Blythe Danner slams NYT columnist Maureen Dowd over Weinstein op-ed

Embed from Getty Images

Several days ago, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd devoted a column to Harvey Weinstein and Hollywood’s long history of Weinstein-esque behavior. It was called “Harvey Weinstein, Hollywood’s Oldest Horror Story.” Dowd didn’t break any news in the column (obviously), and she was just editorializing about what Weinstein meant and what he did. Within the column, there was this assessment:

Some who were importuned or pawed, like Angelina Jolie, stalked away and told studio executives that she would never work with the pestilent mogul. Others whom Weinstein asked to give him a massage in his hotel suite refused but continued to collaborate, like Gwyneth Paltrow, who put aside qualms to become ‘the first lady of Miramax.’

Which is pretty harsh. Once again, people find a way to blame Weinstein’s victims for his behavior. The questioning of victims’ motives: what were you wearing, why did you go to his hotel room, why didn’t you leave at that point, why did you continue to work with him? How about this: why did he harass and assault dozens – if not hundreds – of women for three decades? Well, Gwyneth’s mother Blythe Danner is firing back at Dowd:

Blythe Danner has her daughter’s back. The 74-year-old actress wrote in to The New York Times this week after columnist Maureen Dowd called out Gwyneth Paltrow for continuing to work with Harvey Weinstein — and ultimately winning an Oscar for her role in Shakespeare in Love, the movie he produced — after he allegedly sexually harassed her.

“I cannot remain silent while Maureen Dowd disparages my daughter, Gwyneth Paltrow, for the manner in which she chose to handle Harvey Weinstein’s attempt at a sexual encounter when she was 22,” Danner wrote in response to the columnist’s remarks. “Gwyneth did not ‘put aside her qualms to become ‘the first lady of Miramax’ back then,’ as Ms. Dowd would have it. She continued to hold her own and insist that Mr. Weinstein treat her with respect. She had learned from her father, the producer and director Bruce Paltrow, how to stand up for herself. Bruce received the first Diversity Award from the Directors Guild for helping women and minorities in our business. His daughter wasn’t the only woman he taught to fight for herself.”

The 74-year-old actress ended her letter with hopes for changes within Hollywood, as well as a call for the media to stop shaming the accusers.

“As a longstanding member of the industry, I am much aware of the many years of its prejudiced and unacceptable behavior toward women,” Danner added. “No one would argue that Harvey Weinstein isn’t finally getting what he deserves. But I hope that this is the point of no return where change will occur, not only in our industry but also others. I suggest that the pundits stop casting aspersions on the women who have confronted unwanted sexual advances in the manner each sees fit and concentrate on the constructive ways to prevent this behavior in the future.”

[From ET and Page Six]

Yeah, I agree. While I rarely (if ever) defend Gwyneth about anything, what could she do? She was 22 years old, just starting out, and she thought of Weinstein like a family friend and mentor. Her actions or inactions should not be under the microscope, and she should not be labeled as “complicit” or a “colluder” just because she was victimized and trying to do the best she could.

Embed from Getty Images

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of Getty.

Related stories

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

108 Responses to “Blythe Danner slams NYT columnist Maureen Dowd over Weinstein op-ed”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Louise says:

    I think Gwyneth’s career didn’t suffer because her parents were in the business.

    • mamacita says:

      exactly. she couldn’t be blacklisted because of that. it protected her to an extent. and she couldn’t be bullied as easily. having been a victim of harassment, assault and so on, I’ve witnessed firsthand how who you know affects the reactions and response when you speak up about being abused. it shouldn’t but it does.

    • homeslice says:

      Yes this.

    • QueenB says:

      On top of that Spielberg is her godfather.

    • Lucytunes says:

      So what! She was still the victim of sexual harassment. Stop qualifying our level of acceptable “victimhood”. Stop acting like abuse only happens to “good” people or that people we don’t like can’t be victims of assault just like anyone else. It doesn’t matter who her parents were or her god father or goop! Harvey should be the focus and his horrific, criminal behavior.

      • Eleonor says:

        +1000
        In Italy we have the same pb with Asia Argento.
        And I would like to remind that Angelina Jolie is the daughter of John Voight and she ended up in the same situation.

      • FLORC says:

        Yes she was a victim. Is a survivor. And made the choices best to serve her dignity. To not be so bullied.
        And…
        She wa and iss someone with power. Powerful family and friends. It’s entirely possible and with others it was the exact case, that had she not had that support her career would have been done if she demanded respect from Weinstein. This isn’t victim shaming. This is a unique case where the prey happened to have stronger defenses than others to survive an attack and thrive in conditions where others could not.

      • mamacita says:

        it doesn’t seem to me that louise was trying to qualify or minimize gwyneth paltrow’s victim hood. she was simply stating that her father’s stature and connections may have been a factor in possibly limiting weinstein’s egregious behavior. again may have. it *may have* been a factor because her father was powerful and in the same business and weinstein’s bad behavior would be less likely to be ignored. it may have. louise was making an observation. she wasn’t judging the victim. it’s important to discuss the power dynamics which exist and which predators take advantage of. I’m speaking from experience having dealt with a predator myself.

        on another note, if another man or anyone for that manner asks why this behavior by weinstein was able to go on without a victimized woman stopping it sooner, I’m going to scream. it’s called POWER. when I dated an abusive man and asked for his friends to step in and get him help, they were too afraid of his power to say a thing. no one wanted to be ‘that guy’ who went against the grain and confronted him. no one wanted to be blacklisted from the social group. it’s all about POWER. and it’s why people bury their heads and pretend they know nothing instead of acting with courage. that power also intimidates any woman into silence. the end.

    • Casey _ says:

      What’s that saying? There is no such thing as a “perfect victim.” Paltrow was victimized period. She told part of her story that was relevant, and confirmed Weinstein was a creep, like many have. Whatever she did with him after he tried it, is irrelevant to the main point- that Weinstein is a predator.

      That’s the battle.

      Paltrow is no better and no worse than she was before she told her story.

      She’s still the same actress who on orders from the Huvanes, trashed other actresses on a stage faux interviewing Chelsea Handler about her ‘book’ a couple years ago. They could have spent time trashing Harvey, but no- she decided to attack Angelina with Chelsea. I haven’t forgotten that. Yes it was a shtty thing to do, but no one said they’re woke or particular nice people.

      Doesn’t change the fact Weinstein is a pig.

    • Pumpkin (formally soup, pie) says:

      Spot on @Louise !

    • Enough Already says:

      I’m playing devil’s advocate but I think the op’s comment was an observation of the Hollywood dynamics at play after the fact and not an indictment on Gwyneth’s actual victimization. I took it as commentary on the aftermath for her following Weinstein’s attempts to assault her. We all agree that no one deserved what Weinstein did to them, Hollywood royalty or not and certainly no one blames Gwyneth.

      • blogdis says:

        @ enough already
        Thank you that’s how I saw the OP comment not attacking Paltrow (nowhere was it stated or implied that she was not a victim) but simply suggested she survived saying no to Harvey and wasn’t black listed because she has some Hollywood clout that’s all

        Who knows how many brilliant up and coming starlets who could have been the next Mery Streep but because they said no and had no clout they were discarded never to to seen or heard from again.

        These Wenstein articles are sure bringing out a lot Of self righteous indignation ” I’m a better ally /feminist than you comments “

      • Enough Already says:

        Mogdis
        Completely agree with you and frankly, if any actress happened to have a support system that mitigated the effect of Weinstein’s abuse I’m grateful for that.

      • FLORC says:

        Enough already
        I read that as the same, but also agree with the response.

      • Pam_L says:

        Adding agreement to what Enough Already and Blogdis have said. I also didn’t see any blame in Maureen Dowd’s op-ed against Paltrow, who wrote in her “me too” post against Weinstein that she told Brad Pitt, who helped her. I too think the piece was just an observation that some of Weinstein’s victims were able to say no and still maintain a working relationship with him, but most of his victims (who didn’t have a family or a Brad Pitt to put Weinstein in his place) were not so lucky. That’s just an observable fact and not an accusation.

      • Enough Already says:

        Pam
        Actually, Dowd’s statement is very damaging. Her words: “[Gwyneth] put aside her qualms to become the first lady of Miramax” subtly damn Gwyneth and insinuating that she chose fame over her morals. This is toxic and tells victims that there’s only one way to process their ordeal. Gwyneth was a victim, period. How she dealt with that while salvaging her career is not up for moral debate. Secondly referring to the emotional aftermath of sexual harassment as “qualms” says a lot about how Dowd views abuse and not in a good way. To her either a woman throws herself on her sword as a martyr or she must have been an opportunist – madonba/whore complex at play.

        My comment had to do with what Louise said upthread and how her remark was interpreted by others. Sorry if that was unclear.

      • blogdis says:

        @ Pam
        To clarify by Op I meant @loise comment up top
        I find Dowds reference to Paltrow to be snide and highly out of order

    • Crazpi says:

      And Jolie’s parents were in the business too. Her father is Jon Voight. Its not like she made it to Hollywood on her own. She benfitted from nepotism the same way that Goop did.

      • Rose says:

        What are you talking about? Ashley Judd mother is famous too, funny how you didn’t use her as an “example” stop using this as an excuse to tear down someone you don’t like .

      • Kel says:

        @ Rose.
        What is wrong with what Crazypi said? Jolie did use her father’s connections to start her career in Hollywood. That is the truth. She grew up in Beverly Hills and was living in a home valued at 2 million dollars for petes sake. Its not like she came from a poor family living in Indiana. Her father is an Oscar winning actor. What makes you think he didn’t help her? Of course he did! Her very first movie role was when she was 6 years old , and it was in his film! Stop getting so defensive over AJ.

      • ORIGINAL T.C. says:

        I think they mean having actual support. Angelina’s father was in the business but did not offer her support. Ashley Judd’s family was in music. Anyway it just makes me sad for those actresses without anyone in the business or who have their back to take on Weinstein for them.

      • Rose says:

        @Kel

        You can defend someone without being a fan just F.Y.I. I don’t like Gwen ether, but I have defended her too. I have no problem saying something when people use this situation to talk crap about these women because they dislike them. Crappie tone is very clear, especially when she keeps posting the same thing, and yours tone is clear too. She could have talked about Ashley Jubb, Cara Delevingene also, they too come from influential families.

        Why didn’t you make a paragraph on Ashley Jubb and Cara Delevingene family lineage…….

        At the end of the day Ashley, Cara, Angilena or Gwen family connections did no stop Harvey from going after them. This is not a competition to see who had it worst.

      • Sky says:

        I agree with you Rose. With all this unnecessary talk about Gwen,Jolie family being the reason why they were able to have a career. Lupita has no family connections and after turning down that disgusting piece of crap advances she was able to have a career in Hollywood.

  2. Megan says:

    I love Maureen Dowd’s sarcastic view of the world, but sometimes she really gets it wrong.

    • Mrs. Ari Gold says:

      This blaming the victim by Maureen Dowd is appalling. But lots of people are blaming the female victims of Weinstein’s, not just Dowd. I am going to write The Times and complain about Maureen Dowd – her comments are an outrage and an offense to ALL women and men who have been harassed.

      • LAK says:

        The irony of your complaint whilst using the username Mrs Ari Gold……

        The Mrs looking the other way and putting up with his shitty behaviour.

        Ari Gold being the fictional, sanitised counterpart of every bullying boss in Hollywood, including Harvey.

      • crazydaisy says:

        How did Dowd in any way “blame the victim?” She was just pointing out that some women did and some didn’t let Weinstein’s behavior influence their decision to work with his company after the incident, whatever it was.

        Many women did not have the luxury to choose since he blacklisted them post-rejection. The bigger stars, and/or those with a Hollywood pedigree, had more of a choice. No judgement on how someone chooses to exercise their free will. It is on the record, though.

      • Enough Already says:

        crazydaisy
        Dowd’s choice of words belies her meaning. By insinuating that Paltrow chose her career over her integrity, unlike the saintly Jolie, she is somehow less deserving of victim status. Dowd implies that Paltrow made the wrong choice = victim blaming.

      • crazydaisy says:

        @Enough Already thanks, but I still don’t read it that way! All that Maureen Dowd implied was that Gwyneth refused his advances (good on her) and had qualms about continuing to work with him (who wouldn’t?)… but she put her qualms aside for sake of choice roles and career advancement. As many would.

        Dowd doesn’t imply that Swinestein was anything other than 100% creepy and inappropriate with GP, nor that she was in any way responsible for his behavior.

      • Enough Already says:

        Swinestein! I would steal that if I didn’t think cute little piggies deserved better.

    • Indiana Joanna says:

      With all due trespect,I hate Maureen Dowd for that very reason, her sarcasm. She equates mean spirited comments with literature worthy of Jonathan Swift, one of the greatest writer and satirists in the English language.

      She has compared her work to Swift’s work, which is full of humanity while slyly decimating the powers that starved Irish children and commenting on the cruelty of the powerful.

      Dowd is empty, shallow and full of admiration for her endless winding prose.

      And where is she now that we have a monster in the White House? Interviewing celebrities and reporting on pop culture. She’s a fraud.

      • Darla says:

        I agree Indiana (love your name!), I can’t stand her. And she has been obsessed with Hillary Clinton for decades. A very sick, twisted, obsession too.

      • Lightpurple says:

        She also conducted one of the worst interviews I’ve ever seen a few years ago at the JFK Library. It was a forum with her interviewing Robert Redford. She was all shimmying in her chair and hair flipping, long-winded pretentious questions that resulted in short yes or no answers. He told her several times that she needed to ask more open questions that required more than a yes or no answer. But she didn’t so we heard more Maureen Dowd than Robert Redford. It wasn’t until she turned it over to audience questions that he got to speak in complete sentences about Paul Newman, Jane Fonda, the environment, film making, and aging.

    • Veronica says:

      It also blatantly overlooks one of the primary social mechanisms predators utilize to obscure their behavior – in order to be “good” victims, the women here would have had to sacrifice their potential careers. They know exactly how to back their victims into a corner and force them to consider the cost of going public.

    • Carmen says:

      Maureen Dowd should be riding a broomstick. End of story.

  3. Clare says:

    It’s fucking ridiculous to blame the victim this way. I don’t care if she went on to be the First Lady of Miramax or the fing Queen of England. SHE was the victim. HE was at fault.

    If she still found a way to hold her head up high and get what she wanted to go, then more power to her.

    OF COURSE we have found a way to somehow demonize Harvey’s victims.
    And how sad that it is a another woman doing it, too.

    • Ankhel says:

      Well said, Claire. Enough with the negative focus on the victims. Men do this enough, we women should not buy into that crap.

    • Kitten says:

      Completely agree but one qualm I have with Blythe’s retort is this:

      “She continued to hold her own and insist that Mr. Weinstein treat her with respect. She had learned from her father, the producer and director Bruce Paltrow, how to stand up for herself.”

      I don’t want to analyze it to death but that part bugged me a bit as to me, it insinuates that those who were sexually assaulted by HW didn’t “fight hard enough” or “stand up to Weinstein ” like her daughter did.

      IDK..am I overreacting? Wouldn’t be the first time lol.

      • Hunter says:

        If anyone else had made that comment, I would have gone after it. In this particular case, I think it was perhaps more of a mother pridefully commenting on her daughter. She’s just proud that her daughter “held her own” so to speak. At least that’s how I took it? I don’t know. My head has been spinning since January with all of the utter stupidity of our society.

      • FLORC says:

        Kitten/hunter
        Agree with you both.
        Blythe can and has come both ways of the coin before. Braggy and supportive. Think it’s just how her and her daughter come off. Imo.

        Blythe was only responding to her daughter’s defense, but the phrasing slips into a general statement. It bugged me too.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        I don’t think you are overreacting. I don’t think it was intentional, but it does come across as if other women didn’t “insist” on being respected.

      • magnoliarose says:

        I will say when my mother defended us she was an avenging Valkyrie worthy of the name because I mean you better back the eff up. Seriously. She wasn’t one of those mothers who thought her children never did anything wrong, but it is an impressive sight when she is in a Not my babies mode. My father is a slow burn, but he stepped aside because it was her domain and frankly I doubt he could have been more effective.
        I didn’t understand it fully until I had my own. If they are hurt, I physically feel it.
        My children have different personalities. Some are very self-assured, and I never worry when they are in peer situations because they speak up for themselves or others. I have one daughter who is scrappy and feisty with a stubborn streak who is almost too outspoken(but she is fun to parent because she cracks me up) but I have my sensitive son, and he is the one I fret about. We had an incident, and I defended him because I know he would never hurt anyone. He is a sweet, gentle, empathic little love bug. Feisty girl I would have to investigate but him? No. He told me he was innocent and I believed him.

        I want my kids to know I have their back, and I am always on their side, but if they are wrong then I won’t reject them, but I will make them make amends.

        I imagine Blythe just wasn’t having it, and I am sure Gwyneth feels like we all are right now and that was uncalled for. So I get it. Gwyneth is her baby, and she wasn’t having it.

      • Enough Already says:

        “Feisty girl I would have to investigate.”
        I needed this surprise snort so badly.

      • Mina says:

        I read it more as in making clear how her daughter was able to keep working with the creep and that it was because she didn’t allow any further harassment.

        Also, praising someone’s strength/bravery for standing up for themselves doesn’t necessarily mean you’re demeaning or criticizing those who couldn’t do the same. I don’t think we should take the compliment to one woman as a burn to another.

    • AngieB says:

      Agree!

  4. Ally says:

    Yes, and Maureen Dowd continued to work for the NYT after it played a key role in misleading the country into needless war causing tens of thousands of deaths and disastrous fallout to this day. I guess she didn’t quit in moral outrage. See, we can all play this game.

  5. Carol says:

    Good for Blythe! What a horrible comment by Maureen, who does the predators’ work for them when she decides to disparage certain victims as if she is the sole arbiter of how people are supposed to react and move forward after being harassed. Take a seat, Maureen. Take several.

  6. Cherry says:

    “She had learned from her father, the producer and director Bruce Paltrow, how to stand up for herself.”
    Anybody else frowned at this? Why would a mother say this about her daughter? Why is it necessary to 1. name-check the father and 2. insist that it was he who taught the daughter self-respect, instead of the mother?

    • Janey says:

      Yes I thought the part about who her father was and what he has taught her and has taught other women to do especially strange.

      • Jayna says:

        I think it’s because male producers and directors are the ones that seem to be using the casting couch and what a lot of this ongoing discussion is about, even past Harvey. It seemed to be important to Blythe to point out Gwyneth’s father was in those positions of power. Maybe he had discussions with G about the pitfalls of acting and this industry regarding women.

        I don’t know. Just my two cents’ worth.

    • lucy2 says:

      It seemed a little odd to me, I would think she’d have said “her father and I taught her how to stand up for herself”, but overall I think she was right on to criticize Dowd here, for clearly attempting to blame the victim.

      • noway says:

        Give Blythe a pass on that. I’m the widow with a child and I find myself saying strange comments interjecting my deceased husband all the time. When something unfair happens to your child, even if your child is an adult, you find yourselves thinking about what her Dad would have done, and putting them in the story just cause you feel odd doing it all by yourself. Funny, I noticed it immediately from her, and it made me smile a bit as I know I do it too.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        Interesting, noway. That does make me see the comments in a different light.

