Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Members
Posted

Reading the article last night took my sense of disgust to an even new level but one interesting aspect was the fact that CBS' arrogance in its decision to take on Shari Redstone in an ultra-aggressive manner seems to have provided an extra impetus for Moonves' eventual downfall because the investigations began in earnest as a result of the legal fight that ensued between Moonves and Redstone.

 

The way that sleazy manager used his female clients, particularly Phillips, to leverage his career is beyond the pale.  LaRue may be a B-lister (which yes, an actor who has never had a big movie career is regarded as one step below) but at least, she had the integrity to dump the sleazy manager. Wise move.

  • Replies 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members
Posted

I'm glad that I don't lionize any of these people. 

Success in one's field doesn't make one a moral paragon, or even a good human being. Success doesn't even equate to a lot of talent, necessarily. 

  • Members
Posted

That's true in Hollywood for sure, but with someone like NDT he wouldn't be where he is without scientific talent.  It does make me particularly sad when someone has a great mind and then ends up also being a misogynist.  It's just so disappointing that people can be so smart in some ways and stupid in others. I suppose that's human nature though. Time and experience has certainly taught me not to put anyone on a pedestal.

 

I'm not even saying NDT is necessarily guilty. Time will tell, but when I'm not sitting in a jury box, I tend to believe the victims when there is more than one, even if there isn't additional supporting evidence.

  • Members
Posted (edited)

 

Yes, there is certainly a base level of intelligence and skill for the scientific field in which NDT is but it is far from a true meritocracy.  One of my aunts is a scientist and there is rampant sexism and misogyny in the scientific field. Even in whose papers get seen and promoted and who rises to the top of their profession within a given scientific field. 

 

I have a friend who used to be a researcher at Sloan Kettering until she got absolutely disgusted by the level of competition, backstabbing, infighting, territorial disputes and politics involved in whose work gets promoted.  At the time, there was also the problem of mostly male superiors taking credit for the work of some female underlings/assistants who did quite a bit of the grunt work.   I don't know if people keep up with what goes on at some of these institutions but Sloane Kettering recently had a mini-scandal with one of their researches not making proper citations in his work.  His had mostly to do with where the money was coming from but all of his research papers are now being combed through to see whether his findings have been compromised by his corporate ties.

 

Science is actually a very tough field in which for women to get ahead.  There's a lot of talent there, they are just very slow to recognize and very slow to promote. 

 

Does anyone remember what the former president of Harvard once said about women in science? Look up his remarks.

 

Everyone talks about Crick and Watson but Rosalind Franklin was every bit as instrumental to what we know about DNA but she goes practically unrecognized.

 

All I'm saying is NDT can indeed be a brilliant scientist, but there may be a woman who is just as brilliant but never even got the chance to prove it. The top talent doesn't always rise to the top.

Edited by DramatistDreamer
  • Members
Posted

^ I'm with you.  My original point is just that it's a lot easier for someone with low talent to rise in Hollywood than in the field of astrophysics. Science is probably one of the most sexist fields out there though, there is no denying that. 

 

Many men are really convinced that because there haven't been as many notable female mathematical geniuses in history it's because women are bad at math.  Of course, many groups face similar bigotry, but it's disappointing when people who really are intelligent in other ways can't figure out that the difference is one of opportunity. On top of that most of us know women have to face sexual harassment by the gatekeepers of opportunity.

 

That said, Ben Carson has forever disabused me of the notion that someone who is intelligent in one way is generally bright.

 

 

  • Members
Posted

I don't like the song.... but yes... utterly ridiculous. Mark my words, "Your'e Sixteen" (Johnny Burnette and Ringo Starr) and "Into The Night" by Benny Mardones will be next on the list. 

