parroting these smears)

    I’ve seen people repeat those blinds here as facts several times – in Vikander’s case, literally a few days ago, when the Weinstein story broke, including odd claims that in exchange for sex, Weinstein apparently waged an Oscar campaign on her behalf… for a movie that was made by another studio and had nothing to do with TWC.

    Like…Harvey’s a monster, but let’s not pretend that literally anyone with an ax to grind against Mol couldn’t have been the tipster behind the blind. The fact is that casting couch/ “sleeping her way to the top” insinuations are extremely common on gossip sites (as well as the first go-to explanation for why an actress whose appeal is lost on you is so successful). And that the “juiciest”, most scandalous story is the one most people prefer to believe.

    • Another Anne says:

      So true. Crazy stanbases have been known to start a lot of these. Charlie Hunnam actually went public with a plea to stop abusing his girlfriend (I don’t think it helped). There is a pack of Jamie Dornan fans who push the narrative that he’s involved with Dakota Johnson because they want their “Fifty Shades” fantasies to come true. FKA twigs took a ton of abuse from some fans who couldn’t accept that Robert Pattinson was no longer involved with Kristen Stewart. They send blinds about all of them to the shadier sites, like CDAN, who publish anything sent their way. Once one of these sites posts an item, other sites pick it up and run with it, and people think that because they heard it on multiple sites, it must be true.

      While many women are trying to open their minds and do better, unfortunately there are still many others who are perfectly willing to sabotage and degrade other women.

    • Sophia's Side eye says:

      I just saw something just like this. In one of the Harry and Megan threads someone mentioned tumblr, and a certain blogger there who hates Megan. I decided to look at her page, and oh my gawd the crazy was unreal. This person posts fifty to a hundred times a day about Megan and says terrible things about her that I won’t repeat. It really opened my eyes to how awful these so called “fans” can be.

  28. Sherry Greengrass says:

    I always thought that Lainey blind item was about Blake Lively.

  29. jugil1 says:

    Why are people questioning Gretchen’s response? If she says it wasn’t her, believe her. Stop trying to make your “blind” story fit her narrative.

  30. MellyMel says:

    I thought the comments yesterday on the Jennifer Lawrence post were disgusting, but I see some of y’all are back at again today regarding Gretchen. Stop questioning her & calling her a liar!! She spoke her truth! Picking her story apart piece by piece makes you look like an ass! You don’t want to believe her? Fine, but stop acting like you are some Hollywood insider who was there and witnessed abuse happening as if you know her story better than she does! Jesus! She can’t win with some of you! Admit you’ve been assaulted…people call you a liar. Admit you haven’t been assaulted…people call you a liar! WTF?!

  31. Algernon says:

    What if you heard stories about Gretchen Mol years and years before any blind items existed?

    • Don't kill me I am French says:

      Just an idea.You probably hear some stories on Mol because she worked in Weinstein movies or Miramax often.Maybe she is « guilty » by association with HW.A woman works with HW= casting couch so image working often with HW.

    • MellyMel says:

      Then you heard stories…what’s your point?!

    • TheOtherSam says:

      Hold on guys (flame suit on). This is a gossip site, still (last I checked) the main purpose of the blog. Why don’t we ask the poster where they might have heard stories or how they came to hear of them. Does he/she work in the industry? Or are they sitting out in Peoria reading Life & Style. There’s a difference. Sourcing is our business in terms of what we choose to know, discuss or believe, about anything these days not just celeb gossip.

      This is a tough time since this is newly broken wide, details are gross and we’re rubbed raw right now. Weinstein is a total monster. It’s probably not the right time to be delving into background details of his victims to ‘validate’ their stories or ‘validate’ prior blinds. That said let’s not attack each other.

      (Am also asking because I believe this poster has said before that he/she worked in the industry in LA. If incorrect on that apologies)

    • jugil1 says:

      @ Algernon, Again, Weinstein is the worthless abuser in this scenario, Gretchen is the victim of slut shaming & name calling. Let’s focus on that.

      Focus your disgust towards Weinstein. He deserves nothing less.

  32. poppy says:

    zomg i had to stop reading the comments because we are getting ooc.
    i can tell we are very passionate about this because for the most part we are all women here and this matters to us.
    LET US RESPECT this forum.
    please disagree with civility.

    my takeaway from this is

    GRETCHEN is a victim of HARVEY

    try not to focus this justifiable outrage on her or her words but focus the energy on HARVEY WEINSTEIN.
    focus on why this is happening STILL and ffs at that scale and where else do we need to look, who else do we need to be open to listening to what stones are being left unturned.

    we are doing right by discussing it.
    as many have said this forum has changed over the years. good and bad. it evolves and we can continue to make it better or worse.
    we drive the site.
    please let’s continue to grow a space where people can be part of a community where we try to do better and maybe have fun. hard in these times i know but we can try.

  33. magnoliarose says:

    Again, does it matter if it is true or not?
    I think Gretchen made the statement she felt she had to make and sure maybe some things don’t jibe, but even that doesn’t matter. She wants out of the scandal, and she wants her reputation back from a predator. I never thought Gretchen was at fault and I always thought of her as a talented actress who was exploited by a disgusting brute. My thought about the blind was that it was from someone who didn’t like her or was jealous and wanted to bury her. It is unfair because SO many people benefitted from his largesse so it was odd that someone would choose her to smear and not the others. I wondered if it was someone who wanted her Rounder’s role.
    My problem is that women are forced to lie because society won’t treat them like the victims they are if they don’t fit a stringent code of acceptability. How would she able to even have that public conversation? It is impossible, and it isn’t her burden to carry. She doesn’t owe anyone her truth, and she deserves to be untethered to this monster from this day forward.

    This proves just how horrible HW is.

  34. Mrs.Krabapple says:

    Maybe I believe some actresses made nauseating concessions because some actresses actually made nauseating concessions. It doesn’t mean SHE did. But some did, or this wouldn’t have gone on for as long as it did. Everybody in Hollywood seems to make nauseating concessions in some form or other for the sake of “work” or “art” (for example, look at all the Polanski or Allen supporters). I do NOT think that means Weinstein gets a free pass to assault and rape women, and I think he deserves actual jail time. But when an industry behaves the way it does, en masse, don’t be surprised when some members of the public like myself believe that some actors would trade sex (or at least flirting) for roles. That doesn’t mean they all would, but I am sure some would. It’s the whole unsavory aspect of Hollywood in general. I know that needs to change, and kudos to the people who are speaking out. But there has to be a better way to clean the swamp than attacking people who report that Weinstein likes to trade sex for roles.

  35. I am bored says:

    Angelina Jolie has always been very open about her wilder crazier days and it could be so that Harvey couldn’t use that against her as she had already spilled her own beans. She’s never tried to play the girl next door, basically. But other gossip about her being a cruel person who cares so much about her image in hollyweird were probably from his sorry ass.

    She obviously didn’t care enough to work with him. Had she worked with him I’m betting she would’ve won more awards but she didn’t care. She’s always said she has one foot outside hollyweird at all times. Hollyweird is not her life – it is for her ex though… Brad Pitt has more loyalty to the freaks in hollyweird than he does for his own kids and ex wife.

    He should publicly apologize.

  36. I am bored says:

    Lainey looking like a real idiot right now for this. Gretchen Mol had to deal with this crap for too long thanks to Lainey.

    Lainey also had some real vile blind riddles about Ashley Judd. 🙄

    • Mercy for outcasts says:

      I sometimes wonder what kind of beef Lainey has with those she takes down in her articles.

      There are: Ashley Judd, Gretchen Mol (allegedly sleeping with H.W.), Michael Fassbender (abuse allegations ex-girlfriend), Dicaprio (modelizer/womanizing), Brad Pitt (?), Tom Cruise (Scientology), Taylor Swift (?)

  37. Strwbrryslushie says:

    I’m going to get flamed for this but isn’t she in a grey area? If the same heinous blind gossip rumours were made against a guy, would we be saying belief of the BGR would be shaming a victim? Lainey’s blinds and other blinds are atrocious for the rumoured subjects but it’s part of the oil that greases the machine: keep the consumers interested in some way.

    I’m happy to be told I’m wrong and why but I suspect the blind item is in fact true and I believe someone who maintained an ongoing thing with someone else, yes, in a position of far greater power wasn’t the same dynamic as Rose McGowan and all those other women who were raped and assaulted and threatened and preyed upon. At the same time it’s horrible to leverage suspicion against someone for something that can’t be proven. I want to believe Gretchen Mol’s statement. So that’s the gossip reader’s dilemma: being enticed by salacious gossip and realising the unfairness of blind items and their rumoured subjects.

    Asia Argento said she went back after her initial rape by Weinstein and engaged in consensual relations with him (not sure if she clarified it was because she was afraid for her career). I think she was super brave in her story.

    • Id says:

      Nobody is saying that what the blind actress experienced is the same as McGowan and Argento. It doesn’t have to be! That doesn’t mean it isn’t wrong and a gross abuse of power! Even if she did “enjoy it” as the blind claims. (Awful.) And so you know, it would be just as egregious if it involved a guy!

      There are no perfect victims. For all we know, the person in the blind was trying to normalize Weinstein’s abuse. That’s the thing. We. Don’t. Know. And should always be mindful of that.

  38. Mercy for outcasts says:

    I have read blind items myself for a while so I have some experience and I know what I am talking about. I have never been the victim of blind items and I am not connected to the movie business. I want to make a different point on blind items. My point of view might not be for everyone but in the name of free speech I think I should be able to make it.

    Blind items are mean mean mean.

    Blind items about Harvey Weinstein are there en masse. They didn’t help bring down Weinstein any earlier. Matter of fact is that they didn’t help at all. Rumours about Weinstein’s behaviour have started decades ago – long before blind items were on the www.

    But blind items are mean, because:

    Because there are usually enough hints to pin the blind item to 3 or 4 individuals so these items aren’t blind items at all.
    Because the individuals who got “exposed” without being exposed can’t defend themselves.
    Because if the “exposed” individual defends himself then this kind of attention seems like a confirmation.
    Because if the “exposed” individual doesn’t defend himself then the blind item accusations live on.
    Because the authors of blind items can always pretend that they didn’t hint to the individual who got all the blame and shame of a blind item. It is cowardice which often turns into character assault via lynch justice, actually.

    If you compare blind items to gossippy tabloids you have to conclude that tabloids can be sued if they write stuff without having evidence that damages an individual. Tabloid articles have an author and usually a newspaper editor who can be sued.

    • Snowflake says:

      Those are good points. Because if you say, “oh, that wasn’t me,” some people would be like, “oh, she’s protesting too much, definitely her. ” If he/she doesn’t address it, there will always be someone who thinks he/she did it. You can’t win. And he/she can’t sue, because it doesn’t name him/her. Been the victim of fake stories before and it sucks. Because some people always believe where there’s smoke there’s fire and that’s not always true. I’ve had outright lies/innuendos spread by women against me and it sucks. One liked a guy who would flirt with me. So she told me he was saying stuff about me and vice versa so he wouldn’t like me anymore. Then she started dating him. When he broke up with her, she manipulated her boss into thinking he was being mean to her and got him transferred. In the end, her real self came through and she got fired. Very nasty person

  39. Mercy for outcasts says:

    One of Obama’s daughters had an internship at Weinstein’s company recently.
    So what does that say about the Obamas? Weinstein’s company surely is one of the biggest players / the biggest player but hardly the only one. Apparently the Obamas didn’t have a problem with their daughter doing an internship at the company of a notorious sex criminal?

    • Giddy says:

      What is says is that the Obamas were unaware of Harvey’s reputation. Do you honestly believe they would let their treasured daughter intern there if they had known? Here is their statement:

      “Michelle and I have been disgusted by the recent reports about Harvey Weinstein,” Mr. Obama said in the statement. “Any man who demeans and degrades women in such fashion needs to be condemned and held accountable, regardless of wealth or status. We should celebrate the courage of women who have come forward to tell these painful stories. And we all need to build a culture — including by empowering our girls and teaching our boys decency and respect — so we can make such behavior less prevalent in the future.”

    • Snowflake says:

      Let me guess, you dislike the Obamas? Because why else would you be defending Weinstein by saying the Obamas were ok with him? You are just trying to make the Obamas look bad by saying they were friends with a predator. You’re being pretty obvious dear.

  40. Greenie says:

    Wasn’t there an article where Gretchen said only three people spoke to her on the set of one of her movies (Yuma if I remember correctly, and Bale was one of them) because someone had been smearing her reputation so badly? I’m trying to look for it now and I can’t find it anymore. Stories are getting buried so fast in the news cycle, sometimes I feel like I’ve imagined things I’ve read (being a skimmer doesn’t help).

    Anyhow, I believe she’s talking more about CDAN from her description of the blind item website. But I guess it doesn’t matter when the innuendo was spread across many gossip sites. I hope she has an easier life from now on.

  41. Zeddy says:

    I’m not going to jump down laineys throat or go “she’s cancelled wahhhh” over words she used 10 years ago when y’all excuse your fave actors because reasons. Her blind was the first that made me really turn off the ent industry because I didn’t want to be complicit in anything like that happening to me.

    Over these comments.

  42. Mannori says:

    I might be probably the only one who’s skeptical both of the blind and Mol. I think many people are taking Harvey’s dirt show as a chance to take advantage of doing some PR cleansing for their own benefit. I’m sorry to be so skeptical, because I could very well be wrong, but if something this scandal is reminding us that in Hollywood nothing is as it seems and their careers are based on what their PR sell to the public

  43. Patty says:

    Yeah. A lot of the comments in this thread are a natural extension of the every one knew chorus from a few days. It’s sad because the narrative has already changed.

    The focus has already shifted off HW and it’s shifted to nitpicking every statement made, asking why certain people haven’t made statements, accusing people of lying, and the list goes on and on.

    I’ve yet to see any useful comments about what could be done to change the system that produces men like HW. Instead it’s I’m cancelling (insert celebrity name here) cause they haven’t spoken up, or they spoke up and I didn’t like what they had to say.

    It’s why I wish people (celebrities) would stop making statements. It’s turning into a circus. Remember the “believe women” stories from a few weeks back — if that’s the case we should believe Meryl, Judi, and Jennifer when they say they didn’t know and weren’t a victim. We need to believe Gretchen. And we need to believe the women who were victims. Can’t have it both ways.

    Also for the I knew so everyone must have known crowd, if you knew what did you try to do it about it? If you did nothing does that make you complicit in the ongoing abuse? Did you write letters, boycott Miramax films, boycott TWC films? Did you call out those bloggers posting blinds and insinuating that certain actresses exchanged sexual favors for roles, magazine covers, and a shot at awards glory? Or did you laugh and snicker……hmmm.

  44. ORIGINAL T.C. says:

    For the past 2 years I’ve been making the same case that these “Harvey’s girl’s” rumors are nothing but misogyny against pretty women who are successful. Now that it’s been shot to hell some of these women have switched to concern trolling about women who engaged in play for pay been too intimidated to come forward. Because they just KNOW these women want to come forward instead of being happy that Harvey has been exposed.

    They will continue believing and spreading false rumors until someone comes forward that they can use to prove every blind item ever written. Watch that person get destroyed. You will recognize these people because they will mostly avoid threads were men who either hid Harvey’s crime, paid off women or were co-conspirators. They don’t really care about blaming those with direct involvement just any woman they can accuse with something, anything. Reason most of these threads are filled with vile comments regarding non-vile people. It’s a sickness. All you have to do is read comments written in the past about any “Harvey’s girls”.

  45. Carolina says:

    She’s clearly referring to Enty, not Lainey, as Enty’s site was built on BIs and she refers to how the BI about her was embroidered over the years. Lainey wrote only that blind.