      • magnoliarose says:

        @noway
        Thank you so much for sharing that. I didn’t know widow/ers did that but it makes sense. I learned something here. I do remember that Gwyneth and Blythe were devastated by his death and Chris Martin wrote Fix You about it.

      • xo says:

        My initial impression was that Blythe felt a need to defend the family’s honor & was name-checking Bruce to make her point.

        I like @noway’s impression better.

    • Lady D says:

      I thought it was very strange. Why add his title at all when referring to a parent?

      • homeslice says:

        and his special award.
        Look Gwen was a victim, it was horrible. But she had a famous family, a famous director goddaddy. So I guess that made it easier for her to “stand up for herself”. Pity other women who didn’t have a daddy like hers. eyeroll.

      • stinky says:

        … perhaps to illustrate that not all Hollywood heavyweights are pigs & fiends.

    • xflare says:

      Because maybe that’s what happened??

    • Kitten says:

      I had an issue with it but for a different reason and posted as much up-thread.

    • Pam_L says:

      Cherry, not only that but Paltrow said in your piece about Harvey Weinstein that she told Brad Pitt, who helped her.

    • M&M says:

      I think it was saying that he was in the business too and it is possible to not be a vile predator. That he advocated for women while he was in the business not take advantage of them.

      • Carrie1 says:

        Yeah I liked Blythe’s statement. She was speaking to their family, their experience and as said above she’s a widow…we are allowed to express ourselves I think. I’m glad she spoke up on this and she did it beautifully.

  7. Enough Already says:

    I love what Danner had to say but can’t help but feel she missed an opportunity to make a larger statement. It wasn’t about Gwyneth using her pride, self-worth and family strength to repel Weinstein. It wasn’t about Gwyneth exercising the power her father taught her. There is no correct way to handle what Weinstein did, there is nothing in your family tree that prepares you for assault – *any* reaction you have is the right reaction at that time. I think other victims would have felt validated had Danner at least touched on that. She sort of used the piece to aggrandize her family’s prestige, which is not bad because to a mom your child is always your baby but this could have been and done more. Shame on Maureen.

    • Kitten says:

      Yes yes yes. You articulated what I was feeling about that portion of her letter far better than I did. Thank you.

    • Harryg says:

      I agree.

    • Enough Already says:

      Kitten
      I love what you said upthread. I like Blythe as mama bear but yeah, the Goop doesn’t fall far from the tree. It’s got me thinking about the concentric circle fallout of abuse, as well. Nothing less than nuclear – no winners in this wakng nightmare.

    • xo says:

      this is an aside, but I think it’s relevant.

      Weinstein was known to be unduly aggressive in championing his favored projects/stars. There has long been a feeling in Hollywood that Weinstein’s marketing muscle had propelled some films/actors to a level of acclaim that felt. . . undeserved (to some) on merit alone.

      http://www.vulture.com/2014/01/miramax-oscar-campaigns-harvey-weinstein-timeline.html

      It may be that this sense of industry unfairness has influenced feeling towards Paltrow (“the first lady of Miramax”).

  8. purple prankster says:

    her mother looks so much fresher and prettier than Gwyneth
    I have no issues with how Gwyneth handled it or what Blythe said, Harvey is the one whose actions and comments should be endlessly dissected and discussed and criticised

  9. Radley says:

    It’s very complicated. There’s been a lot of comments about why this star or that star (male and female) continued to work on Weinstein projects knowing he was a nasty piece of work. Well, people want (and need) to work. People find workarounds. I’m sure some stars minimized their contact with him. I’m sure some felt that they shouldn’t have to turn down a good project because of one a-hole. I’m sure some knew their name being attached to a project equals a green light which equals jobs for people who make a lot less money, and some of those people are friends and acquaintances. There’s gray areas. Being in a Weinstein film doesn’t mean you’re ok with his behavior. Let’s not waste energy picking apart his victims. Pick Harvey apart and those people who actively and knowingly helped him victimize women.

  10. HK9 says:

    While Goop annoys my soul, in this case it’s obvious that while her connections kept her from being blacklisted, it still didn’t protect her from being assaulted. That is the point, not what Dowd thinks she should have done.

    It’s attitudes like Dowd’s that help people like Weinstein, and as a women she needs to ask herself why she’s doing that.

    • Ankhel says:

      I think one of the mistakes Weinstein made, from his POW, was to not choose his victims with more discretion. If he’d gone after a (smaller) number of talentless girls with no connections… And yet, it took thirty years to bring him down. Mind boggling.

  11. Jenna says:

    Bravo Blythe. Anyone wishing to blame a then 22 year old is complicit and part of the problem.

    • homeslice says:

      No she was not complicit! and that is not what I think people are saying. Her mom asserts that Gwen had special powers to handle herself…eyeroll. Maybe she just wanted the damn job and put up with whatever. Maybe other women thought F that, it’s not worth it. Maybe some women had no choice, they got work and harassed and blackballed. There is no magical way of dealing with a predator.

  12. Veronica says:

    I actually stopped reading the NYT years ago over their handling of rape culture and fired off an email telling them as such. The amount of victim blaming that goes on in reports about sex crimes in their newspaper is mindblowing.

  13. Caroline says:

    Maureen Dowd is terrible and should hang up her f*cking laptop. While of course her takes are the worst, it’s Danner who also took a swipe at all the women who weren’t able to clap back against Harvey and still have a career.

    I’ll never take issue with a mom defending her child, but at the end of the day, it was not that her “daddy” taught her to stand up for herself, it was that she had an enormous safety net of privilege, connections and wealth to fall back on if she spurned Weinstein’s advances.

    What about all the women who also “stood up for themselves” and were blacklisted? Or the ones who didn’t have the luxury of “standing up for themselves” if they wanted a career? Danner does them a huge disservice by acting as if what happened with her daughter was replicable to others in that situation.

  14. Ruthie says:

    This is an incredibly serious subject affecting all women. I would hate it if I finally came forward about my own experiences, and people responded “supportively” with “I don’t like Ruthie, but I believe her,” “Ruthie is too skinny/too ugly/too weird etc., but…” I realize this site is called celebitchy for a reason (and I eat it up), but this post is not the place for snark. Weinstein’s behavior and millions of others’ predatory behavior have ruined lives. Time to focus on that. Insulting victims will prevent others from coming forward for fear of mockery. Us non-celebrity peasants too.

  15. AnnaKist says:

    I love and agree with the comments on this article, but I’m here for the hair. Ms Danner’s ‘do in the first pic is how I want my hair to look, as it’s also curly, and I’d like to try something different than the finge I currently wear. As for GP’s yellow, middle-parted, drab curtains of hair, geez, woman… just listen to a good hairdresser, ok?

  16. The Original G says:

    This entire situation is a massive dumpster fire. It’s easier to think of it all as black and white, but there’s a lot of grey here. If it makes a lot of people very very uncomfortable – it should.

  17. Kira says:

    So lots of people heard stories about, or had bad personal experiences with, Weinstein and continued to work with him and Miramax. What were they supposed to do, exactly?
    The flood of stories in the last week makes it clear that although Weinstein may have been the most powerful or egregious abuser, he was far from the only one. The whole industry from top to bottom was set up to show this behavior was fine, and to be expected.
    And when people did speak up (though perhaps not about Weinstein), what happened? Nothing, really. Think about David Russell. George Clooney nearly punched him in the face. The stories of his treatment of Amy Adams were widespread, and not denied. There is video of him screaming at Lilly Tomlin. These are not “small potato” unknown actors. And? He keeps on making movies, and receiving funding and awards and accolades.
    I am not trying to equate yelling with sexual abuse. Merely stating that people with power in Hollywood could clearly get away with any behavior. And everyone was expected to take it. Human beings are very good adapting to their circumstance, and working within the rules of any system that surrounds them.
    Polanski is a convicted pedophile. It’s all business as usual.
    As with so many outrages, there needs to be a tipping point. And with business, for consumers to finally state, no, we will not financially support people or businesses that engage in this behavior.
    I hope we have reached it. Weinstein is hardly the only figure in the movie industry with this history. I hope the whole system falls, not just him or Miramax.

