With Harvey Weinstein finally being held to account for the various rapes and other acts of sexual abuse that he committed, so, too, are his victims being held accountable...for being abuse victims.
For example (and being a survivor of childhood abuse, although thankfully not childhood sexual abuse, I had to reply when one person held Harvey Weinstein's victims accountable for something that they did not do):
Being an abuse victim is not a choice or in any other way something that an abuse victim does. After all, for instance, nobody chooses to be sexually abused or have their kneecaps broken, let alone have their taken altogether for that matter (as if rape isn't its own form of murder):
Even Salma Hayek fell for the "Since I was around him, I wasn't really being abused" fallacy in light of all that, however:
She recognized this:
With the fallacy being, "(S)he wasn't being abused by him (her), or else she wouldn't be around him (her), the actual case is, "(S)he continues to be around him (her) because (s)he's Stockholmed and/or in dread of what (s)he might or will do."
If Rose McGowan's, Meryl Streep's, and Salma Hayek's cases don't convince you of that, look at the cases of Jerry Sandusky's victims (whom were male victims of a male abuser and, even though they are survivors, will never fully recover from what was done to them in this lifetime—and what sexual-abuse victim, especially any rape victim, ever really recovers from the abuse that she or he has to endure?).
If not even the cases of Jerry Sandusky's victims convince you, look at those of Michael Jackson's victims (notwithstanding that the cases of Wade Robson and one other person are apparently questionable). If not even those cases convince you, go back to looking at cases of male-against-female abuse and start with the case of Andrea Constand (By the way, yes, Bill Cosby also abused children, as then-teenager victims of his were obviously teenagers and obviously therefore children—and one of them was Nicolle Rochelle, whom was actually a preteen when she first had to be around him).
Either way, your choice to believe or disbelieve sexual-abuse (and other abuse) victims whom continue to be around their abusers will not change the fact that sexual-abuse (and other abuse) victims continue to be around their abusers because they've been Stockholmed and/or threatened within every inch of their lives by those whom'd they'd otherwise gladly escape.
For example (and being a survivor of childhood abuse, although thankfully not childhood sexual abuse, I had to reply when one person held Harvey Weinstein's victims accountable for something that they did not do):
Look more closely at the pictures. Rose McGowan and Meryl Streep, e.g., are clearly not comfortable being around Harvey Weinstein.— N.V. Mara Czarnecki (@Nickidewbear) January 6, 2020
A common fallacy is, "If (s)he's around him (her), (s)he must not really be being abused." Many abuse victims stay around their abusers because they are Stockholmed and/or they dread what might happen if they don't.— N.V. Mara Czarnecki (@Nickidewbear) January 6, 2020
Being an abuse victim is not a choice or in any other way something that an abuse victim does. After all, for instance, nobody chooses to be sexually abused or have their kneecaps broken, let alone have their taken altogether for that matter (as if rape isn't its own form of murder):
"“He told me he wanted to kill me,” Hayek told Winfrey. “He said to Julie Taymor [the director of ‘Frida’], ‘I am going to break the kneecaps of that ‘c-word’.”" (Brackets in the original)
"I had brainwashed myself into thinking that it was over and that I had survived; I hid from the responsibility to speak out with the excuse that enough people were already involved in shining a light on my monster. I didn’t consider my voice important, nor did I think it would make a difference...
"I don’t think he hated anything more than the word “no.” The absurdity of his demands went from getting a furious call in the middle of the night asking me to fire my agent for a fight he was having with him about a different movie with a different client to physically dragging me out of the opening gala of the Venice Film Festival, which was in honor of “Frida,” so I could hang out at his private party with him and some women I thought were models but I was told later were high-priced prostitutes.
"The range of his persuasion tactics went from sweet-talking me to that one time when, in an attack of fury, he said the terrifying words, “I will kill you, don’t think I can’t.”"
Even Salma Hayek fell for the "Since I was around him, I wasn't really being abused" fallacy in light of all that, however:
"I had to say yes. By now so many years of my life had gone into this film. We were about five weeks into shooting, and I had convinced so many talented people to participate. How could I let their magnificent work go to waste?
"I had asked for so many favors, I felt an immense pressure to deliver and a deep sense of gratitude for all those who did believe in me and followed me into this madness. So I agreed to do the senseless scene."
She recognized this:
"It was soul crushing because, I confess, lost in the fog of a sort of Stockholm syndrome, I wanted him to see me as an artist: not only as a capable actress but also as somebody who could identify a compelling story and had the vision to tell it in an original way."
With the fallacy being, "(S)he wasn't being abused by him (her), or else she wouldn't be around him (her), the actual case is, "(S)he continues to be around him (her) because (s)he's Stockholmed and/or in dread of what (s)he might or will do."
If Rose McGowan's, Meryl Streep's, and Salma Hayek's cases don't convince you of that, look at the cases of Jerry Sandusky's victims (whom were male victims of a male abuser and, even though they are survivors, will never fully recover from what was done to them in this lifetime—and what sexual-abuse victim, especially any rape victim, ever really recovers from the abuse that she or he has to endure?).
If not even the cases of Jerry Sandusky's victims convince you, look at those of Michael Jackson's victims (notwithstanding that the cases of Wade Robson and one other person are apparently questionable). If not even those cases convince you, go back to looking at cases of male-against-female abuse and start with the case of Andrea Constand (By the way, yes, Bill Cosby also abused children, as then-teenager victims of his were obviously teenagers and obviously therefore children—and one of them was Nicolle Rochelle, whom was actually a preteen when she first had to be around him).
Either way, your choice to believe or disbelieve sexual-abuse (and other abuse) victims whom continue to be around their abusers will not change the fact that sexual-abuse (and other abuse) victims continue to be around their abusers because they've been Stockholmed and/or threatened within every inch of their lives by those whom'd they'd otherwise gladly escape.