  46. Keaton says:

    I 100% believe her and I feel awful for her. This lie has followed her for years. People have restated it as fact over and over again. I bet she was one of the women Harvey bragged about helping and that’s why it has gotten so much traction. I don’t know who gave the specific details of the blind to Lainey but I bet you anything that Harvey started the lie.

    I don’t see any reason for her to come out NOW and make a statement like this unless she just wanted to clear the record. She’s not Jennifer Lawrence or Gwyneth Paltrow (both of whom I believe as well). What I mean is, Gretchen Mol is not a major movie star heavily associated with Harvey Weinstein. The general public does not know who the hell Gretchen Mol is. There was no *pressure* on her to write any damn essay. This is a major rumor but only among gossip hounds like us. The general public does not remember Gretchen Mol at all. So there was no pressure on her to do this and come out with a denial of her so-called ‘pay for play’.
    I think it’s very simple: She just wanted to clear her name after literally a decade of being smeared in the comment sections of gossip sites. It makes me very sad that some folks don’t believe her. Hasn’t this woman dealt with enough crap?

  47. id says:

    That doesn’t mean she’s blameless. That blind item is victim blaming and slut shaming.

  48. tracking says:

    Any blind gossip item is only as good as its source, and there is such a thing as bad sources. Lainey allowed everyone to go with the assumption that it was Mol, even if it wasn’t, and that must have been horrific for her.

  49. Div says:

    Look, I like Lainey and her blinds are more reliable than most…but even being more reliable means being bullsh*t 90% of the time as opposed to CDAN’s 99% bullsh*t. And the blind was problematic, even if she depicted Harvey as a monster there still was some victim blamey language in the blind.

  50. PPP says:

    Yeah, no work as honest and laden with integrity as posting blind items.

  51. Torontoe says:

    As I commented up thread, regardless of who it’s about it’s also the way she wrote about a woman who had been coerced into a sexual relationship. “She allowed herself to be used” “She submitted to further degradation” “She gamely seems to have enjoyed it”. She knew a powerful man with an awful temper and penchant for revenge is preying on young actresses, but who really got the condemnation? The woman who was “submitting” to a system that’s rigged against her, not the man (men) who do the rigging and reap the profits. Lainey should apologize for reporting it in that victim blaming tone.

  52. DiamondGirl says:

    If she’s so reputable, she wouldn’t use blind items. She would post verified items that are of interest to her readers.

  53. Nic919 says:

    I love how everyone is blasting people here for misogyny but just blaming Lainey for the blind when she wasn’t the only one who posted it and ignoring CDAN among other sites. Whether or not Mol is the actress in the blind, it sure as hell was Weinstein and he threatened a lawsuit as a result.

  54. Id says:

    She won’t. She addressed the BI with Vox and sidestepped the sexism and victim blaming, saying she’s never named names and couldn’t bc she was threatened with a lawsuit. As though that’s the main issue of the story. She also mentioned her blog being a small, family-run business, bc she’s the victim.

    She has a brand and is likely sweating about coming under fire. And like I posted before, none of us have always been woke and are all complicit in a way. But at some point, she needs to show some self-awareness and understand she’s ruined lives and reputations.

  55. PPP says:

    Wow. Thank you for bringing up these really egregious phrases.

  56. Lindsay89 says:

    Chilling, isn’t it? Thank you for highlighting these terrible phrases.

  57. Eve V says:

    +10000 to your points. My issue is not so much about blind items, or even that specific blind item, it was the wording/phrasing used in that blind item. The slut shaming/victim blaming in that post is really so f!cking gross it turns my stomach.

  58. dumbledork says:

    Totally agree. The wording , and I have no doubt, she thought long and hard about the wording she used, was disgusting. To assume that the victim liked it? So wrong on so many levels.

  59. Ktgreat says:

    She intentionally wrote it like a script. It reads like a second rate romance novel by design.

  60. PPP says:

    “What’s fun about guessing who was sexually abused or not?”

    I am so on board with everything you’ve said, but this was really striking.

  61. Moon Beam says:

    This site and dListed post her blinds, but at least allow comments to call bs on them.