  18. Mina says:

    Ugh, I hate all this questioning and blaming victims have to go through every single time. I get that for people who haven’t experienced it it’s difficult to understand why a person stays silent, why they go along with it, why they tolerate certain things. But even if you don’t understand it, the one thing you must know is you can’t judge a victim. Everyone gets so holier than thou when it’s not them going through it.

  19. Crazpi says:

    That Maureen whatever sounds like a loon.
    Goop was 22 years old when Weinstien tried to sexually assault her. What was she supposed to do?

    And Maureen should remember that Angelina Jolie also comes from an acting family as well. She is also a product of nepotism. Neither women deserved to be harassed by that pig.

    • FLORC says:

      Jolie is an unfair comparison.
      Yes she came from an “acting family,” but the 2 women cannot be compared in correct context.

      Jolie 1. Was estranged from her father. 2 didn’t share his name. 3. Was a wild child with a known current state and history or self harm, drugs and depression.
      Sadly, Gwyneth would have had the easier time refusing Weinstein’s advances and could still keep working. Jolie had less power in the same scenario.

      I think HW took a try at every actress or reporter or female he saw. And some he could manipulate more easily with threats and power wielding. Gwyneth had a clean image and loads of heavy hitters on speed dial. Jolie was the troubled young actress.
      Each woman dealt with this predator as best they could to survive the unfair situation he placed them in. No blame to either. They are simply not the same.

      • Kel says:

        Uh no FLORC.
        Jolie did use her father’s connections to start her career in Hollywood. That is the truth. She grew up in Beverly Hills and was living in a home valued at 2 million dollars for petes sake. Its not like she came from a poor family living in Indiana. Her father is an Oscar winning actor. What makes you think he didn’t help her? Of course he did! Her very first movie role was when she was 6 years old , and it was in his film!
        And there are many photos of him taking Angelina and her brother to the Oscars, movie premieres, red carpet events when they were younger. So their relationship wasn’t all that bad.
        Neither women has more or less power then the other. Both of them were in their 20s just starting their career. Each of them handled it in their own way. No need to bash Goop because she worked with him again. He was a very powerful producer who could make or break careers.

      • ORIGINAL T.C. says:

        @FLORC

        +10000

  20. island_girl says:

    Maureen Dowd must be one of the most miserable and simple minded writers that I’ve ever come across. She’s sucks.

  21. Pasta says:

    Blythe is right here. Maureen used to date Michael Douglas, who was Goop’s costar in A Perfect Murder.

  22. Kel says:

    When people say why didn’t these women say anything, remember this: Gwyneth was not GOOP, conscious-uncoupling, Oscar winner Gwyneth. She was a young actress who had a very small number of films under her belt. Angelina Jolie was not Brangelina, UN Ambassador. She was also a young actress with very few roles under her belt. If you look at all the women he assaulted/harassed he did it when they were young women with little to no power. Because he is a predator. Also, these women probably did not know the other women, and thought they were alone. You try being a 22 year old newbie actress and report the head of a very popular, profitable production company to… well to who exactly? Who were they supposed to tell??

  23. InsertNameHere says:

    There are plenty of reasons not to like Goopy. This is not one of them, Ms. Dowd.

  24. shouldawoulda says:

    A 22 year old gets sexually harassed and Maureen Dowd feels the need to attack the victim. Why did Maureen feel the need to write the article? What a fucking psycho? This is more of an insight into Maureen Dowd, then anything else.

  25. A. says:

    Paltrow is a pig, just like Harvey. Ask Winona Ryder and countless other actresses that this mediocre, well connected wench went after.

    Dowd, made an observation and it was an astute observation.