Timebandit: I agree in general that a multiplicity of methods is required for social change. But that general point doesn't address the specific concerns about civil lawsuits or TimesUp in particular, in that it is primarily a redress available only to the rich. It also puts the person bringing the person launching the suit in the postion to be countersued, and while rich Hollywood actors can outspend some smaller companies, that will not necessarily be the case with other employers or wealthy Harvey Weinstein wannabes. There is no guarantee the TimeUp funders are in it for the long haul, and real solutions shouldn't rely on the charity of the rich. To me that's more George Bush I/thousand points of light territory.
VOTD: Yes, great info in that NWCL statement. Is it curious to you why Hollywood has not touted the advantage of unionization for women? Has there been a positive portrayal of a union in a Hollywood movie since Norma Rae?
Pondering: I'm sad to say I don't agree with this characterization of what is happening at all:
All these movements are solidarity building and are impacting people's opinions on what is acceptable behavior towards women. It has empowered women and the court of public opinion has turned against men who are sexual predators regardless of whether or not they have broken a law or committed rape. Sexual coercion is being identified as hostile towards women. The "woman who sleeps her way to the top" meme is being replaced by a narrative illustrating that more often than not women are not sleeping their way to the top by choice but rather being required to offer sexual favors in return for what men get for free, career advancement.
Pondering, why do you think the Harvey Weinstein scandal broke when it did? It's been known for decades, literally decades, and they had witnesses and enough to publish on it in 2014.