Geez, this chick thought somebody looking at the tattoo on her shoulder was creepy? Some people need to slow their roll. 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • I keep forgetting a huge chunk of that year was written by scabs. You're probably right, because by the time the strike was over, they were likely planning an exit for Alan's character as it must have been obvious by then that Bernau was not going to return. If he was still there, it's also doubtful they would have approached MZ and MG about coming back. Wild.
    • And to think the original plan was for David and Lesley to have an affair.  Not only would that have made no sense - Lesley wasn't THAT stupid, lol - but it also would've ruined her and GH.
    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • Week ending March 5 1978 Second season shows are tested CBS finishes first week in March with stronger than usual 1 9.5, but not enough to beat ABC The prime -time ratings pattern continued to hold steady for the week ended March 5, and attention increasingly turns to second season entries as the networks probe one another's weaknesses or cover their own. As usual, ABC -TV won the week, scoring a 20.5 average rating. But CBS -TV was closer than usual with a 19.5 average garnered with the help of several strong specials and movies in addition to some of its dependable series regulars. NBC followed its habit of plummeting when its "évent "entries failed. In this case it was the miniseries, Loose Change, which scored only 24 and 22 shares on Monday and Tuesday, leaving the network with a 16.9 average rating for the week. Looking at new series and new time slots, ABC's Six Million Dollar Man on Monday (8 -9 p.m. NYT) continued to falter with a 22 share, while What's Happening, in its new slot on Saturday (8 -9 p.m.), also remained shaky with a 23 share. Starsky and Hutch is still healthy with a 38 share in its new slot following Charlie's Angels on Wednesday, and How the West Was Won also had a 38 on Sunday (8 -9 p.m.). Against West CBS's Rhoda and On Our Own came in poorly for the second week in a row of face to face competition, with each pulling 25 shares after a 41 share lead in from 60 Minutes. ABC's special two -hour presentation of the upcoming series tryout, Having Babies, scored a 27 share on Friday (9 -11 p.m.) against strong competition from both the other networks (the movie "Ski Lift to Death" on CBS and Rockford Files and Quincy on NBC). For CBS, its new Monday night leadoffs, Good Times and Baby I'm Back, scored so -so 27 and 28 shares respectively. But the second half of the night had its best performance since the new line -up came in- M *A*S *Hwith a 45, One Day at a Time with a 41 and Lou Grant with a 36. Celebrity Challenge of the Sexes and Shields and Yarnell showed no signs of reviving on Tuesday, with 16 shares each, but the new Tuesday movie slot held up with a 41 share from Clint Eastwood's "Magnum Force." The network's entire Saturday line up continued to limp in, as Bob Newhart Tony Randall, The Jeffersons, Maude and Kojak all scored sub 30 shares (with the exception of Newhart's 29, in fact, all scored sub -25 shares). NBC premiered its new Chuck Barris Rah Rah Show on Tuesday (8 -9 p.m.),when it pulled a 24 share. The second episode of Quark had a 27, three points down from its premiere. There might be the temptation to conclude that the 29 share turned in by the National Love, Sex and Marriage Test on Sunday (9:30 -10 p.m.) proves the appetite for "sophisticated" subject matter is not insatiable after all, except that its competition was not only CBS's strong comedy block but also ABC's rerun of "The Way We Were," which pulled a 35 share. Of NBC's other midseason entries -CPO Sharkey, Black Sheep Squadron, James at 16 and Class of '65 -CPO Sharkey turned in the highest score of the week, a 27.   *NBC were in dire straits at this point relying on movies and specials which could hit or bomb in equal measure.  Fred Silverman had his work cut out for him when he arrived that Summer. He favored sitcoms and series as the schedule's foundation and NBC had no sitcoms to build on and few solid series. He also had a big backlog of specials/mini series that had been committed to air. Also NBC had a long standing relationship with Universal so he was forced to work with that studio. He struggled to get quality producers on board as they were either tied into deals with ABC/CBS or were wary of having their shows on the 3rd rated network. He still felt variety had a place on the schedule however and that lead to duds like Susan Anton, The Big Show and Pink Lady and Jeff.
    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • I spent years hoping we would get an oral history like the OLTL book, but it’s too late now with so many having passed away.
    • It’s also strange that it was Monica! I just don’t think of her as the staring off into space type of woman! I watched a bunch of other clips and stuff from random 1978 and 1979 episodes. I’m so used to seeing movement from Monty’s era, especially the early part, that this really is a cool relic. Pretty soon you have scenes start at the new nurses station, the elevators opening and doctors walking to the desk to get their messages from Jessie or Bobbie. People often walk towards doors while taking coats on or off, many Webber house scenes start or end with someone walking up the stairs. This episode is even more static than some of the way earlier ones I have seen, where you would have Steve or Jessie at least going from the old school nurses desk to the medicine room, Steve’s office, etc. That bland dialogue is very much like what they have now. The show picks up a lot of personality. Knowing what we know about David Hamilton and how that really started to get the ball rolling as far as viewers you really see just how vital Lesley and especially Laura were to get things moving for them. They focused on the right characters to get fast results. The show now could learn a thing or two from this.
    • It won't allow me to watch it via the link; I am only able to watch it with the app.
    • Just finished the Goldfinch. Read it in 4-5 days... and it's a huuuuge book. Well... I would rate the first 500 pages a solid 10 out of 10... but then the next 300 were kind of a letdown... so the overall impression is something like - 7/10. It's just very hard to give something a full 10 after reading A little life.  Still... loved it immensely and would probably re-read it in the future. There is a movie adaptation... starring Nicole Kidman... that I haven't seen. 
    • I realize I harp on this, but I think he spending is relevant.  She's not just buying new wigs. She's building a mansion, she's funding a sports complex, she's paying for operations for people she doesn't know, she's caring for Peaches, she's buying apartments. We saw ?her get ONE check for ONE million dollars. That's it. I may be wrong, but I thought they said she'd get a payment every 6 months. Regardless, she could not rule the roost on $1M, and the show is not doing a good job there. Pretending that doesn't matter? I can't do that.  All they had to do was add a couple lines about payouts and payments.  In other news, I would love to know just how much Anita was putting into that trust as well as what investment got her what has to be an incredible return.

      Please register in order to view this content

       
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy